Crim Law

Front 1

ASSAULT

Back 1

2 TYPES:
(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

Front 2

Defenses for Battery

Back 2

That the victim consented, as where two men engaged in a friendly scuffle, or a legally held boxing match.

Front 3

Voluntary Intoxication Defense

Back 3

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)

Front 4

Duress

Back 4

Allowed when the D was under: (TFIB)
- Threat by a
- Fear
- Imminent Danger
- Bodily Harm

Not a complete defense:
Will mitigate a felony-murder

Front 5

Necessity

Back 5

- "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
Requirements:
- 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

Front 6

CL Rape

Back 6

General Intent Crime
- woman other than spouse
- penetration
- no consent
- show resistance

Front 7

Defenses for CL Rape

Back 7

Sienter and Consent
Mistake of fact is possible

Front 8

Larceny

Back 8

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)

Front 9

Defenses for Larceny

Back 9

Mistake of fact
Intoxication is possible defense
Claim of Right

Front 10

Embezzlement

Back 10

- Possession
- Trust relationship
- Intention to
- Convert the property

Front 11

Embezzlement v. Larceny

Back 11

Embezzlement includes a trust relationship

Front 12

Defense for Embezzlement

Back 12

Claim of Right works because it negates specific intent.
- an honest reasonable belief that the property was theirs
-

Front 13

Claim of Right

Back 13

- can be used in any theft crimes
- can negate the specific intent of a felonious taking

Front 14

CL CONSPIRACY

Back 14

- 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

Front 15

MPC CONSPIRACY

Back 15

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)