Crim Law

Front 1

Marerro

Back 1

Mistake of law about a penal law that does not require an intent to violate it is not a defense unless the mistake is based upon reliance on an official interpretation

Front 2

Oliver

Back 2

Brought a man home, heroin, dies

Voluntary assumption of care

Front 3

Feola

Back 3

Defendant intended to rob potential drug buyers
Buyers were federal officers
Defendant charged with assaulting federal officers
Statute only required an intent to assault, not intent to assault federal officers

Front 4

Olsen

Back 4

Appeal from a conviction of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14.
Trial court found Olsen guilty
The defense of reasonable mistake as to age is not a valid defense for an offense designed to protect children of tender years.

Front 5

Jewell

Back 5

"ostrich" instruction
D brings a car of marijuana across border
conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth when there is a high probability of illegality = knowingly

Front 6

Neiswender

Back 6

Contacted attorney for bribe to have someone create a hung jury
Appellant sought review of conviction for obstruction of justice
Court argued that every man intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions.

Front 7

Shimmen

Back 7

Defendant kicks at window after taking what he thinks are necessary precautions to address potential risk.
Court holds him guilty of criminal damage by recklessness
Court says he was aware of the kind of risk which would attend his act if he did not take adequate precautions, despite his thinking that he had.

Front 8

Santillanes

Back 8

Defendant's conviction for child abuse involving no death or great bodily injury was affirmed in the absence of reversible error. The standard of criminal negligence adopted in the opinion was ordered to govern all cases pending on direct review, provided the issue was raised and preserved, and all cases pending but in which a verdict had not been reached

Front 9

Faulkner

Back 9

Guy trying to steal rum, lit a match in hold and the boat blew up, charged with maliciously burning down boat, he did not intend the harm of burning down the ship. Failing to take enough precaution is negligent not malicious.
Notion of malice is difference in Faulkner, Cunningham, conscious disregard of a ….
Malice for murder, “shades of malice”

Front 10

Cunningham

Back 10

Stealing the gas meter for the money inside, releases gas into the house, gas seeps through the honeycomb walls into the neighbors house, killing woman inside
Pipe out of wall, gas went out, kills neighbor, statute charged with maliciously asphyxiating a women. Not malicious if you don’t see the harm coming.
Term malicious at minimum means recklessly

Front 11

Jones

Back 11

Defendant raped a child of 12 who later fell or jumped into a creek where she drowned. One who by his own overpowering criminal act has put another in danger of drowning has the duty to preserve her life.

Front 12

Pope

Back 12

D charged with child abuse when she allows a mother and child to stay with her and mother kills child

Front 13

Decina

Back 13

D had epileptic seizure while driving and killed a number of children.
The court first held that defendant's conduct arguably fell within the statute's requirement that defendant exhibit a disregard for the consequences that would ensue from his actions

Front 14

Newton

Back 14

D appeals conviction for involuntary manslaughter.
Judge failed to instruct jury on issue of involuntary unconsciousness.
Involuntary unconsciousness provided a complete defense to a particular crime because it negated capacity to commit any crime.

Front 15

Martin

Back 15

drunk on public highway
Appeals conviction – appearance was involuntary
Police dragged into public – offense never would have occurred

Front 16

Vaden

Back 16

D takes federal agent posing as hunter out to hunt illegally
Grafting – harm in front – not crime because not convictable
Harm in front is grafted to rear actor
All defenses are personal

Front 17

Hayes

Back 17

Liability in Rear is Derivative of harm in front
stepson entered shop without criminal intent then D could not be guilty

Front 18

Tally

Back 18

the court found him guilty of the charge of aiding and abetting the murder, as when he had full knowledge of their intentions, he kept a watch and sent a message preventing a warning from reaching the victim

Front 19

Wilcox

Back 19

Writer for a Jazz magazine in England is charged for attending an illegal performance, encouraged the performer and wrote a favorable article
Held guilty as an accomplice

Front 20

Russell

Back 20

schoolyard gunbattle, not sure which D did the killing, joint principality, each person does part of the whole crime

Front 21

Lambert

Back 21

failure to register as a sex offender, ignorance of law mistake, would a reasonable person know?

Front 22

Liparota

Back 22

selling food stamps out of the backroom, didn't know it was illegal, term 'knowingly' in statute, move fault term to after law reference in statute

Front 23

Morissette

Back 23

shell casings, claimed accused of malum in se, common thief, should have excuse

Front 24

Lopez

Back 24

selling marijuana to a minor vs. adult, we don't want to hear your excuse because its illegal either way

Front 25

Staples

Back 25

machine gun, did't know, no fault term, long prison term, fault term should be read in

Front 26

Albertini

Back 26

giving authoritative pronouncement of law, relied on it,