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
Reading...
Front

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

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/112

Click to flip

112 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Burglary Hypos: D, intending to steal many valuable furs, jewels and silver items, broke into the home of X at 2:00 a.m., while X and his family were away on summer vacation at their cabin in the mountains. Burglary, C/L, CA?
C/L-Yes, CA-Yes
One night, D, intending to steal, reached his arm up to the elbow through the swinging "doggie door" in the rear door of V's apartment. D was in the process of attempting to unlock the backdoor from the inside, when his arm was spotted by V, who began to kick it. D pulled his arm back through the doggie door and ran away.
C/L-Yes, CA-Yes
D, Intentding to steal shatters the glass in a window of house X with a rock, but then leaves when he is scared by the return of the family
C/L Intrusions by an instrument
•Common law said instrument used to only facilitate in entry but not facilitate in felony, does not constitute entry.
•But if instrument used to accomplish target crime then will satisfy entry.
NO ENTRY
CA- Yes entry
Modern Law-(many states no entry)
D's friend, V, has an account with a bank that has an ATM. The ATM is mounted inside the bank flush with its exterior walls and is covered by the roof of the bank. D was able to learn V's pin number, D stole her ATM card. Later that night he inserted the card into the ATM, punched in the pin, and withdrew $300 from her account.
C/L- Not dwelling house
CA-Is a covered strucure, and meets requirments but not within the intent of the legislature. (CA v. Davis)
#6 After sunset on a hot summer evening, D, landlord pulled open an unlatched screen door and entered the kitcken of his tentant X, for the purpose of raping X's wife, which he did.
C/L-
Breaking-Yes, disturbance of outside barrier
of another? Possession not ownership
CA-Same
After sunset on a hot summer evening, D, a landlord, pulled open an unlatched screen door and entered the kitchen of his tenant X, for the purpose of raping X's wife, which he did. ---
Suppose the screen door was locked and D gained admittance by ringing the door bell and announcing to X's wife that he wanted to check the furnace.
C/L-Yes burglary "constructive breaking"
CA-Yes burglary
D, a landlord, pulled open an unlatched screen door and entered the kitchen of his tenant X, for the purpose of raping X's wife, but found no one home. or changed his mind
C/L-Burglary
CA-Burglary
Intent may be harder to prove however
D, a landlord, pulled open an unlatched screen door and entered the kitchen of his tenant X, for the purpose of raping X's, but he changed his mind once he got inside the house.
C/L-Still burglary it is intent when entering that matters
CA-Same result
D, a landlord, pulled open an unlatched screen door and entered the kitchen of his tenant X, for the purpose of beating up X, but X wasnt home so he raped his wife.
C/L-o Under common law, there is no felony.
oBeating someone up is not a felony.
oSo no intent to commit felony.
oHave to prove that he had no intent to rape the wife.
CA-No burglary unless intended to beat severely
Suppose in #6 the screen door had been ajar, and D had slipped through the entrance without opening it further. He raped Mrs. X whom he found sleeping in her bedroom.
C/L- No burglary: No breaking, he didnt push the door open any further
CA-Burglary- (breaking not required)
The lot on which the house of X is located is surrounded by a thick six-foot hedge. In the back yard there is a screened summerhouse or gazebo in which X has hidden $1000 cash. At 11PM X's gardener, lifted the hatch on the gate leading into the the yard, entered the yard, opened the door to the gazebo, went inside and removed the money.
oDetached structure
oCommon Law said things close to house
oIt is fenced in.
oNot had permission to enter at 11, so question is if this entry authorized or not.
oIntent- can use his latter actions to infer intent.
Burglry.
CA-Same
On Dec 23rd, at 8:00p.m. D walks through the revolving door of Macy's Department store for the purpose of shoplifting a TV.
C/L-No breaking, becouse not a house.
CA-Breaking not required, nor is dwelling house
A and B are roomates in a dormitory on a university campus. D, who lives nearby is a friend of A. A and D conspire to steal $1000 in cash which B is keeping in a drawer in his room. At 6pm B left the apt for a dinner date. Sunset was that day at 6:15pm. When B returned shortly after midnight, he discovered that his money was missing. There was evidence that sametime after B left, A and D went to the room, where D opened the door with a key provided by A. The pair then entered the room, opened the drawer, and took the hidden cash.
C/L-No burglary-(no breaking, and not dwelling house of another)
A authorized to entry
•A could give D permission to entry
•So D’s entry is permitted so no breaking
•Dorm= dwelling house
•What would common law say about a hotel room, or a room in your house where a guest stay is a dwelling house? Nope
•If you steal from your roommate it is not stealing from the dwelling of another. Some courts say because of permission D stands in shoes of A.
•At night, can’t prove theft not occur in that 15 minute window.
CA-not burglary-Not dwelling house of another. pg 33 "People v. Guaze" -Person cannot burglarize thier own home.
A and B are roomates in a dormitory on a university campus. D, who lives nearby is a friend of A. A and D conspire to steal $1000 in cash which B is keeping in a drawer in his room. At 6pm B left the apt for a dinner date. Sunset was that day at 6:15pm. When B returned shortly after midnight, he discovered that his money was missing. There was evidence that sametime after B left, A and D went to the room, where D opened the door with a key provided by A. The pair then entered the room, opened the drawer, and took the hidden cash. But suppose that the key had beenlost and D was forced to jimmy the lock instead.
Same result.
D decided to rob a liquor store in State X. D arrived at the store just before closing time. The electric entrance door opened automatically as he approached it, and he walked inside. As he was reacing into his pocket to draw the unloaded pistol that he planned to use in the robbery, he became scared and immediatly left the store. A statute in State X defines burlary as "the breaking and entering of anu building or structure with the intent to commit a felny therein" To a charge of burglary, D's best defense would be:
a) The intent required was not present
b) D had a change of heart and withdrew before commiting the crime inside the store
c)D was unsuccessful, and so at most could be guilty of attempted burglary
d) The liquor store was open to the public.
D)But this will still screw him in CA, but not in many other states.
Where is state X?
If burglary is sucessful does it merge into the target crime?
No, not like attempt.
•Hypos
o#1 steals $80 book from bag in the library
o#2 steals $80 book from court yard.
Which one is punished more harsly?
#1 under modern law
What is required for 1st degree burglary in CA?
Burglary of an inhabited dwelling.
1.If inhabited dwelling of any sort, functionally interconnected and immediately contiguous make it a dwelling house, E.g. Case where the office was connected to the house, but it was were they also watched TV.
2.House is inhabited dwelling if vacated because of natural disaster.
What are the elements of burglary for CA.
1. Entering
2. Protected structure
3. Of another (non-statutory)
4. With intent to commint a felony or theft
Larceny: Personal Property of Another.
Wild animals: C/L and Modern law
Domesticated Animals: C/L and Modern Law
Wild Animals: Not personal property until captured: C/L and Modern Law Agree
Domesticated Animals: C/L divided into Base (cat, monkey, fox, dog) and NOT base (horse, cow, pog, chicken)
i.) Steal base animal not larceny, but NOT base animal is larceny
Modern Law: If you steal base or NOT base both treated as larceny.
Larceny: Personal Property of another; What about Co-owners and co-possessors:
At C/L-No larceny
MPC and Modern trend=Larceny
Larceny: Nature of Property
Can Real property be subject of larceny
(2)Real Property-
(a)C/L- not covered unless previously severed (Hyden v. Tennessee) Not larceny if sever and carry away in one act, but if separate acts then it is larceny.
(i)E.x. Apples on tree if not already fallen
(b)Modern law -trend to include any sort of property of value which can be moved, (trees even if acts severance occurs at same time)
Under C/L can gas and electricity be the subject of larceny?
Yes
Can services and intangibles be the subject of larceny?
C/L-No, but under modern law law.
MPC- covers "anything of value"
i) CA has changed law to MPC
Larceny-Taking
Is failure to deliver enough to satisfy the taking element of larceny?
No
Is taking by another at one's direction enough to satisfy the "taking" element for larceny.
YES
Larceny-Taking
How may one "take" property of another although he does not personally acquire dominion over it?
If he sells it as his own to an innocent 3rd person who then takes possession
Does CA still require "carrying away" as an element for larceny?
Yes
Larceny: "carrying away"
Is turning a barrel over on its side to get a better grip sufficient for the "carrying away" requirment of larceny?
NO, you must move the whole object
Does MPC and NY require "carrying away" for larceny?
NOPE
Is stealing stolen property considered larceny?
Yes, we still want to deter criminals.
Larceny-"Intent to steal"- What intent is required here.
"Intent to deprive the owner of the property either permanently or for an unreasonable lenght of time"
"or intend to use it in such a way that the owner will probably be thus deprived of his property. Abandonment under circumstances that return is unlikely=intent.
Regarding the intent to steal element of larceny, explain the 3 "claims of right" that may negate an intent to steal.
One may take the property of another honetly but mistakenly believing
1) that it is his own property
2) That it is no ones property
3) (though he knows it is anothers property) that owner has given him permission to take it as he did. Lacks intent for larceny, even though mistaken but honest belief was UNREASONABLE.
larceny-Intent- Is taking with the intent to return the equivalent considered larceny?
Generally yes,if property is for sale then better chance you will have a defense, if property is unique, or owner has refused an offer to sell, it is clear an intent to Return will not hold up.
Is taking with intent to return the very property taken larceny?
(a)One who takes property of another intending at the time he takes it to use it temporarily and then return it unconditionally within a reasonable time-and having a substantial ability to do so-lacks the intent to steal required for larceny.
(i)Like boy who took bike with the intent of giving it back, he just took it because the other boy threw oranges at him. No intent to deprive owner permanently here. (California v. Brown)
Larceny: Hypo: Cow wanders onto nieghbors land. Nieghbor informs owner. Cow never retrieved by owner. Neighbor eventually sells cow. Was there a larceny?
No, there was no trespass in the taking
Robbery? Force, C/L v. Modern law diff.
C/L said force had to be with the taking, but modern law says force may be with getting away.
What is the "person of another" requirment for Robbery?
Same as for grand larceny
What is the only robbery that isnt also "larceny from the person"?
When it is from the presence
What are the elements of Flase pretenses?
1) False representation of material present or past fact
a.false
b. representation
c. disclosure
d. Material
e. Present or past fact
2.) Causes V to
3.) Pass title
4.) Knows representation to false
5.) Intends to thereby to defraud the victim
What are the elements of false pretenses?
o1) A false representation of a material present or past fact
2) which causes the victim 3) to pass title to
4) his property to the wrongdoer,
5) who
a) knows his representation to be false and
b) intends thereby to defraud the victim.
What are the elements of false pretenses?
o1) A false representation of a material present or past fact
2) which causes the victim 3) to pass title to
4) his property to the wrongdoer,
5) who
a) knows his representation to be false and
b) intends thereby to defraud the victim.
What are the elements of false pretenses?
o1) A false representation of a material present or past fact
2) which causes the victim 3) to pass title to
4) his property to the wrongdoer,
5) who
a) knows his representation to be false and
b) intends thereby to defraud the victim.
False pretenses.
"False representation of material present or past fact"
1) False? timing,
The information must be false at the time of the obtanining of the property.
If D states a fact he believes to be untrue, but it is actually true, he is not guilty
False pretenses
1)False Representation of Material Present or Past Fact
b) Representation
May be made orally or in writting, can be result of unwritten ot unspoken conduct
Representation of one fact may be implied from words that literally say something different
Using someone elses ATM card is false representation becouse you are representing yourself as that person
False pretenses
Will mere silence do?
•Mere silence general not do even if D knows the other is acting under a mistaken representation.
oSometimes may be duty so speak to correct misapprehension, as where the defendant has even though innocently, previously created the misapprehension by something he said or did.
oOr if the D stands in a fiduciary duty
False Pretenses
Can a fact be material without going to the "essence of the transaction"?
yes
False Pretenses:
Present or past fact:
Can statements/promises about future be sufficient for false pretenses.
•Traditional view-can’t be a false representation with regard to a future fact.
•It may be found however that in a statement relating to something happening in the future, an implied representation that something has happen in the past.
•Modern View -CA-is to say false statements of intention or promises= misrepresentation of present intent. So enough for False pretenses
Title Passing:
a. Bribe money spent elsewhere?
b. V agree or understand that money though desired for a particular purpose, might be used for any purpose?
a. No title, only possession
b. Title passes.
Title passing, "Franklin v, Alabama"
Where goods are sold under a conditional sales contract and the title is merely retained for purposes of security, the buyer gets a sufficient property interest to support a conviction of false pretenses. (Title)
o Where D’s represented trade in as “paid” when it in-fact was not.
Title Passing:
a. Bribe money spent elsewhere?
b. V agree or understand that money though desired for a particular purpose, might be used for any purpose?
a. No title, only possession
b. Title passes.
Title Passing...
a.) D who induces others by lie to sell him his property obtains...
b.)D who induces others by lie to lease or lend gets...
c.)D who induces V by lies to sell property on a conditional sale, with payments to be made, gets...
d) If cash-sale buyer writes worthless check and gets item, is not said to have title until cash is check, so if check is worthless, then...
a. Title/Flase pretenses
b. Possession/Larceny by trick
c. Partial title, enough for false pretenses (Franklin v. Alabama)
d. No title/Larceny by trick
• Like larceny and embezzlement, one who tells intentional lies, is not guilty of false pretense, because he lacks intent to defraud if;
1) he honestly but erroneously believes the property is his own or property that he has a legal right to
2) He intents to restore the very property obtained, unconditionally and within a reasonable time, and has substantial ability to do so.
3) He obtains it in satisfaction of a debt which the other actually owes him. (or, it would seem if he honestly believes so.)
What are the elements of Ebbezzlement?
1) The fraudulent
2) Conversion of
3) The property
4) Of another
5) by one who is already in lawful possession of it.
Embezzelment: Of Another
Co-Owners?
Agents entitled to collect commission, instead they take all of the amount.
•Co-Owners
oW/o statue specifying so cannot be embezzlement if one in joint-ownership misappropriates the whole property for his own bad purposes.
•Agents entitled to collect commission, instead of just collecting commission they misappropriate the whole amount.
o“ A chattel mortgagor and one who purchases under a conditional sales contract, who misappropriates the property in his possession with intent to defraud the chattel mortgagee or conditional seller, may not be misappropriating the property “of another”’ But many statues make this conduct a form of embezzlement
Default on loans=Embezzelment?
Lessor-Lessee- Lessor fails to return the deposit?
No when you borrow money you convert it to your own use,-->not property of another
--Lessor--No embezzelment, not of another.
MPC w/r/t -(1) Sec 223.5 - Theft of Property Lost, Mislaid, or Delivered by Mistake
(a) Reasonable effort to return property to rightful owner. Or else guilty of theft.
Homicide:
In CA when does life begin?
CA-Penal COde 187- Any fetus is alive, does not have to be viable fetus.
Suppose a pregnant women attempts suicide by shooting herself in the stomach, and she lives but the fetus dies is she guilty of homicide? In CA.
yes
What are the two test for when life ends, which does CA adopt?
1.) Traditional Test: When heart and lungs stop
2.) Alternative (newer) Test:--Brain death
CA: If dead under either standard then no longer living: Heart and lungs or brain dead.
Hypo: Doctor has patient in permanent vegetative state and pulls the plug at the families request, is this homicide?
If family gets court order then No homicide
But if not court order then Homicide
What are the elements of murder?
1.) Act (conduct) affirmative act or ommission when there is a duty to act.
2.) "Malicious" state of mind
a.) Intent to kill
b.) Intent to do S-B-H
c.) Legally cause-Prox cause
d.) Death of a living human bieng
Causation: How does the anaylsis go.
oActual Cause “but for” Causation
1.) Is there a “but for” cause?
YES Move on to PXC cause
NO No cause, unless there are concurrent causes, then move on to “Substantial Factor” Test.
2.) Is there a “substantial Factor”?
Yes Move on to PXC cause
No No cause
Proximate Cause
Never exists unless actual cause exists
Policy: Is there a justice or policy reason for relieving the actor from responsibility for the harm actually caused.
1.) Direct Cause (no intervening causes)
•PXC unless, there is some extreme varation between what is intended and what happens.
2.) Indirect Cause (one + intervening causes)
Indirect Response or coincidence?
o A) Response Actor RESPONSIBLE unless the response is ABNORMAL
o B) Coincidence Actor is NOT responsible UNLESS the coincidence is FORESEEABLE
Can heat of passion provocation be used to mitigate 2nd degree felony murder?
Not usually
Is hearing about your brother bieng killed sufficient provocation for manslaughter?
Yes
Does CA allow imperfect self defense to reduce a charge to mansluaghter?
yes
What are the elements of involuntary manslaughter?
1. Creation og high risk of death or serious bodily hamr that is grossly negligent
2. death of another living human bieng
3. actual and prox cause
4. D's awareness of the risk
2 teens agreed to drag race on a narrow road. One was killed when he tried to pass the other. Is the teenager who survived the cause of the other’s death?
• Although the survivor was the actual and PXC of the other’s death, the Pennsylvania SC found he wasn’t responsible; felt it would be unfair to hold survivor accountable when victim engaged in just as much of the risk. Note the survivor was grossly negligent and all elements of involuntary manslaughter were met.
- Many other states wouldn’t have cut off liability.
- CA would have found negligence → involuntary manslaughter.
Is mere inslut ever enough to mitigate to voluntary manslaughter?
No--"son of a bitch" case
Will second hand information ever be enough for provocation for manslaughter?
Maybe, CA v. Brooks, p. 47. (*'s brother is killed while * is not present. Two hours later, * confronts the individual whom he believes--from talking to others--is responsible, and kills him. CA App. Ct. HOLDS: T. Court should have given an instruction on manslaughter because there is sufficient evidence that * may have acted under adequate "provocation" and in the "heat of passion.")
CA v. Rodriguez, p. 60. (* mother locks children in the house and then goes to the bar. A fire somehow starts in the house. A neighbor is able to save two of *'s children, but the third child is killed in the flames
What was the holding
CA App. Ct. REVERSES *'s conviction on involuntary manslaughter because it feels that *'s acts DID NOT rise to the level of criminal negligence.)
PA v. Steinberg, p. 63. (* owner of store sells Sterno containing poisonous methanol alcohol to skid row clientele, with knowledge that they drink it.
PA S Ct. HOLDS that *'s conduct was criminally negligent, because he knew at least some of his customers would distill the alcohol for drinking, and affirms *'s conviction on 17 counts of involuntary manslaughter.)
HYPOTHETICAL: Suppose * store owner in Oakland skid row sells wine containing wood alcohol. There was no indication on the bottles that the wine was dangerous, but some of his clients die from drinking the rot gut. Is * guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
Probably not. In this case, unlike Feinberg, the * had no knowledge that the alcohol was poison, and so no criminal negligence attaches. Also * was not aware of the risk created.
PA v. Steinberg, p. 63. (* owner of store sells Sterno containing poisonous methanol alcohol to skid row clientele, with knowledge that they drink it.
PA S Ct. HOLDS that *'s conduct was criminally negligent, because he knew at least some of his customers would distill the alcohol for drinking, and affirms *'s conviction on 17 counts of involuntary manslaughter.)
What is the CA rule regarding involuntary manslaughter?
• CA -Unlawful acts include misdemeanors, ordinaries and felonies not inherently dangerous.
oAct must be dangerous under circumstances.
How is vehicular manslaughter dealt with in CA?
Ordinary Negligence=Misdeameanor
Gross-Felony
What is the CA rule regarding unlawful actinvoluntary manslaughter?
• CA -Unlawful acts include misdemeanors, ordinaries and felonies not inherently dangerous.
oAct must be dangerous under circumstances.
CA v. Rodriguez, p. 60. (* mother locks children in the house and then goes to the bar. A fire somehow starts in the house. A neighbor is able to save two of *'s children, but the third child is killed in the flames
What was the holding
CA App. Ct. REVERSES *'s conviction on involuntary manslaughter because it feels that *'s acts DID NOT rise to the level of criminal negligence.)
What is the MPC view on causation?
-Intent=Purpose/knowing
--prox cause cut off in not within purpose, except if varation with
a. person
b. manner of injury
--Reckless
pox cause cut off if not within risk actor is aware of.
--unless, diff person or manner
What is the policy behind having intent to do serious bodily injury murder?
Doing serious bodily injury is at least a dangerous to life as conduct in depraved-heart murder.
What is the policy behind having intent to do serious bodily injury murder?
Doing serious bodily injury is at least a dangerous to life as conduct in depraved-heart murder.
Does the MPC regognize felony murder?
NO
Will burglary with an assualtive crime as the predicate be allowed for felony murder in CA?
NO
With regard to felony murder, and "in commission of a felony" what are the factors in determining in D reached a place of temporary safety?
o Flight
o Distance from the crime
o Time after crime
o Pursuit
o Possession of loot.
Is "felon is possession of gun" inherently dangerous?
NO
What are the felonies listed in PC 189?
arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayham, kidnapping
What are the elements of HOP voluntary manslaughter?
• A.) Provocative conduct by victim
o Adequate:
o Inadequate
• B.) Angers reasonable person to be tempted to deadly violence
• C.) D in fact angered
• D.) Reasonable person wouldn’t have cooled down
• E.) D in fact did not cool down
What would assisted suicide be?
!st degree murder=Intent to kill + premeditation and deliberation.
What are the elements of self defense?
Genuine and reasonable belief threaten of imminent unlawful (deadly) violence. and you must respond with reasonable force
What are the points you have to remember for self defense?
1. Genuine belief
2. Reasonable belief
3. Imminent
a. BWS
4. unlawful
5. deadly
6. Reasonable force used
7. aggressor?
What is the duty to retreat w/r/t self defense for innocent parties?
Majority view-not required to retreat if acting lawfully
MPC Minority- Even if free from fault must retreat if he can do so safely.
exp: from home
exp: if assailant is co-occupant
Duty to retreat (aggressors)?
Initiator of non-deadly attack
•Must retreat if safely can do so
Initiator of deadly attack
•Must cease attack
•Must bring cessation home to victim
If you have a genuine but unreasonable belief in your right to self defense what is the result?
CA--> imperfect self defense-Voluntary manslaughter
Depraved heart imperfect self defense=voluntary manslaughter NOT involuntary
What are the views on defense of others?
•C/L: D not justified if V not justified (step in shoes of the one in peril)
N.Y. v. Young: D defended youth who was struggling w/ 2 men who were undercover cops. Not excused b/c it was a lawful arrest.
one who goes to the aid of a 3rd person does so at his own peril
Rule: the right of a person to defend another ordinarily should not be greater than such person’s right to defend himself.
•Modern View: May act on situation as it reasonably appears (CA/MPC)
Defender is judged from when he first and afterwards saw it. What happen before is irrelevant for the defense of others.
N.Y. v. Maine: D sees brother in fight w/ 2 others. D stabs others. D indicted for Manslaughter, reversed for SD.
evidence showing the brother’s guilt not admissable, b/c the brother had no way of knowing.
Subjective Rule: the acts and conduct of D must be judged solely with reference to the situation as it was when he first and afterwards saw it.
What is the MPC rule regarding necessity for retreat and defense of others?
o MPC- Defender not required to retreat unless he knows he can secure the safety of the person being defended.
o MPC- If the person being defended would be required to retreat, then the defender must try to cause him to do so if the defender knows he could obtain complete safety in that way.
o MPC- Dwelling or workplace, exception applies here if the place is the dwelling or place of work of either the defender or the person defended.
Does CA allow for imperfect self defense of other?
yes
What are the rules regarding Crime Prevention as a defense?
• Deadly force may only be used to prevent crimes that create a risk of death or SBH
o CA-Only deadly force for “forcible and atrocious felonies”
• Non-deadly force may be used to protect other crimes
What is the self defense rule regarding Apprehension of criminals?
• Deadly force only to apprehend criminals who create a serious risk of bodily harm; Non-deadly force for all others
What are the defense rules regarding "defense of habitation"
•Some: Deadly force only to prevent entry creating a risk of death or serious bodily harm
•Others: Prevent any felony or harm
• PC §198.5 –
o Creates presumption, when defending habitation
Makes it easer to get self defense
•SPRING GUNS never justified: Actor need to access situation
Defense of property?
non-deadly force only
What is the reasonablness question you must ask regarding self defense?
“what would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge”
Elements of self defense?
1. Reasonable belief threaten with future violence
2. Genuine Belief threaten with future violence
o A. Imminent
o B. Unlawful
o C. Deadly
3. Reasonable Force in response (not retaliatory) “what would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge”
o Deadly/non-deadly attack
o Innocent/Aggressor * Actor not at fault

Imperfect Self Defense Mitigates to manslaughter.
BWS-How used
Suppose an airline pilot from SF to HI concludes she’s lost an engine. She has the choice to ditch the baggage or crash land. Does she have a defense for a charge against her for ditching the baggage?
• Yes, necessity. She could say she was forced to choose between 2 evils and ditching the baggage was the lesser evil.
Pilot of National Guard on a training mission. Sees 1st plane crash into WTC, saw another plane heading towards WTC. On a training mission w/ no orders from higher authority. Pilot shoots 2nd plane, killing everyone on the plane, but sparing the lives of those in the 2nd tower.
• Defense of necessity. If you save more people than you lose, then on the balance of evils approach, the necessity would be accepted.
What are are the elements of the necessity defense?
o1. Choice of evils
o2 Greater evil is imminent
o3.Chose lesser evil
o4. Choice had good chance to avert greater evil
o5. No legal alternatives
oFairness (draw straws)
what are the elements of duress?
•1.) Reasonable fear
•2) Imminent threat
•3) Death or great bodily harm
•4.) No reasonable opportunity to escape
•5.) Surrender to authority
What is the MPC view on strick liability for crimes?
Only would allow for regulatory crimes
Can you use relaince on your lawyers statements as a defense?
NO•
Under the reliance principle, where gov’t is responsible for telling somebody something in an authoritative way that his/her conduct is lawful, Δ can then rely on statute or court decision, even if it turns out to be unconstitutional or wrong in some way.
oPeople should rely on what DA says, but can’t rely on your own lawyer
Infancy Defense?
•C/L
o(1) Under 7- no capacity
o(2) 7-14 rebuttable presumption of NO capacity
•CA PC-26: Incapable if under 14, UNLESS there is clear proof of knowledge of wrongfulness
Consent of victim defense?
•Generally NOT a defense to a crime
•Unless it negates an element: i.e. Rape
Reliance of Government as an excuse?
• Under the reliance principle, where gov’t is responsible for telling somebody something in an authoritative way that his/her conduct is lawful, Δ can then rely on statute or court decision, even if it turns out to be unconstitutional or wrong in some way.
oPeople should rely on what DA says, but can’t rely on your own lawyer
Unconsciousness: what is the C/L view and the MPC view?
oOld View= Excuse
oModern View= No crime because no “willed” act (i.e. no Actus reus) (MPC)-so would apply to strict liability crimes.
NOT defense if brought on by voluntary intoxication?