Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
104 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Utilitarian
|
• Future benefit to society
• Punishment is justified by benefits accrued from it • General deterrence • Specific deterrence |
|
|
Individual deterrence
|
Knowledge that if defendant repeats his act, he will be punished again
|
|
|
General deterrence
(utilitarian) |
• Knowledge that punishment will follow the crime
• Deters people from committing crimes • Greater temptation to commit the crime + smaller chance of detection = greater penalty |
|
|
Retributive
|
• Just deserts
• Punishment is justified because people deserve it • Positive retribution • Negative retribution • Assaultive retribution • Protective retribution |
|
|
POSITIVE retribution
|
Guilt is both a necessity and sufficient condition for punishment
|
|
|
NEGATIVE retribution
|
Guilt is a necessary condition and the innocent should NEVER be punished
|
|
|
ASSAULTIVE retribution
|
Criminals should be treated as noxious insects to be ground under heel of society
|
|
|
PROTECTIVE retribution
|
Just society has a right to punish wrongdoers and criminals have a right to be punished (to pay back to their community)
|
|
|
STEPS OF
Statutory Interpretation |
1) Look at statute's plain language
2) Look at dictionary 3) Look at other parts of statute 4) Legislative history 5) Rule of lenity |
|
|
Voluntary Acts
(actus reus) |
Physical and external part of crime; objective culpable act
• Must be VOLUNTARY and VOLITIONAL (under defendant's control) |
|
|
Things that are NOT voluntary acts under MPC 2.01(2)
|
• Reflex or convulsion
• Bodily movement while unconscious/asleep • Hypnotic conduct • Bodily movement not product of effort and determination of the actor |
|
|
JONES situations where failure to act
= breach of duty |
1) Law imposes duty
2) Relationships 3) Contractual assumptions 4) Voluntary assumption of care 5) Create risk of harm to another |
|
|
COMMON LAW
levels of mens rea |
• Intent
- Conscious object of actor - Knowledge of natural consequences • Recklessness - Aware of risks but ignore them • Negligence - Not aware of risks but a REASONABLE PERSON should be |
|
|
COMMON LAW is silent
re:mens rea...what happens? |
Default = general blameworthiness
|
|
|
Specific Intent
|
Some intent exists beyond just the actus reus
|
|
|
General Intent
|
No specific intent is required; just prove actus reus
|
|
|
MPC levels of culpability
|
• Purposely
• Knowingly • Recklessly • Negligently |
|
|
MPC:
"Purposely" (culpability) |
Conscious object to cause a result
• Act with desire |
|
|
MPC:
"Knowingly" (culpability) |
Awareness that the result is VIRTUALLY CERTAIN to occur
OR aware attendant circumstances exist |
|
|
MPC:
"Recklessly" (culpability) |
Defendant takes a substantial/unjustifiable risk of causing a particular harm
• Must be consciously aware of risk |
|
|
MPC:
"Negligently" (culpability) |
Defendant should be aware but isn't of a substantial/unjustifiable risk
|
|
|
MPC silent regarding mens rea...
what happens? |
RECKLESSNESS is presumed
|
|
|
COMMON LAW
strict liability |
• public welfare offenses
• small fees and punishments |
|
|
MPC
strict liability |
doesn't exist
|
|
|
COMMON LAW
specific intent offense rule |
mistake of fact is a defense for specific intent crime IF mistake negates specific intent element
|
|
|
COMMON LAW
general intent offense rule |
actor commits actus reus of offense with no mens rea culpability
• exceptions: - moral wrong doctrine - legal wrong doctrine |
|
|
Moral Wrong doctrine
|
even if mistake of fact, reasonable, intentional commission of immoral act is the requisite blameworthiness to justify conviction assuming actus reus is present
|
|
|
Legal Wrong doctrine
|
same as moral wrong doctrine, but defendant conduct is based on facts he believes constitutes a crime
• can be convicted of most serious offense defendant is guilty of still |
|
|
MPC
mistake of fact/law is a defense if __...? |
MPC 2.04
(1)(a) - ignorance/mistake negates purpose/knowledge/belief/recklessness/negligence required (1)(b) - law provides that state of mind established by mistake of fact constitutes a defense |
|
|
MPC
NO mistake of fact/law defense if __...? |
MPC 2.04
(2) - defendant guilty of another crime using facts he supposed by mistake of fact (3) - mistake of law is not a defense if law is unpublished, relied upon wrong official statement |
|
|
Substantial Factor Test
(actual cause) |
defendant conduct can be substantial factor in bringing the result
|
|
|
Intervening Cause/Force
|
occurs after defendant action but before social harm occurs
|
|
|
Intended Consequence Rule
|
any intended consequence of an act is proximate cause, despite intervening force
|
|
|
Apparent Safety Doctrine
|
victim gets in apparent safety and defendant involvement drops out of the picture
• defendant is not a proximate cause of anything that happens to victim after |
|
|
Voluntary Human Intervention
|
cuts off liability of previous harm caused by defendant
|
|
|
Responsive Intervening Cause
|
force that comes into play as a result of defendant conduct
• defendant still liable and is proximate cause |
|
|
Conditional Intervening Cause
|
cause already existed, but defendant put victim in the place where coincidence could act on it
|
|
|
COMMON LAW
homicide definition |
killing of a human being by another human being
• victim MUST die within one year and one day to be homicide |
|
|
COMMON LAW
murder |
unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought
|
|
|
COMMON LAW
malice aforethought |
• intent to kill
• intent to cause grievous harm • depraved heart • intent to commit felony |
|
|
COMMON LAW
murder 1st degree |
death by means of:
• poison, lying in wait • other kind of willful, deliberate, premeditated killing |
|
|
COMMON LAW
murder 2nd degree |
Any murder not murder 1st degree
• intentional killing or depraved heart killing |
|
|
COMMON LAW
manslaughter |
unlawful killing of a human being without malice
|
|
|
COMMON LAW
voluntary manslaughter |
manslaughter upon sudden quarrel or heat of passion
|
|
|
COMMON LAW / Girouard
Rules of heat of passion provocation |
1) must have adequate provocation (calculated to inflame passion of reasonable man and cause to act for the moment)
2) must be sudden heat of passion; no cooling off 3) must have causal connection between provocation and actions of defendant |
|
|
COMMON LAW
involuntary manslaughter |
reckless or grossly negligent killing
• unintentional |
|
|
MPC
murder |
MPC 210.2
1) purposely/knowingly/recklessly 2) showing EXTREME INDIFFERENCE for human life |
|
|
MPC
extreme indifference of human life ASSUMED for __...? |
when defendant is engaged or is accomplice of:
• robbery • rape • deviate sexual intercourse via force/threat of arson/burg/kidnapping |
|
|
MPC
manslaughter |
MPC 210.3
• committed recklessly OR • committed under influence of EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE |
|
|
MPC
"Extreme Emotional Disturbance" |
MPC 210.3(1)(b)
Reasonableness is determined from view of person in the actor's situation under circumstances he believes them to be |
|
|
FELONY MURDER
- Policy for - |
shows society's strong condemnation of behavior that led to victim's death
|
|
|
FELONY MURDER
- Policy against - |
• Abolished in U.K.
• Deterrence doesn't work |
|
|
COMMON LAW
felony murder |
• limited to grievous felonies
• strict liability - but must still be INHERENTLY DANGEROUS FELONY |
|
|
COMMON LAW
rape |
sexual intercourse BY A MALE with a FEMALE (not his wife) that is:
• forcible • by means of deception • female unconscious • female not competent |
|
|
COMMON LAW
"non-consent" |
words or actions clearly manifesting absence of consent
|
|
|
COMMON LAW rape
General or specific intent? |
General
• must intend the act of penetration |
|
|
MPC
rape |
MPC 213
• acting purposely, knowingly, recklessly • has sexual intercourse • if female is under 10, is unconscious, compelled by use of force or threat of imminent death, bodily harm, extreme pain |
|
|
COMMON LAW rape
"resistance" |
Some force is needed to sow victim resisted and resistance was overcome by force OR threats to victim safety
|
|
|
MPC rape
"resistance" |
not required
|
|
|
Justification defenses
|
• Self defense
• Defense of others • Defense of property • Necessity |
|
|
Excuse defenses
|
• duress
• intoxication • insanity |
|
|
COMMON LAW
self defense |
justified if defendant, at the time, REASONABLY BELIEVED force was NECESSARY to combat IMMINENT deadly force
• defendant can't be the aggressor • OBJECTIVE BELIEF |
|
|
MPC
self defense |
MPC 3.04
defendant believes such force is IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to protect against death, serious bodily injury, rape, kidnapping • SUBJECTIVE BELIEF |
|
|
MPC
Is self defense a complete defense? |
No, it lowers the crime to a lesser offense
|
|
|
MPC
Self defense - "retreat" |
Actor must retreat if possible UNLESS at home or work
• Can't be aggressor |
|
|
COMMON LAW
defense of others |
person is justified in using force to protect a third party from unlawful use of force by an aggressor to the extent that the third party is justified in acting in self-defense
|
|
|
MPC
defense of others |
MPC 3.05
justified to intervene to protect a third party if: • no more force than entitled to use in self-protection, based on SUBJECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES • 3rd party would also be justified in using such force in self-defense; SUBJECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES • he believes that intervention is necessary for the third party's protection |
|
|
COMMON LAW
defense of property |
may use non-deadly force against would-be dispossessor if reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful dispossession of property
|
|
|
MPC
defense of property |
MPC 3.06
can use force to defend property when: • believed to be immediately necessary to prevent theft • unless it is believed actor could first request thief to desist |
|
|
Defense of Habitation
|
asserted when occupant of a home uses deadly force to prevent intrusion into his "castle"
|
|
|
COMMON LAW
necessity defense |
• act must be done to avoid significant evil
• must be no adequate alternative • harm caused must not have been disproportionate to harm avoided |
|
|
MPC
necessity defense |
MPC 3.02
• defendant believes conduct is necessary to avoid harm • harm avoided must be greater than the offense • if actor was reckless or negligent in culpability, defense isn't available |
|
|
COMMON LAW
duress defense |
• immediate threat of death or serious injury
• well-grounded fear that threat will be carried out • no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm - can't be used for murder |
|
|
MPC
duress defense |
MPC 2.09
• coerced to do "X" by use of , or threat to use, unlawful force against person or another • that a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist |
|
|
MPC
Insanity |
MPC 4.01
• as a result of mental disease or defect, defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of the conduct OR • when as a result of mental disease/defect, defendant lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to requirements of law (in other words, defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate wrong of conduct OR confirm conduct to requirements of law) |
|
|
COMMON LAW
4 tests |
• McNaughten test
• Irresistible Impulse test • Product test • Federal test |
|
|
COMMON LAW / INSANITY
McNaughten test |
Must clearly prove:
• party accused was laboring under defect of reason from disease of mind AND • didn't know nature/quality of act OR • if he did know quality of act, he didn't know the act he was doing was wrong |
|
|
COMMON LAW / INSANITY
Irresistible Impulse test |
• by virtue of natural condition he is driven by insane impulses to commit act
• unable to choose between right and wrong • will was destroyed so actions were beyond control |
|
|
COMMON LAW / INSANITY
Product test |
• accused isn't responsible criminally if unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect
|
|
|
COMMON LAW / INSANITY
Federal test |
defendant must show with clear and convincing evidence that at the time of offense, defendant was unable to appreciate nature and quality of conduct or wrongfulness of conduct
|
|
|
COMMON LAW
attempt |
mens rea:
• specific intent to commit the target offense and intent to attempt even if the attempted crime doesn't require it actus reus: • 4 different tests - probable desistance test - abnormal step test - dangerous proximity - unequivocally standard |
|
|
COMMON LAW / ATTEMPT
probable desistance test |
attempt / actus reus (OBJECTIVE test)
• requires judgment for attempt when actor reaches a point where it is unlikely that he will voluntarily desist from his efforts to commit the crime |
|
|
COMMON LAW / ATTEMPT
abnormal step test |
attempt / actus reus
• attempt is a step toward crime which goes beyond the point where normal citizen would think better of his conduct and desist |
|
|
COMMON LAW / ATTEMPT
dangerous proximity |
attempt / actus reus
• person must go beyond first steps necessary before substantive crime can come to pass; degree of proximity held sufficient may vary with circumstances |
|
|
COMMON LAW / ATTEMPT
unequivocally standard |
act does not constitute an attempt unless the actor's specific criminal purpose is evident from her conduct; without considering any statement she may have made before, during, after incident regarding her state of mind
|
|
|
MPC
attempt |
MPC 5.01
conscious object to engage in conduct or cause the result that would constitute the substantive offense PLUS the actus reus of what has ALREADY been done complete attempt / conduct crime: "purposely engages in conduct that would constitute crime if attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be" complete attempt / result crime: "does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with belief that it will cause result without further conduct on his part incomplete attempt: "under circumstances he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in court of conduct planned to culminate commission of crime |
|
|
MPC / ATTEMPT
complete conduct crime |
complete attempt / conduct crime: "purposely engages in conduct that would constitute crime if attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be"
|
|
|
MPC / ATTEMPT
complete result crime |
complete attempt / result crime: "does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with belief that it will cause result without further conduct on his part
|
|
|
MPC / ATTEMPT
incomplete attempt |
incomplete attempt: "under circumstances he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in court of conduct planned to culminate commission of crime
|
|
|
sentencing for attempt under MPC and COMMON LAW
|
MPC: same as crime except capital crimes
CL: 10-50 years for capital crimes; 1/2 sentence for other crimes |
|
|
COMMON LAW
factual impossibility defense |
when defendant's intended end constitutes a crime but she fails to consummate it because of a factual circumstance unknown to her or beyond her control
(or when objective of defendant is proscribed by criminal law but a circumstance unknown to defendant prevents him from bringing objective) |
|
|
COMMON LAW
legal impossibility defense (pure/hybrid/general) |
"pure" legal impossibility: exists if criminal law doesn't prohibit defendant conduct or result that she sought to achieve
"hybrid" legal impossibility: if defendant goal is illegal but the commission of the offense was impossible due to a factual mistake by her regarding legal status of some factor relevant to defendant conduct "general" legal impossibility: since most courts don't break it up / actions which defendant performs or sets in motions, even if fully carried out as desired, would not constitute a crime |
|
|
MPC
impossibility |
abandons legal impossibility
|
|
|
COMMON LAW
abandonment defense to attempt |
if defendant voluntarily and completely abandons criminal purpose
• not voluntarily motivated by unexpected resistance or some other circumstance that increases likelihood of arrest |
|
|
MPC
abandonment defense to attempt |
MPC 5.01(4)
not guilty of attempt if: • defedant abandons his effort to commit the crime or prevents t from being committed • conduct manifests a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose • not valid if defendant just postpones crime |
|
|
COMMON LAW
assault |
based off common law battery
• battery = any unlawful application of force to person of another willfully or in anger assault = attempted battery - can't be committed unless alleged assailant had no intent to injure or gun was unloaded |
|
|
MPC
assault |
MPC 211.1
• attempt to cause or purposely/knowingly/recklessly cause bodily injury to another • negligently causes bodily injury to another with deadly weapon • attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury |
|
|
MPC
aggravated assault |
MPC 211.1(2)
attempt to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely/knowingly/recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to value of human life • attempts to cause or purposely/knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon |
|
|
COMMON LAW
solicitation |
actus reus: takes place when one person invites, requests, commands, hires or encourages another to commit a particular offense
mens rea: must intentionally commit the actus reus • one SOLICITED needs to do the crime, not the one SOLICITING |
|
|
MPC
solicitation |
MPC 5.02
• defendant purpose is to promote or facilitate commission of a substantive offense • with that purpose, defendant commands, encourages, or request another person to engage in conduct that would constitute the crime, an attempt, or would establish the other's complicity in its commission |
|
|
MPC / SOLICITATION
defense of renunciation |
person isn't guilty of solicitation if he completely and voluntarily renounces criminal intent and either persuades solicited party not to commit the offense or otherwise prevents him from committing the crime
|
|
|
COMMON LAW
conspiracy |
mens rea: specific intent required
• intent to agree • intent that object of their agreement be achieved |
|
|
COMMON LAW / CONSPIRACY
Pinkerton rule |
overt act of one partner may be considered overt act of all; criminal liability extends to everyone in conspiracy and partners carry on acts for each other
• everyone goes down |
|
|
MPC
conspiracy |
MPC 5.03
• person can agree to commit an offense • person can agree to attempt to commit an offense • person can solicit another to commit an offense • person can aid another person in the planning or commission of the offense |
