Crim Law

Front 1

Where can a crime be prosecuted?

Back 1

A crime may be prosecuted in any state where
1) an ACT that was part of the crime took place; or
2) the RESULT took place

Front 2

What is the prosecution's burden of proof?

Back 2

to prove EACH element beyond a reasonable doubt

Front 3

NY: What are the two types of defenses

Back 3

Defenses: Prosc must disprove beyond reas doibt

Affirmative defenses: D must prove by preponderance of ev

Front 4

Felony

Back 4

punished by DEATH or IMPRISONMENT for MORE than 1 YR.

Front 5

Misdemeanor

Back 5

punished by FINE and/or IMPRISONMENT for NO MORE than 1 YR

Front 6

Essential elements of crime

Back 6

1. ACT or FAILURE to act
2. MENTAL STATE
3. CAUSATION (actual & prox)
4. CONCURRENCE

Front 7

What type of physical act can be the basis for crim liability?

Back 7

All bodily movements that are VOLUNTARY

Front 8

What types of physical acts cannot be the basis for crim liability/ are not crim "acts"

Back 8

1. an act that is not the product of D's VOLITION (i.e. D is pushed)

2. sleepwalking/ uncons conduct

3. a reflex/ a convulsion

Front 9

Omissions

Back 9

3 requirements, satisfy ALL
1. Legal duty to act- 5 ways to create:
a. statute;
b. K (babysit, lifeguard, dr);
c. status rela (parent-child; H-W);
d. voluntary assumption of care
e. D creates the peril--> duty to help

2. knowledge of the facts giving rise to duty (i.e. if mom not @ pool, no duty to save son)

3. ability to help

Front 10

What are the 4 mental states?

Back 10

1. Specific intent
2. Malice
3. General intent
4. Strict liability

Front 11

Specific intent

Back 11

the crime requires not just the desire to do the act, but also the desire to achieve a specific result

Front 12

What are the specific intent crimes?

Back 12

There are 11.
Crimes against the person:
1. Assault
2. 1st Deg Premed Murder

Property Crimes
3. Larceny
4. Embezzlement
5. False pretenses
6. Robbery
7. Forgery
8. Burglary

Inchoate crimes
9. Solicitation
10. Conspiracy
11. Attempt

Front 13

What are defenses to specific intent crimes?

Back 13

1. Voluntary intoxication
2. Unreasonable mistake of fact

These defenses are ONLY available for SI crimes

Front 14

Malice

Back 14

D acts intentionally or w/ reckless disregard of an obvious or known risk

Front 15

General intent

Back 15

D is generally aware of the factors constituting the crime; need not intend specific result
(jury can infer GI from simply D's doing the act)

Front 16

What are the general intent crimes?

Back 16

Battery
Forceable rape
False imprisonment
Kidnapping

Front 17

Strict liability

Back 17

When the crime requires simply doing the act; no mental state is needed

Front 18

What are the strict liability crimes?

Back 18

1. Public welfare offenses (regulatory offenses that implicate public health or safety, typically carry small penalties)
i.e. transferring UNREGISTERED firearms, selling CONTAMINATED food, shipping ADULTERATED drugs in interstate commerce

2. Statutory rape = having sex w. someone under the age of consent

Front 19

New York mental states

Back 19

1. Intent
2. Knowingly
3. Recklessly
4. Negligently
5. Strict Liability

Front 20

NY Intent

Back 20

D's conscious desire is to accomplish a certain result (what D wants to do)

Front 21

NY knowingly

Back 21

D is aware of what he is doing (Aware that it is practically certain his conduct will cause the result)

Front 22

NY recklessly

Back 22

D is aware of a subst & unjustifiable risk + consciously disregards the risk

Front 23

NY negligently

Back 23

D should have been aware of a subst & unjustifiable risk

Front 24

NY strict liability

Back 24

no liability required

Front 25

Causation

Back 25

2 types, need to prove both
1. Actual (but for) causation
2. Proximate (legal) causation

Front 26

Actual (but for) causation

Back 26

D is an actual cause (cause in fact) if the bad result would not have happened BUT FOR D's conduct

EXCEPT: accelerating cause is also an actual cause (i.e. A stabs V, causing fatal wound, but before V dies, D shoots him and kills him. D is the accelerating cause and is guilty)

Front 27

Proximate (legal) causation

Back 27

D is a proximate cause if the bad result is a NATURAL + PROBABLE consequence of D's conduct

2 applications
1. Intervening causes: D IS NOT a prox cause if an UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING event causes the bad result

2. Eggshell victim: D IS the prox cause even if V's pre-existing weakness contributed to the bad result

Front 28

Eggshell victim

Back 28

D will still be a proximate cause even if the victim's pre-existing weakness contributed to the bad result
i.e. D shhots V, V taken to hospital, where he loses a lot of blood during surgery bc of his blood clotting disease. D is still the prox cause of V's death

Front 29

Concurrence Principle

Back 29

D must have the required mental state at the same time as he engages in the culpable act

see: larceny & burglary

Front 30

Common law battery

Back 30

the 1. unlawful application of 2. force to another, 3. resulting in EITHER a) bodily injury or b) an offensive touching

Mental state = gen intent

Front 31

Common law Assault

Back 31

2 types
1. Attempted battery (swing & miss)

2. intentional creation (by more than mere words) of a reasonable fear in V's mind of imminent harm

Mental state: specific intent

Front 32

NY Assault

Back 32

intentionally causing physical injury to another (battery is not a separate crime)

1st degree assault: 2nd deg + weapon
2nd degree: intentionally causing serious injury
3rd degree: intentionally causing non serious phys injury

Front 33

NY Attempted assault

Back 33

NY requires an intent to assault. So merely creating a reasonable apprehension (w/o intent to injure) is called MENACING

Front 34

Year and a day rule

Back 34

NY/Majority: Death may occur at any time

Common law: death must occur w/in a yr and a day of the homicidal act

Front 35

Types of common law homicide

Back 35

1. Murder
2. Voluntary manslaughter
3. Common law involuntary manslaughter

Front 36

common law murder

Back 36

causing the DEATH of ANOTHER PERSON w/ MALICE AFORETHOUGHT

mental state: intent to kill; intent to inflict serious bodily harm; extreme recklessness; felony murder

Front 37

What is the required mental state for common law murder?
How is it satisfied?

Back 37

The requirement of MALICE AFORETHOUGHT is satisfied if D has 1 of the 4 mental states
1. intent to KILL
2. intnet to inflict SERIOUS BODILY HARM
3. Extreme recklessness (reckless indiff to human life)
4. Intentional commission of inherently dangerous felony (felony murder)

Front 38

Deadly weapon rule

Back 38

intentional use of a deadly weapon creates an inference of an intent to kill

deadly weapon = any instrument used in a manner likely to produce death or serious bodily injury

Front 39

Transferred intent

Back 39

if D intends to harm one V, but accidentally harms a diff V, D's intent will xfer from the intended V to the actual V

NOTE: does NOT apply to attempts, only to crimes w/ completed harms

Front 40

Felony murder

Back 40

Any killing caused during the commission of or attempt to commit a felony

Requirements:
1. D must be guilty of the underlying felony (if defense to felony, then defense to felony murder)
2. felony is inherently dangerous
3. felony must be independent of the killing- merger rule
4. killing takes place during the felony OR during immediate flight from felony
5. death is foreseeable
6. V is not co-felon

Front 41

When does a felony end?

Back 41

when the felon(s) reach a place of temporary safety

Front 42

NY felony murder

Back 42

limited to BRAKES
Burglary
Robbery
Arson
Kidnapping
Escape
Sexual Assault
NOTE: felony murder conviction is possible even if the underlying felony is dismissed, D is acquitted, charge is not submitted to jury, so long as there is suff evidence to support the concl that D committed/ attempted to commit a BRAKES felony

Front 43

felony murder & vicarious liability: prox cause theory

Back 43

if a co-felon prox causes V's death, ALL other co-felons are guilty of felony murder. This is true even if a 3rd party does the actual killing

Front 44

felony murder & vicarious liability: agency theory

Back 44

minority states: felony murder only applies if the killing is committed by one of the co-felons

Front 45

NY: Vicarious liability- Non-slayer defense

Back 45

NY provides a limited affirmative defense to felony murder if D can prove each of the following 4 things:
1. D did not kill V;
2. D did not have a deadly weapon;
3. D had no reason to believe that his co-felons had deadly weapons; and
4. D had no reason to believe his co-felons intended to do anyhting that was likely to result in death

Front 46

Statutory variations of common law murder:
1st degree common law murder

2nd degree common law murder

Back 46

1st degree = any killing committed with 1. PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION (D was calm, cool, collected)

2nd degree = all other intentional murders (depraved heart, intent to seriously injure)

Front 47

NY Murder: 1st degree

Back 47

First Degree
1. intent to kill +
2. D is more than 18 yo +
3. one aggravating factor
a. V is a law enf officer, ct officer, corrections employee, engaged in official duties @ time of killing + D knew/sk that V was; or
b. D commits a murder for hire; or
c. Felony murder, where V was intentionally killed
d. killing for purpose of W intimidation
e. more than 1 V intentionally killed in same crim transaction

Front 48

NY Murder: 2nd degree

Back 48

1. Intentional killing that isn't 1st deg (premed & delib are irrelv) or

2. highly reckless killing demonstrating depraved indiff to human life (engage in conduct that creates a grave risk of death, generally involving more than 1 V); OR

3. felony murder, where V is not co-F and is killed unintentionally

Front 49

Common Law Voluntary Manslaughter

Back 49

Intentional killing committed in heat of passion upon adequate provocation

Requirements:
1. provocation was OBJ adequate (would arouse a sudden + intense passion in reas per mind); ex: serious assault, battery, D sees adultery- NOTE at CL words not enough, but many states say otherwise

2. D was actually provoked

3. D did not have time to cool off

4. D did not actually cool off b/w prov & killing

Front 50

NY Voluntary Manslaughter

Back 50

Extreme Emotional Disturbance (EED): Intentional killing committed under the influence of a REASONABLE & extreme emotional disturbance

EED is an affirmative defense to 2nd degree murder; prove by prepn of evidence

Front 51

Common law involuntary manslaughter: 2 types

Back 51

1. Killing committed w/ criminal negligence; OR

2. Killing committed during the commission of a crime to which the felony murder doctrine does not apply

Front 52

Manslaughter in New York

Back 52

1st degree:
1. EED manslaughter;
2. Intent to cause serious phys injury

2nd degree:
1. D is aware of and consciously disregards a subst & unjustifiable risk of death (reckless killing)
2. D commits an abortional act causing the woman death (unless allowed by stat); 3. D used duress or deception on V to get V to kill himself

Front 53

NY: Criminally negligent homicide

Back 53

D should have been aware of a substantial & unjustifiable risk of death (mental state- crim negligence)

Front 54

NY: Aggravated homicide

Back 54

V of homicide is police officer killed in line of duty (aggravated murder, aggravated man1, agg man2, agg crim meg homicide)

Front 55

NY: Aggravated murder

Back 55

D is over 18 + causes death of child under 14 in an especially cruel and wanton manner

Front 56

Common false imprisonment

Back 56

Unlawful confinement of a person w/o his consent

Front 57

NY Unlawful imprisonment

Back 57

2nd degree = unlawfully restraining someone, w/o their consent + w/ knowledge that the restriction is unlawful.

1st degree: 2nd degree + risk of serious phys injury

Front 58

Common law kidnapping

Back 58

False imprisonment that involves EITHER 1) moving V or 2) concealing V in a secret place

Mental state: general intent

Front 59

NY Kidnapping

Back 59

2nd degree: abducting someone

1st degree: 2nd degree kidnapping + 1 of the following:
a. ranson
b. restraint of V for more than 12 hrs w/ intent to rape, injure rob V
c. death of V

Front 60

Forcible rape

Back 60

Sexual intercourse w/o V's consent accomplished by: a) force; b) threat of force; c) when V is unconscious

Mental state: general intent

Front 61

Statutory rape

Back 61

sexual intercourse w/ someone under age of consent

Mental state: majority- strict liability; minority/MPC- a reasonable mistake of age is a defense

Front 62

NY statutory rape

Back 62

Sexual intercourse w someone under 17 (17 is age of consent) + D is at least 21

Front 63

Common Law Larceny
(Thieves Took Carmen's Purse And Isaac's Portfolio)

Back 63

Trespassory (wrongful/unlawful)

Taking & Carrying away the (asportation)

Personal Propt of Another (NOTE: who had lawful custody? If D, then not guilty of larceny, even if D doesn't own propt). But D can be guilty of larceny for taking something he owns if someone else had lawful custody)

w the Intent to Permanently Retain the Propt (if D intends to give back, then not larceny)

Front 64

Erroneous Takings Rule

Back 64

A taking under a claim of right is NOT larceny, even if D erronenously believes the propt is his

Front 65

Continuing Trespass

Back 65

If D wrongfully takes propt, w/o intent to steal--> not larceny

But if D takes propt w/o intent to steal and then later forms intent to steal, the trespassory taking has CONTINUED and he will be guilty of larceny

(exception to concurrence principle)

Front 66

Common law Embezzlement

Back 66

Conversion of the personal propt of another by a person already in possession of the propt, w the intent to defraud

Mental state: specific intent to defraud (NOTE: if D intends to give the exact propt back in the exact form, no intent to defraud)

Front 67

CL larceny vs. CL embezzlement

Back 67

Embezzlement requires D to already have lawful possession of the property

Front 68

Possession vs. Custody

Back 68

Possession (required for embezzlement) = authority to exercise some discretion over the propt; it involves more than custody

Front 69

Common law False Pretenses

Back 69

Obtaining title to the personal propt of another by an intentional false statement, w intent to defraud

The false statement must be of a present or past event, NOT a future promise

Front 70

Larceny vs. False Pretenses

Back 70

Larceny- D only gets custody of propt; FP- D gets title/ownership

Front 71

larceny by trick

Back 71

D makes an intentional false statement, with the intent to defraud, but D obtains only custody, not title

Front 72

Common law Robbery

Back 72

Requirements
1. larceny 2. from another's person or presence 3. by force or threat of immediate force

Mental state: specific intent to steal
Presence = somewhere reas close to V

Force = any amt of force sufficient to overcome resistance (NOT pickpocketing)

threat= threat of immediate injury (if threat of future harm- extortion)

Front 73

Extortion

Back 73

Larceny from another's person or presence by force or threat of FUTURE harm

aka blackmail

Front 74

Forgery

Back 74

Making or altering a writing so that it is false

Mental state: with the intent to defraud

(i.e. D writes out a check from V's checkbook and signing V's name)

Front 75

NY Larceny

Back 75

anything considered larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses or larceny by trick at CL is larceny in NY

Degrees:
1st Deg = more than $1M
2nd Deg = more than $50K
3rd Deg = more than $3K
4th Deg = more than $1K
Petit: less than $1K

Front 76

NY Robbery

Back 76

3rd Deg = forcible stealing

2nd Deg = forcible stealing + 1 of these:
1) D is aided by another who is ACTUALLY present;
2) V is injured;
3) a CAR is stolen (carjacking)

1st Deg = forcible stealing + 1 of these:
1) V is seriously injured
2) D uses or displays a firearm

NOTE: affirmative defense- if D can prove the gun was unloaded or inoperable, crime is reduced to 2deg robbery

Front 77

NY Robbery & Homicide

Back 77

if V killed accidentally: 2nd deg murder (felony murder)

if V killed intentionally: 1st deg murder

Front 78

Common Law Burglary

Back 78

Breaking and entering the dwelling of another @ night w/ intent to commit a felony inside

Breaking = creating or enlarging an opening by at lst minimal force
includes: breaking window,
opening window, opening
door, constructive breaking=
entry gained thru fraud,
threat, intimidation
doesn't include: climbing thru
already open window,
entering w/ permission

Entry: some part of D's body must enter bldg

Dwelling = structure where someone regularly sleeps

Of another = can't burglarize own house

@ night = look for (sun set, etc)

Intent to commit a felony inside = specific intent (to steal, rob, rape, assault, kill, etc)

NOTE: many states eliminate the breaking, @ night, & dwelling reqs

Front 79

NY Burglary

Back 79

3rd Deg: 1) entering or remaining (eliminates concurrence prob, can enter for 1 reason and then stay to steal) in a 2) building 3) unlawfully 4) w. intent to commit ANY crime inside (not just felony)
NOTE: no breaking, dwelling, night reqs

2nd deg: 3rd deg + 1- a) bldg is dwelling; b) non-participant is injured; c) D carries weapon

1st def: D KNOWS he is burglarizing a DWELLING + 1: a) non-participant is injured or 2) D carries weapon

Front 80

Common Law Arson

Back 80

Malicious burning of a building

State of mind = malice

Burning=
1) material wasting (scorching not enough; charring is enough); AND
2) must be the building that is burned (not the carpet)

Front 81

NY Arson

Back 81

4th Deg = reckless burning of bldg/ motor vehicle

3rd deg = intentional burning of bldg/ MV

2nd deg = 3rd deg + D knows/should've known that someone was inside bldg/ MV

1st deg = 2nd deg + explosive or incendiary device

Front 82

Common Law possession of contraband

Back 82

contraband = controlled subst, stolen propt, child porn

possession = control for a period of time long enough to have oppt to terminate possession

constructive possession = contraband doesn't have to be in D's actual possession, just has to be close enough for him to exercise dominion & control over it

mental state: knowledge of both the possession & character of item possessed

Front 83

NY criminal possession of a weapon

Back 83

gun is loaded AND operable

statutory presumption: gun in a vehicle creates presumption that ALL occupants of vehicle possessed the gun

Front 84

Common Law Receipt of Stolen Property

Back 84

1. Receiving possession & control of 2. stolen propt

Mental state
1. KNOW that propt was obtained criminally by other party AND
2. with the INTENT to permanently deprive owner of his interest in propt

Front 85

NY Criminal Possession of Stolen Propt

Back 85

Propt must REALLY BE STOLEN
Propt that is recovered or propt used w/ permission is NOT STOLEN

Front 86

Accomplice liability

Back 86

accomplice is guilty of all crimes that he aids or encourages AND all other foreseeable crimes committed alone w/ aided crime

Front 87

Principal

Back 87

person who commits crime

Front 88

accomplice

Back 88

person who helps principal commit the crime.
Requirements
1. Aids or Encourages principal

Mental state: intent that crime be committed

Not an accomplice when:
1. mere presence @ scene of crime not enough
2. mere knowledge of crime not enough (except NY facilitation)
3. Victims of crime can't be accomplices (minors can't be charged w selling alc to minor)

Front 89

NY Accomplice

Back 89

Accomplice does not have to have the intent that the crime be committed.
It's enough if the accomplice specifically intends to aid the principal's conduct + has the mental state req for principal's crime (so you can be an accomplice to a negligent or reckless crime)

Front 90

NY Facilitation

Back 90

mere knowledge of a crime

Front 91

Common Law Withdrawal

Back 91

accomplice can avoid crim liability by w/drawing before crime is committed. What he must do depends on how he assisted the principal

1. Encourager: if A "encouraged" P, he may w/draw by REPUDIATING the encouragement b4 the crime is committed

2. Aider: if A helped P, he must either NEUTRALIZE the assistance (take back what he gave as aid) or PREVENT the crime from happening (i.e. call cops)

Front 92

NY Withdrawal (aka Renunciation)

Back 92

Accomplice must make a SUBSTANTIAL EFFORT to prevent the commission of the crime
1. Renounces crim position
2. withdraws prior to commission of crime
3. makes subst effort to prevent the crime
NOTE: Renunciation is an affirmative defense

Front 93

Common Law Accessory After the Fact

Back 93

1. D HELPS a principal who has committed a felony
2. with KNOWLEDGE that the crime was committed AND
3. with the INTENT to help P avoid arrest or conviction

Front 94

NY Accessory After the Fact

Back 94

Accessory after the fact is a statutory crime called hindering prosecution

Front 95

Inchoate Defenses

Back 95

There are 3 inchoate defenses
1. Solicitation
2. Conspiracy
3. Attempt

All 3 Inchoate defenses require specific intent

Front 96

Solicitation

Back 96

ASKING someone to commit a crime, w/ the INTENT that the crime be committed

Mental State: SI

NOTE: the crime is in the asking, it doesn't matter whether the other person agrees or whether the crime is committed

Front 97

Conspiracy

Back 97

1. Agreement b/w 2+ ppl to commit crime + 2. overt act + 3. in furtherance of the crime

(completion of the crime is unnec)

Mental state: specific intent to do 2 things:
1. enter into agreement (conduct that is a concert of action towards common goal) AND
2. to accomplish the objectives of the conspiracy

Front 98

Overt act

Back 98

Any act, even if preparatory, that is performed by ANY of the co-conspirators

Front 99

Bilateral approach

Back 99

At common law, there must be at least 2 guilty minds for there to be a conspiracy. There must be at lst 2 guilty minds, both of whom agree to accomplish the conspiracy's objectives.

If all other parties to the agreement are acquitted, then the last remaining D can't be convicted

Front 100

Unilateral approach

Back 100

NY/ MPC. D may be guilty of conspiracy even if the other parties are acquitted or were just pretending to agree.

Front 101

Wharton Rule

Back 101

if 2 or more ppl are necessary for commission of the substantive offense, there is NO conspiracy unless more parties participate in the agreement than are necessary for the crime

Front 102

Vicarious Liability (Pinkerton liability)

Back 102

Aka Pinkerton liability
In add't to conspiracy, D will be liable for other crimes committed by his co-conspirators, if the crimes
1) were committed IN FURTHERANCE of the conspiracy's objective AND

2) were foreseeable

NY: NO vicarious liability if D merely conspires and doesn't participate in the crime committed by co-cons

Front 103

Impossibility defense to conspiracy charge

Back 103

Impossibility is NEVER a defense to conspiracy

Front 104

Attempt

Back 104

Attempt requires an overt act beyond mere preparation

Mental state: Attempt, like all inchoate offenses, requires specific intent to commit the underlying crime

Can't attempt unintentional crimes, bc you don't intend to do something unintentional. So, there is no attempt to reckless crimes, negligent crimes, or felony murder

Front 105

Majority/MPC Attempt

Back 105

Substantial Step Test:

Conduct that constitutes a SUBSTANTIAL STEP towards the commission of the crime, provided that the conduct STRONGLY CORROBORATES D's crim purpose

Front 106

NY/Common Law Attempt

Back 106

Proximity Test

Conduct that gets DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to the commission of the crime

to be dangerously close, D must have at least LOCATED V

Front 107

Factual impossibility (defense to attempt charge)

Back 107

D intends to commit the underlying crime + engages in conduct consistent w/ the intent, but some phys/factual condition unknown to D prevents the underlying crime from taking place.

Factual impossibility is NEVER a defense to attempt (i.e. D sticks hand in V's pocket, but pocket empty)

Front 108

Legal impossibility (defense to attempt charge)

Back 108

D intends to commit underlying crime + engages in conduct consistent w/ intent, but some legal circumstance or status unknown to D prevents the successful completion of the crime

Common law: legal imposs IS A DEFENSE to attempt
NY: legal imposs is NOT A DEFENSE to attempt

Front 109

Common law Inchoate defense doctrines: withdrawal/renunciation/abandonment

Back 109

Withdrawal is NOT a defense EXCEPT: if D withdraws from CONSPIRACY, he will not be vicariously liable for crimes committed by co-cons AFTER he withdraws

BUT D is still guilty of conspiracy and of all foreseeable crimes committed by co-cons prior to withdrawal

Front 110

NY/MPC Inchoate defense doctrines: withdrawal/renunciation/abandonment

Back 110

Renunciation is a defense to all 3 inchoate offenses IF:
1. D renounces his crim purpose prior to commission of the substantive offense & makes a sincere & successful effort to prevent commission of the subst offense AND
2. Renunciation is complete and voluntary (not based on fear of failing or being caught)

Front 111

Merger rule for Inchoate defenses

Back 111

Solicitation & attempt merge with the completed crime

NEW YORK: solicitation does not merge

Conspiracy NEVER merges

Front 112

Insanity

Back 112

D must have a mental disease or defect. 3 tests to determine where the disease renders D legally insane
1. M'Naghten Test (Majority; cognitive): D didn't know conduct was wrong OR D didn't understand nature of his conduct

2. Irresistible Impulse Test (volitional): D unable to control actions OR D unable to conform conduct to the law

3. MPC test (cognitive & volitional): D lacks subs capacity to either 1. appreciate the criminality of his conduct; or 2. conform conduct to law

Front 113

NY Insanity

Back 113

D must prove he lacked the subst capacity to either 1) understand the nature & consq of his act OR 2) appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct

Front 114

Incompetency

Back 114

At time of TRIAL D cannot EITHER
1. understand nature of the proceedings against him; OR
2. assist L in preparation of his defense

if either is established, trial is postponed until D regains competency

Front 115

Common Law Voluntary Intoxication

Back 115

Can only be a defense to specific intent crimes
Never a defense to malice, GI or SL crimes

Requires such severe "prostration of the faculties" that D can't form requisite SI

Front 116

NY Voluntary Intoxication

Back 116

Can be a defense to Intent crimes & Knowledge crimes IF intox prevents D from forming the required state of mind

NEVER defense to crimes of recklessness, negligence, SL

Front 117

Common Law Infancy

Back 117

Rule of Sevens
1. If @ time of crime, D is LESS THAN 7, prosc not allowed

2. If @ time of crime, D is LESS THAN 14, rebuttable presumption against prosc

3. If @ time of crime D is 14 or older, prosc is allowed

Front 118

NY Infancy

Back 118

1. If @ time of crime D is under 13, crim prosc as adult not allowed, only juvy deliquent proceedings in Fam Ct

2. If D is 13, crim prosc allowed as adult for 2nd deg murder

3. if D is 14 or 15, crim prosc as adult allowed for serious crimes against ppl or propt

4. If D is 16+, crim prosc allowed for any crime

Front 119

Common law mistake of fact

Back 119

D's mistake of fact will be a defense depending on the mental state for crime & whether the mistake is reas/unreas

SI: ANY mistake of fact (reas 7 unreas) is a defense

Malice/GI: only reas mistake of fact is defense

SL: mistake of fact NEVER defense

So, a reas mistake of fact is a defense to any crime, except SL
and an unreas mistake of fact is only a defense to SI crimes

Front 120

NY mistake of fact

Back 120

mistake of fact is a defense if it negates the required mental state

For crimes of intent, knowl, recklessness, ANY MoF (even unreas) is defense

For crimes of neg, only REAS MoF is defense

For SL crimes, MoF NEVER defense

Front 121

Mistake of Law

Back 121

Mistake of law is generally NOT a defense, EXCEPT if statute specifically makes knowledge of law an element of crime (i.e. selling drugs KNOWING it's unlawful to do so)

Front 122

Self-Defense: Non-deadly Force

Back 122

i.e. shove, punch

D may use non-deadly force in self-defense if it is 1. Reas nec to 2. protect against an IMMEDIATE use 3. of unlawful force against D/3rd person

Front 123

Self-Defense: Deadly Force

Back 123

D may use deadly force in self- defense if he is facing 1. imminent threath of 2. death or serious bod harm

Front 124

Initial Aggressor Rule

Back 124

D can't use deadly force if he is the initial aggressor (started the fight)

EXCEPT, D can regain right to use deadly force as self defense IF
1. D withdraws from fight & communicates w/drawal to other person OR

2. V suddenly escalates a nondeadly fight into a deadly one
NY: initial aggressor must w/draw before using deadly force in self-D, even if other party suddenly escalated nondeadly fight into deadly one

Front 125

Retreat Rule

Back 125

Majority: Retreat NOT req before D uses deadly force in self defense

NY/ Minority: Retreated IS REQ, UNLESS- 1. D can't retreat in complete safety OR 2. D is in his home

Front 126

Mistake as to need for defense of force

Back 126

If mistake as to need for force is reasonable- it's a complete defense

If mistake is unreasonable:
NY: no defense
MPC/Minority: mitigates but not exonerate (i.e. Imperfect Self Defense- unreas belief in need to use deadly force in self-D will mitigate murder to vol mansl)

Front 127

Use of force to prevent a crime

Back 127

Nondeadly: can use if reas nec to prevent any serious breach of peace

Deadly: can use to prevent a FELONY RISKING HUMAN LIFE

Front 128

defense of others

Back 128

D may use force and deadly force to protect others just as he could use to defend himself

Front 129

Defense of property

Back 129

General rule: deadly force CANNOT be used to defend propt

EXCEPT: D can use deadl force INSIDE HER DWELLING when 1) intruder fained entry in a TUMULTUOUS MANNER and 2) occupant reas believes the use of deadly force is nec to prevent a PERSONAL ATTACK on herself or some1 else in dwelling

Front 130

Resisting arrest

Back 130

Majority: IF arrest is unlawful, D may use nondeadly force to resist the arresting officer

NY: Force CANOT be used to resist arrest, even unlawful arrest, UNLESS arresting officer uses excessive force

Front 131

Use of deadly force by law enforcement

Back 131

Officer may use deadly force only if doing so is reasonable under the circ

Front 132

Necessity

Back 132

Necessity is a defense to crim conduct if D reas believes the conduct was necessary to prevent a greater harm
LIMITATIONS:
necessity defense is unavail if: 1. D causes death of another to protect propt OR 2. D is at fault in creating the situation

Front 133

Duress

Back 133

Duress is a defense if D was COERCED to commit crime bc of threat FROM ANOTHER PERSON of imminent death or serious bodily injury to D or close fam member

LIMITATION:
Duress NEVER DEFENSE TO HOMICIDE (except NY- can be defense to homicide)

Front 134

Entrapment

Back 134

If gov't unfairly tempts D to commit crime, D can claim entrapment IF
1. the crim design originates w gov't AND
2. D NOT PREDISPOSED TO COMMIT THE CRIME