Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

15 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
(1) Attempted Battery -
- must be intentional
- one who recklessly or negligently NEARLY causes bodily damage to another has NOT committed assault.
- would be victim needn't be aware
- present ability
(2) Intent to put someone in fear/apprehension of a battery
- must be intentional
- words alone are not enough
Defenses for Battery
That the victim consented, as where two men engaged in a friendly scuffle, or a legally held boxing match.
Voluntary Intoxication Defense
If allowed, it can be used for specific intent crimes to negate the necessary intent. But it does not negate recklessness (ex: no defense for arson b/c arson can be done recklessly)
Allowed when the D was under: (TFIB)
- Threat by a
- Fear
- Imminent Danger
- Bodily Harm

Not a complete defense:
Will mitigate a felony-murder
- "choosing the lesser of two evils."
- may be raised when D is compelled to commit a criminal act, not by coercion of other, but by non-human acts
- ex: speeding to get ill wife to hospital
- Greater harm: D chose the lesser of the two evils
- Imminence: harm is imminent
- No alternative: no other way to avoid the harm
- situation not caused by D
CL Rape
General Intent Crime
- woman other than spouse
- penetration
- no consent
- show resistance
Defenses for CL Rape
Sienter and Consent
Mistake of fact is possible
Specific Intent Crime
- Trespassory
- Taking
- Carrying away
- Personal property
- Of another
- with intent to deprive

Takes possession
Larceny by Trick: actor gets consent for the possession thru misrepresentation or fraud
(as opposed to false pretenses that deals with title not possession)
Defenses for Larceny
Mistake of fact
Intoxication is possible defense
Claim of Right
- Possession
- Trust relationship
- Intention to
- Convert the property
Embezzlement v. Larceny
Embezzlement includes a trust relationship
Defense for Embezzlement
Claim of Right works because it negates specific intent.
- an honest reasonable belief that the property was theirs
Claim of Right
- can be used in any theft crimes
- can negate the specific intent of a felonious taking
- agreement between two or more persons to do either an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means.
- meeting of the minds is not required (implied agreement)
- aiding and abetting
- mere agreement to conspire is enough to convict of conspiracy
Take the "unilateral approach" to conspiracy. It doesn't define it as an agreement "between 2 or more persons" but rather makes an individual liable for conspiracy if he "agrees with other person(s)."
- since individual D has intended to reach an agreement, he meets the statutory requirement even tho the other person is not part of the plan.
Basically MPC SAYS:
- agrees that they'll ENGAGE in conduct that creates such crimes or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; OR
- agrees to AID each other in planning or commission the crims or attempt or solicitation to commit such crime
- OVERT ACT! At CL, conspiracy is complete as soon as agreement has been made. But with MPC, some OVERT ACT in furtherance of the conspiracy must've also been committed. (good be mere preparation)