Crim Law

Front 1

Coker v. Georgia, punishment is disproportionate if:

Back 1

1) Makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment OR 2) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. Holding - excessive, violates 8th amendment. Objective factors - other states don't impose death penalty for rape. Retributive - didn't kill anybody.

Front 2

Four utilitarian goals

Back 2

1) General deterrence 2) Specific Deterrence 3) Incapacitation 4) Reform/Rehab

Front 3

Test for whether punishment violates Sentencing Reform Act

Back 3

From US v. Gementera : Does the judge impose it for a proper purpose? Does it serve that purpose?

Front 4

Test for disproportionate punishment under Ewing v. California

Back 4

Is the gravity of the offense equal to the harshness of the penalty? Is there a legitmate penological goal?

Front 5

Test for proximate cause

Back 5

1) Point of safety 2) Foreseeability

Front 6

Traditional examples of adequate provocation

Back 6

Extreme assault or battery, mutual comab, illegal arrest, injury or serious abuse of close relative, sudden discovery of spouse's adultery (except in Maryland)

Front 7

Culpable mental states : Purpose

Back 7

A person acts purposefully when it is their conscious object to engage in particular conduct OR to cause a particular result. 562.016

Front 8

Culpable mental states : Knowledge

Back 8

A person acts knowingly if he is : 1) aware of the nature of his conduct or the existence of circumstances OR 2) Aware his conduct is practically certain to cause that result

Front 9

Culpable mental states : Reckless

Back 9

A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow

Front 10

Culpable mental states : Negligence

Back 10

A person is criminally negligent when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow

Front 11

First degree murder

Back 11

Knowingly/Purposely causes the death of another, after deliberation

Front 12

Second degree murder

Back 12

Knowingly causes the death of another person or, with the intent to cause serious physical injury, causes the death of another person
DIFF : no deliberation, serious physical injury 565.021

Front 13

Voluntary manslaughter

Back 13

Same as 2nd degree, except "sudden passion from adequate cause"

Front 14

1st degree involuntary manslaughter

Back 14

1) Recklessly causes the death of another person OR 2) While drunk, drives with criminal negligence and kills somebody 565.023

Front 15

2nd degree involuntary manslaughter

Back 15

Acts with criminal negligence to cause the death of any person 565.024

Front 16

Forcible Rape

Back 16

Sexual intercourse with a person by the use of "forcible compulsion". This includies roofies 566.030

Front 17

Sexual assault

Back 17

Sexual intercourse without consent

Front 18

Our felony murder statute

Back 18

"In the perpetration of, or the attempted perpetration of, or in flight from either" "ANY" felony 565.021

Front 19

Insanity, procedure

Back 19

Affirmative defense, defendant must prove by preponderance (51%) that they're insane

Front 20

Prior consensual relationship, how to show lack of consent

Back 20

statements or actions which were clearly communicated to the defendant and which expressly indicated
1) withdrawal of any prior consent and
2) lack of consent to the particular act of intercourse.

Front 21

MPC insanity test which acquitted Hinckley

Back 21

i. Due to mental disease or defect, defendant lacks substantial capacity
a) To appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct OR
b) To conform his conduct to the law

Front 22

Post-Hinckley standard

Back 22

562.086 Defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect, was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of his conduct