Crim Law

Front 1

M'Naghten Test

Back 1

1 of 4 insanity tests. D must be acquitted if he has a disease of the mind that caused a defect of reason so that at the time of his actions he lacked the ability to know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions.

Hint 1

cognition based

Front 2

Murder

Back 2

the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought

Front 3

Malice aforethought

Back 3

exists if D has any of the following states of mind:
1. intent to kill
2. intent to inflict great bodily injury
3. awareness of an unjustifiably high risk to human life
4. intent to commit a felony (limited in most states to dangerous ones), i.e., malice will be implied from the intent to commit the underlying felony

Hint 3

4 different mindsets

Front 4

Voluntary manslaughter

Back 4

intentional killing distingiushable form murder by the existence of adequate provocation (D must be acting under a provocation that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person so as to cause him to lose self control with an insufficient time between provocation and the killing for the passions of a reasonable person to cool)

Front 5

Adequate Provocation

Back 5

D must be acting under a provocation that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person so as to cause him to lose self control with an insufficient time between provocation and the killing for the passions of a reasonable person to cool

Front 6

Involuntary manslaughter

Back 6

Death is caused by D's criminal negligence (when a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circs exist or that a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the std of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circs. Reqs a greater deviation from the "reasonable person" std than is req'd for civil liability)

Front 7

Criminal negligence

Back 7

When a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circs exist or that a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the std of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circs. Reqs a greater deviation from the "reasonable person" std than is req'd for civil liability

Front 8

Characteristics of a valid warrantless search

Back 8

voluntary and intelligent consent by any person reasonably believed to have equal right to use or occupation of the property (note: just b/c cops can reasonably believe and/or get consent to search the premises doesn't mean they can search locked items/rooms on the premises if the person consenting is not the owner)

Front 9

Legal duty to act

Back 9

There is NONE generally, although a duty can arise by 1. statute,
2. contract,
3. close relationship bet victim and D,
4. vol assumption of care by the D,
5. or creation of the peril by the D

Hint 9

5 exceptions

Front 10

Attempted murder

Back 10

SPECIFIC INTENT CRIME. Reqs an actual intent to kill

Front 11

Attempt

Back 11

SPECIFIC INTENT - requires an act beyond mere preparation for the offense

Front 12

Search after an arrest

Back 12

Cops may make a warrantless search of D's personal effects as part of an established procedure incident to incarceration.

Front 13

Statutory Rape

Back 13

the crime of carnal knowledge of a female under the age of consent

Front 14

Robbery

Back 14

1. The taking of personal property of another
2. from the other's person or presence
3. by force or intimidation
4. with the intent to permanently deprive him of it

Front 15

Assault

Back 15

SPECIFIC INTENT. An attempt to commit a battery, or the intentional creation (other than by mere words) of a reasonable apprehension in mind of vic of bodily harm

Front 16

Privilege against self-incrimination

Back 16

Miranda rights. 1) rt to remain silent, 2) anything D says can be held against him, 3) rt to an atty, 4) if can't afford an atty, one will be apptd.

Pros is not allowed to comment upon the D's failure to testify at trial. 5th am outweighs the pros's right to comment on the state of evidence.

Front 17

Fruit of the Poisonous tree

Back 17

evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of illegally obtained evidence.

Note: Live witness evidence requires a more direct link with the taint than other potentially excludable evidence. Ct will consider the degree to which witness is freely willing to testify

Front 18

Burglary

Back 18

1. breaking and entering
2. of the dwelling of another
3. at night
4. with the intent of committing a felony therein

Front 19

Larceny

Back 19

1. taking and carrying away
2. of tangible personal property of another
3. by trespass (w/out permission)
4. with the intent of permanently depriving the person of his interest in the property

Front 20

6 exceptions to the search warrant requirement

Back 20

1. search incident to a lawful arrest
2. the auto exception
3. plain view
4. consent
5. stop and frisk (Terry)
6. hot pursuit, evanescent evidence, and similar emergencies

Hint 20

CAPASH

Front 21

When can police make a warrantless seizure?

Back 21

When they are
1. legitimately on the premises
2. discover evid, fruits, or instrumentalities of crime, or contraband
3. see such evid in plain view
4. have PC to believe the item is evid, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of crime

Front 22

Exception to self-defense

Back 22

general rule is one may use deadly force in self-defense even if the use of force could be avoided by retreating safely. EXCEPTION: does not apply to one who is the initial aggressor. Still, aggressor can regain defense either by 1) comm w/drawal to other person or 2) when other person suddenly escalates a minor fight into one involving deadly force

Hint 22

name general rule, then exception, then exception to exception

Front 23

Self-defense defense

Back 23

person may use deadly force in self-defense if
1. he is without fault
2. he is confronted with unlawful force, and
3. he is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm

Front 24

Larceny by trick

Back 24

1. when victim consents to the D's taking possession of the property,
2. but such consent has been induced by a misrepresentation

Note: possession has greater rights than custody. Don't get confused.

Front 25

False pretenses

Back 25

1. obtaining title to the
2. property of another
3. by an intentional or knowing false statement of past or existing fact
4. with intent to defraud the other

Front 26

Embezzlement

Back 26

1. the fraudulent conversion
2. of property of another
3. by a person in lawful possession of that property

Front 27

Arson

Back 27

the malicious burning of a dwelling of another; reqs damage to the structure (right to occupancy, not ownership, is determinative)