Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
64 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
what is required for actus reas under MPC?
|
(1) have to engage in a voluntary act (A: Voluntary) OR
(2) you have to fail to act where you have a legal duty to act (B: Omission) |
|
|
what are not voluntary acts under MPC?
|
(1) a reflex of convulsion (seizure)
(2) bodily movement during unconscious or sleep (sleepingwalking) (3) conduct during hypnosis/brainwashing |
|
|
is actus reas required under CL?
|
yes and it just has to be an act so pretty much same as MPC
|
|
|
what are the mental states in CL?
|
specific intent
general intent |
|
|
what are the mental states in MPC?
|
purpose, knowing, reckless, negligence
|
|
|
what are some specific intent crimes?
|
larceny, burglary, receipt of stolen goods, depraved heart murder, solicitation, conspiracy, attempt
|
|
|
what are some general intent crimes?
|
battery, rape, child torture, assault, theft
|
|
|
what does the CL say about mistake of fact as a defense?
|
-Honest and reasonable or unreasonable mistake of fact can negate specific intent (have to be honest for specific)
-Reasonable (but not unreasonable even if honest) mistake of fact can negate general intent crime (have to be reasonable for general) |
|
|
what does MPC say about mistake of fact as a defense?
|
-Honest and unreasonable mistake of fact with negate purpose
-Honest and unreasonable mistake of fact will negate knowing -Honest and unreasonable mistake of fact will negate reckless so long as my honest belief did not come about from some reckless conduct of my own -Honest and reasonable mistake of fact will negate negligence (have to be reasonable for neglegence) |
|
|
is ignorance a law an excuse under CL or MPC?
|
ignorance of the law is never an excuse under either
|
|
|
what does the CL say about intoxication as a defense?
|
-voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific intent crimes, but not to general intent crimes (such as rape)
-involuntary intoxication is a defense to both specific intent and general intent crimes |
|
|
what does the MPC say about intoxication as a defense?
|
-Voluntary intoxication is a defense to crimes that require purpose or knowing
-Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to reckless -Negligence not applicable b/c depends on what a reasonable purpose would do or should have known -involuntary intoxication is a defense to purpose and knowledge and reckless |
|
|
what does the CL and MPC say about strict liability crimes?
|
-CL: there are strict liability crimes
-MPC: provides that if strict liability is imposed as to any material element of an offense, the offense can only be a violation. A violation under the Code, is a minor offense that does not constitute a crime, and that may be punished only by a fine or forfeiture |
|
|
what does the CL say about homicide?
|
-->Murder (malice aforethought) includes:
-intent to kill -unintentional murder: intent to inflict serious bodily injury depraved heart murder (gross recklessness) felony murder (can be intentional or unintentional) -->Manslaughter (not murder) -voluntary manslaughter (provoked in heat of passion) -involuntary manslaughter (reckless or negligent) |
|
|
what does the MPC say about homicide?
|
-->Murder:
-Purposefully or knowingly (that is intent to inflict serious bodily injury) OR -extreme indifference to value of human life and acting recklessly which is CL’s depraved heart -felony murder but limited to certain felonies (considered within extreme indifference) -->Manslaughter: -Voluntary manslaughter called reckless manslaughter Reckless that is not extremely indifferent to life OR Extreme emotional disturbance (provoked) -Involuntary manslaughter (MPC calls it negligent homicide) |
|
|
what is needed for CL voluntary manslaughter?
|
adequate provocation and in heat, reasonable person standard
|
|
|
what is adequate provocation for CL voluntary manslaughter?
|
-witnessing an act of adultery by one’s wife
-mutual combat -an unlawful arrest -commission of a crime against a close relative (ie molestation of your child) -serious battery and serious assault (2 types of assault: attempted battery and put in apprehension) -Words can never constitute adequate provocation |
|
|
what is needed for MPC reckless manslaughter (CL's voluntary manslaughter)?
|
-provocation but no heat
-Reckless that is not extremely indifferent to life OR Extreme emotional disturbance (provoked) |
|
|
what is needed for CL depraved heart murder/MPC extreme indifference?
|
-D's awareness and unjustified risk
-gross recklessness -extreme indifference |
|
|
what is considered involuntary manslaughter under the CL?
|
reckless or negligent behavior, but if gross reckless then bumped up to depraved heart
|
|
|
what is considered negligent homicide (CL's involuntary manslaughter) under the MPC?
|
negligent behavior; if reckless bumped up to voluntary manslaughter and if gross reckless bumped up to extreme indifference/depraved heart murder
|
|
|
can cumulative impact of a series of related events constitute reasonable provocation?
|
yes, but for CL still has to be one of the set provocations
|
|
|
what does the CL say about felony murder?
|
can be intentional or unintentional; where a killing is committed during the course of a dangerous felony, or an attempted dangerous felony; doesn’t specify certain felonies
|
|
|
what are two ways to see if a crime qualifies as felony murder?
|
(1) felony is inherently dangerous as says a statute (abstract way) or
(2) felony is dangerous as committed (look at specific facts) |
|
|
what does the MPC say about felony murder?
|
there is not felony murder rule really. Call it reckless murder. These types of situations fall under the reckless portion. Reckless and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, Robbery, Rape, or deviate Sexual intercourse by force of threat of force, Arson, Burglary, Kidnapping or felonious Escape.
BARS Really Excite Kelly |
|
|
what does the CL say about robbery?
|
a person is guilty of robbery if in the course of committing larceny (trespassory or unlawful taking of another with intent to permanently deprive that person of that property) plus two additional elements:
-taking must be by force or threat of (immediate) force -has to be taken from the immediate control of the person -escape not included, and claim of right is a defense |
|
|
what does the MPC say about robbery?
|
a person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft (person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof.) he:
-inflicts serious bodily injury -threatens another or puts in fear of immediate bodily injury -commits or threatens immediately to commit any felony of the first or second degree -don't need permanently deprive like CL, need serious, no immediate presence rqt, flight included and claim of right is a defense |
|
|
what does the CL say about burglary?
|
breaking and entering of a dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony therein
|
|
|
what are defenses to CL burglary?
|
break into business, daytime, break but don’t enter, window partially open, intent to commit misdemeanor or to watch TV
|
|
|
what does the MPC say about burglary?
|
so long as someone enters a buiding (no dwelling rqt), to commit a crime (no felony rqt), no breaking rqt, no night rqt, and technically doesn't have to be of another
|
|
|
what does the CL say about attempt?
|
-do last step or come physically or dangerously close to it
-Attempt is a specific intent crime under CL, what are the two intents for an attempt? (1) intention to do this underlying actus reus (intent to do an act or cause a result which constitutes a crime) (2) an act that goes beyond mere preparation -need purpose/intent and so not guilty for other people on plane |
|
|
what does the MPC say about attempt?
|
-will punish earlier for bad thought
(1a) were as he believes them to be (1b) without furhter conduct (1c)substantial step -don't need purpose/can have knowingly and so guilty for other people on plane |
|
|
what are substantial steps under MPC?
|
(2) substantial steps:
(a) lying in wait (b) enticing victim (c) reconnoitering (d) unlawful entry (e) possession of materials to use during crime (f) possesion of these materials near the place (g) soliciting an innnocent agent to help LERPPS |
|
|
is abandonment of attempt a defense under CL or MPC?
|
-no for CL
-yes for MPC and it has to be complete and voluntary of purpose |
|
|
what does the CL say about solicitation?
|
solicitation is a specific intent crime; the elements are:
(1) encouraging or advising another person to commit a crime (actus reas)…intentionally engaging in the actus reas, which is encouraging/asking/inviting another person to commit a crime (2) with the intent that the other person commit the acts constituting that crime -only applies for felonies or serious misdemeanors -need intent -needs communication -punished as a misdemeanor -not guilty if just asking for help (like asking for a gun) -doesn't allow renunciation -can have attempted solicitation |
|
|
what does the MPC say about solicitation?
|
-applies to any crime
-no intent rqt. as long as solicit that person -no communication rqt. -punished as whatever level of the crime solicited -guilty if asking someone to help (supply a gun) -renunciation allowed -no attempted solicitation..it is solicitation |
|
|
what is required to renounce solicitation under MPC? (b/c not allowed under CL)
|
persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented the commission of the crime, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose
|
|
|
what is required to renounce attempt under MPC? (b/c not allowed under CL)
|
it has to be complete and voluntary of purpose
|
|
|
what does the CL say about accomplice liability?
|
has 4 people categories, not guilty if aid not used, convicted of whatever offense aided in and cannot be convicted of anything higher than what principal convicted of or before principal convicted, you can abandon it, need shared purpose, any amt of assistance will count but only if actually encouraged, need communication, can't be guilty of an attempted offense
|
|
|
what does the MPC say about accomplice liability?
|
no people categories, if aid not used still guilty, convicted of whatever offense aided in Can be convicted with a greater degree of offense and even before principal (but still have to show that there was a principal who committed a criminal act if trying to convict accomplice first), can abandon it, need shared purpose, any amt of assistance will count, but no encouragement rqt., no communication rqt, and can be guilty as an accomplice to an attempted offense
|
|
|
what must you do to abandon accomplice liability under CL?
|
you can abandon it so long as you (1) communicate your withdrawal to the principal and (2) make bona fide attempts to neutralize the assistance that you were providing
|
|
|
what must you do to abandon accomplice liability under MPC?
|
Can abandon it If before the commission of offense, wholly deprives it of effectiveness or gives timely warning to the police or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent the commission of the offense
|
|
|
what are the 4 classification of parties to a felony under CL?
|
(1) principal in the first degree
(2) principal in the second degree (3) accessory before the fact (4) accessory after the fact |
|
|
what makes someone a principal in the first degree under CL?
|
-the criminal actor; he is the one who, with the requisite mental state, engages in the act or omission concurring with the mental state which causes the criminal result
-may be more than 1 (one guy beats, one guy shoots), but need at least 1 -he may be constructively present (leave poison, bomb) |
|
|
what makes someone a principal in the second degree under CL?
|
-must be present at the commission of a criminal offense and aid, counsel, command, or encourage the principal in the first degree in the commission of that offense
-can have constructive presence (standing watch, stands ready to give aid, but must be close enough to render aid if needed) -aiding and abetting -Ex. girl under bed in knife waiting if help needed; in the get away car, the person was constructively present (not in the bank, but outside the bank) but was still there ready to assist |
|
|
what makes someone an accessory before the fact under CL?
|
-one who orders, counsels, encourages, or otherwise aids and abets another to commit a felony and who is not present at the commission of the offense (not actively nor constructively present)
-distinction b/t this and principal in the second degree is presence b/c accessory before the fact is not present of the crime -although the accessory before the fact is often the originator of the offense, this need not be the case |
|
|
what makes someone an accessory after the fact under CL?
|
-today, the accessory after the fact is not deemed a participant in the felony but rather one who has obstructed justice, subjecting him to different and lesser penalties
-not actively or constructively present |
|
|
what does the CL say about conspiracy?
|
bilateral rqt, punishable as a misdemeanor, mergers, can be agreement to do something illegal or break a rule so doesn't have to be an illegal agreement, can be express or implied agreement, no abandonment, specific intent
|
|
|
what does the MPC say about conspiracy?
|
unilateral rqt, punished according to offense conspired to do with the caveat that conspiracies to commit first-degree felonies are treated as second-degree felonies, mergers, agreement must be to do something criminal, can have express or implied agreement, can abandon it, need purpose and knowledge (just knowledge isn't enough)
|
|
|
how can you abandon conspiracy under MPC? (b/c you can't under CL)
|
as long as you thwart success of conspiracy or renounce purpose
|
|
|
what does the CL say about justification as self-defense?
|
Objective/reasonable approach, threat must be deadly or serious bodily injury but has to be proportional, must be imminent threat, you never have to retreat even if own house and with co-occupant
|
|
|
what does the MPC say about justification as self-defense?
|
Subjective/honestly believe approach, threat can be deadly or serious bodily harm and also incl. threat of kidnapping or sex compelled or force of threat of serious bodily harm, but has to be proportional, no imminent requirement, requires retreat if possible but not if own home even with co-occupants and not in workplace, but yes in workplace if with co-worker; the retreat rule in effect today requires Ds to retreat before resorting to self-defense only if (1) they are using deadly force and (2) they know they can retreat with complete safety—that is, without incurring even nonserious bodily injury
|
|
|
what does the CL and MPC say about justification to protect your property?
|
can never use deadly force to prevent someone from taking your property
|
|
|
what does the CL say about justification as a defense against your home (with spring guns) or with law enforcement?
|
-Broadly allows deadly force to prevent any unlawful entry into the home
-Spring guns: can use spring guns to prevent the entry to somebody’s home if you reasonably believe that another person is unlawfully and imminently going to enter your house and the use of this deadly force is necessary to prevent the intrusion -Law enforcement: you can shoot him |
|
|
what does the MPC say about justification as a defense against your home (with spring guns) or with law enforcement?
|
-Only nondeadly force if believes it is necessary and if first ask person to leave and if won’t expose trespasser to substantial danger or serious bodily harm; can use deadly force if think intruder is entering to take home away and no claim of right to its possession or if they believe they are committing a felony and threatened deadly force against them or using nondeadly force would create substantial danger of serious bodily harm
-Spring guns: disapproves of spring guns (certain requirements, but we aren’t supposed to learn them), but bottom line don’t approve them -Law enforcement: deadly force may be used only if the officer believes that the force to be used creates no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons and also believes either (1) that the suspect used or threatened the use of deadly force or (2) that there is a substantial risk that the suspect will cause death or serious bodily harm if he is not immediately apprehended. Force may not be used unless the felon is dangerous (not the case with Garner) requiring in addition that, where feasible, the police first notify the suspect of the purpose of the arrest |
|
|
what does the CL say about necessity as a justification defense?
|
Limited to non-human threats, has to be necessary and unavoidable, has to be imminent danger, homicide doesn’t apply,
|
|
|
what does the MPC say about necessity as a justification defense?
|
Can include human and non-human threats, has to be necessary and unavoidable, no imminence requirement, homicide applies
|
|
|
do you have to retreat under CL or MPC when talking about justificaiton and in your own home and in rift with co-occupant?
|
Both say that you don’t have to retreat if in your own house even if an argument with another occupant
|
|
|
what does the CL say about duress as an excuse defense?
|
Human-threats; Reasonable/objective approach, can’t apply in homicide, immanency requirement, has to be a threat of death or serious bodily injury, and cannot have been at fault in creating the situation
|
|
|
what does the MPC say about duress as an excuse defense?
|
Does not require that the D’s belief that the threat will be made good be reasonable, but it can be implied by the requirement that the threat be such that a person of reasonable firmness would be unable to resist it (so adding a subjective component); if it would be clear to such a person that the threat will not be carried out, he would presumably be able to resist it; Can apply in homicide cases, no immanency requirement, The threat just has to be a threat of bodily harm (not serious), defense unavailable if recklessly placed oneself in situation in which it was probably that he would be subject to duress
|
|
|
what does the CL say about entrapment as an excuse defense?
|
there is no entrapment defense under CL
|
|
|
what does the MPC say about entrapment as an excuse defense?
|
Follows objective test over the subjective test; objective test focuses on govt. conduct while subjective approach focuses on D’s predisposition
|
|
|
what are the 3 different tests for insanity as an excuse defense?
|
1.M’Naughten: knows right from wrong; cognitive (2 parts to it)
2.irresistible impulse; volitional 3.MPC test: cognitive prong and volitional prong |
|
|
what does the MPC follow for insanity as an excuse defense?
|
MPC test:: can show cognitive prong OR volitional prong and doesn’t have to be 100% certain like in M’Naughten and irresistible impulse
|
