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

74 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
- Crime must be defined in Terms of Conduct

- There must be an act, not merely a status or condition

- Defining a crime in terms of a "status" rather than a particular activity, violates the 8th Amendment prohibition agaisnt cruel and unusual punishment

- California statute that made it a crime to be addicted to narcotics

- Part of the act referring to ADDICTED TO THE USE OF NARCOTICS is based upon a condition or status and not an act
Actus Reus
- The act or omission required to impose criminal liability

- Must have an Act, Result, and Attendant Circumstances

- Can either be:
1) act of commission (affirmatively doing something)

2) act of omission (failing to do something)
- Although "being an alcoholic" cannot constitue a crime, an alcoholic can be convicted of apearing in public while drunk even though that appearance is related to his status as an alcoholic

- A person can be convicted of a crime requiring a particular act, even if that act is closely related to the person's status
- Cannot commit a crime unless it is voluntary

- The physical movement constituting the act must be a conscious and volitional one

- Guy went into house and claimed that he was unconcious when he shot ex wife, kid, and other man

- Unconsciousness is a complete, not a partial defense to a criminal charge

- Unconsciousness is never an affirmative defense
- Defendant presented evidence that he had been diagnosed as diabetic and placed on insulin injections, and had, before the assault, received an injection but failed to eat, leading to a drop in blood sugar; therefore the assault occurred during a brief episode in which he was unconscious or semi-conscious due to hypoglycemia and he had not knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly tried to harm the victim.

- Persons who were unconscious or semi-conscious at the time of an alleged offense may argue either that they lacked the mens rea necessary for criminal liability, or they may argue that they did not engage in a voluntary act

- The insanity defense is not available to a defendant who was unconscious or semi-conscious at the time of the alleged offense because he did not know his conduct was wrong only because he did not consciously know of his conduct at all.
- A trial court must submit a lesser included offense to the jury if: (1) such offense is included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged, and (2) there is some evidence in the record that if the defendant is guilty, he is guilty only of the lesser offense. The second element is satisfied only when the evidence of the lesser offense would be sufficient for a jury rationally to find that the defendant is guilty only of that offense and not the greater offense.

- Under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 6.01(a), a person suspected of burglary must have voluntarily entered the habitation of another.

- The State may give notice of its intent to seek a deadly weapon finding in one of two ways: (1) by pleading the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon in the indictment, or (2) by filing a separate pleading giving notice of such intent.

- Due course of law, under Tex. Const. art. I, § 19, requires the State to give notice of its intent to seek a finding on a deadly weapon issue.

- Under Tex. Code Crim. P. Ann. art. 38.30(a), interpreters are governed by the same rules and penalties as are provided for witnesses. Thus, Tex. R. Crim. Evid. 613 applies to interpreters in the same manner as it applies to witnesses.
- Texas Penal Code stress that the "voluntary act" requirement does not necessarily go to the ultimate act (e.g., pulling the trigger), but only that criminal responsibility for the harm must "include an act" that is voluntary (e.g., pulling the gun, pointing the gun, or cocking the hammer).

- before criminal responsibility may be imposed, the actor's conduct must "include[] either a voluntary act or an omission when the defendant was capable of action." n22 The operative [**18] word under Section 6.01(a), for present purposes, is "include."
TPC § 6.01 Requirement of Voluntary Act or Omission
1. A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission, or possession

2. Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly obtains or receives the thing possessed or is aware of his control of the thing for a sufficient time to permit him to terminate his control

3. A person who omits to perform an act does not commit an offense unless a law as defined by § 1.07 provides that the omission is an offense or otherwise provides that he has a duty to perform the act
TPC § 22.04(a) & (b) Crime Defined by Failure to Act
- A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual:
1. serious bodily injury;
2. serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or
3. bodily injury

- An omission that causes a condition described by subsection (a)(1), (2), (3) is conduct constituting an offense under this section if:
1. the actor has a legal or statutory duty to act; or
2. the actor has assumed care, custody, or control of a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual
TPC § 22.041 Abandoning or Endangering Child
i. In this section, “abandon” means to leave a child in a place without providing reasonable and necessary care for the child, under circumstances under which no reasonable, similarly situated adult would leave a child of that age and ability

ii. A person commits an offense it, having custody, care, or control of a child younger than 15 yrs, he intentionally abandons the child in any place under circumstances that expose the child to an unreasonable risk of harm

iii. A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or omission, engages in conduct that places a child younger than 15 years in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment
- Liability based on failure to act

- Duty based on personal relationship and duty based on creation of peril

- Lady and bf been living together, get into fight, stabs him, then runs away, he dies on patio

- These individuals who had lived together for 6 yrs owed each other the personal relationship duty. Duty of “mutual reliance” is imposed upon “two people, though not closely related, who live together under one roof.”

- Before there can be criminal liability, the failure to summon medical aid must be the cause in fact of the aggressor’s death, not the justified use of force

- The victim has but one duty after fending off an attack, and that is the duty owed to one’s self—as a matter of self-preservation—to seek and secure safety away from the place the attack occurred. Thus, the person who justifiably acts in self-defense is temporarily afforded the same status as the innocent bystander under the American Rule

- The duty to summon aid may in fact be “revived” as the State contends, but only after the victim of the aggressor has fully exercised her right to seek and secure safety from personal harm

- Also hold that when a person justifiably uses force to fend off an aggressor, that person has no duty to assist her aggressor in any manner that may conceivable create the risk of bodily injury or death to herself or other persons
Liability for would that cuases loss of blood (accidentally/self-defense)
- A wound that causes a loss of blood undoubtedly places a person in some degree of peril, and therefore gives rise to a legal duty to either:

1) personally provide assistance; or

2) summon medical assistance
American Bystander Rule
- This rule imposes no legal duty on a person to rescue or summon aid for another person who is at risk or in danger, even though society recognizes that a moral obligation exists. This is true even “when that aid can be rendered without danger or inconvenience to” the potential rescuer.
7 common-law exceptions to the American bystander rule
1. A duty based on a personal relationship such as parent-child or husband-wife

2. A duty based on statute
a. based on omission

3. A duty based on contract
a. nurse

4. A duty based upon voluntary assumption of care
a. babysitter

5. A duty based on creation of the peril
a. you hurt the person

6. A duty to control the conduct of others
a. Teachers at school

7. A duty based on being a landowner
a. If you know there is a danger on your property
Exceptions to Exceptions of American bystander rule
1. Personal relationship exceptions:
a. Does not require a person to jeopardize his own life
b. Duty does not arise unless the spouse unintentionally entered a helpless state, or was otherwise incompetent to summon medical aid on his or her own behalf

2. Law does not require that a person, who places another person in a position of peril, risk bodily injury or death in the performance of the legally imposed duty to render assistance

3. GOOD SAMARITAN DOCTRINE --> imposes a legal duty to render or summon aid for imperiled strangers, do not require that the would-be rescuer risk bodily injury or death
a. If you are trying to save someone and you hurt them in the process if not unreasonable then will not be held liable
3 Basic Rules for Defining the Act
1) The act defines the line between criminal and non-criminal behavior

2) The act required for a crime serves as a basis for calculating how many crimes have been committed in a course of conduct

3) The act serves as a basis for distinguishing the offense at issue from others that may be related to it
- Cegers was shown to have assaulted his victim with a knife when he nudged him awake
Automatic behavior caused by insanity
- While automatic behavior could be caused by insanity, "unconsiousness at the time of the alleged criminal act need not be the result of a disease or defect of the mind"
Inability to remember an event
- Mere inability to remember an event, in and of itslef, cannot establish automatism, since the relevant inquiry involves the accused's knowledge and control at the time of the conduct, not at the time of trial
- Guy was given ticket for being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle. Cross had engine running and half way in vehicle

- State provided ample evidence sufficent to establish that he was operating a motor vehicle as the term used in the statute

- Under new statute, operates means physically driving or operating

- Under old statute, operates included physically driving or operating or being in actual physicial control
Voluntary actions taken before the accused became unconscious
- general rule appears to be that an accused who causes the death of another as a result of becoming unconscious because of an epileptic seizure is criminally responsible in undertaking to drive knowing that he or she may become unconscious. The critical factor is knowledge that one is subject to epileptic seizures.

- if know have seizures and go to doctor then do nothing about it and risk possibility while driving and then kill people while driving because of seizure can and probably will be convicted of for instance criminally negligent homicide and aggravated assault (recklessly causing serious bodily injury)
- Δ was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for the death of a 10 month old infant who had been left in her care by the child’s mother.

- Death was attributed to severe malnutrition and lack of adequate medical care.
- Δ was charged with endangering the welfare of a child – “knowingly acting in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of a child” – by leaving the child “alone in a locked apartment” and thereby causing the child to be frightened.

- Leaving child alone is an act, not an omission. Therefore, no duty need exist on the part of the actor to the victim to impose criminal liability for behavior that rises to the level of endangering.

- In cases where the courts have required some relationship or duty on the part of the Δ towards the complainant to sustain a charge of endangering a child, the behavior at issue constituted acts of omission
- Court found no criminal liability where a “casual babysitter” was unaware a chronically ill child had not received his medication and was suffering from dehydration, and thus failed to adequately care for him
TPC § 1.07(a)(34) Omission
- Omission means failure to act

- There can only be an omission if there is a failure. There can only be a failure if there is a duty.
- Court held that under certain circumstances a husband has a duty to summon medical aid for his wife and breach of that duty could render him criminally liable

- Wife was suffering from terminal kidney and liver diseases, fell and fractured both her arms. Husband put her in bed and did not summon a doctor till 2 days later and as she laid there to die only gave her one glass of water.

- Although the wife ultimately died of kidney failure, Δ was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, because his failure to act hastened his wife’s death
- Court imposed that the legal duty imposed on the personal relationship of husband and wife could not be extended to a temporary, non-family relationship

- Court held that a married Δ had no duty to summon medical help for his mistress, who was staying in his house for the weekend, after she took morphine following a bout of heavy drinking and fell into a “stupor”
TPC § 6.01(c) Omission for Actus Reus
- A person who omits to perform an act does not commit an offense unless a law provides that the omission is an offense or otherwise provides that he has a duty to perform the act
Larceny (Common Law)
- It was defined as a (1) trespassory (if one takes possession of victims property, without consent or in the absence of the justification consential dispossession) (2) taking and (3) carrying away of the (4) property (5) of another (6) with intent to steal it. Intent meant the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the owner’s interest in the property. Larceny could only be committed by obtaining personal property

- The animus furandi (intention to steal) must accompany the taking, but the wrongful taking of property in itself imports the animus furandi

- The intent to steal means the intent to PERMANENTLY deprive the owner of the owner's interest in the property

- At common law required property to be tangible and intangible property, such as checks, could not be subject of larceny.

- Services, were not covered by larceny
Elements of Larceny
1) Something specific was taken

2) That the item stolen was the property of another

3) The Δ took it with the specific intent to permanently deprive the victim of his property
Possession of Goods Entrusted to Employee
- General rule that goods entrusted to an employee were not deemed to be in his possession, but were only considered to be in his custody, so long as he remained on employer's premises
King v. Pear
- Larceny by Trick

- Δ who had lied about his address and ultimate destination when renting a horse was found guilty of larceny for later converting the horse. Because of the fraudulent misrepresentation, the court reasoned, the Δ had never obtained legal possession.
- Wrongfully acquiring property without permission

- Guy in lowes, put 2 tv's in cart, going outside through garden section, spotted, and then runs away, later told manager had gun and to stop, cops later stopped him and found no means to pay for tv's on person

- Δ was convicted of LARCENY and was held that he was being in possession/taking of property

- Retailers implicitly grant bona fide customers the privilege to move goods offered for sale, in order for customers to accumulate all the goods desired and to transport them to a designated area for payment

- The mere removal of merchandise from a display shelf to a shopping car, and the subsequent movement of the shopping cart to other areas of the store, is not larceny unless the evidence otherwise shows that the taking was with the intent to steal

- Where there is evidence that an individual has acted in a manner that is inconsistent with that of a prospective purchaser, and has exercised immediate dominion and control over the property, despite his continued presence within the owner’s store, such conduct establishes sufficient possession to satisfy that element of larceny

- In determining intent, the fact finder may consider the conduct of the person involved and all the circumstances revealed by the evidence

- The specific intent in the person’s mind may, and often must, be inferred from that person’s conduct and statements.
- The criminal act occurred when Martin told the sales associate that the shirts had been given to her sons. By claiming she had ownership of the shirts, she exercised control over the shirts in a manner which was contrary to the store’s ownership. In effect, there was a verbal concealment and exertion of control by appellant
- Larceny by False Pretenses

- Car dealership salesman was taking advantage of person because they didn’t know they were getting ripped off. Constantly made abnormal profits and under valuing cars brought in by person.

- The finder of fact may infer a false statement as to the value of the 6 trucks from the inordinate profit margin, from the manifestly unrealistic trade-in allowances, and from the inflation over sticker prices

- False statements of value could also be inferred from evidence given by an experienced car dealer that sales above sticker price were not normal, nor was it normal to take $7,000 off the price of a vehicle that had been driven only for 24 hrs and 33 miles

- False Pretence may consist of an act, symbol, or token calculated to deceive, such as grossly off-market prices or credits stated on forms of an established automobile agency selling a respected line of automobiles.

- A false pretence may be made by implication as well as by verbal declaration
Larceny by Trick (Common Law)
- limited to situations in which possession of, but not title to, the property had been obtained by the wrongdoer’s false statements.
- not a crime at Common Law because there was no trespassory taking.
- If one came into possession of property with the owner's consent and subsequently absconded with it, no crime was made out becuase there had not been a trespassory taking

- must prove that Δ “unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converted the property. Theft by embezzlement must be an intentional and fraudulent appropriation and for conviction ‘it must be beyond a reasonable doubt that the Δ had a criminal intent to defraud.’“
Extortion (Common Law)
- could be committed only by a public officer and consisted of taking of a fee not authorized by law.
Larceny by False Pretenses
1. A false statement of fact was made

2. The Δ know or believed the statement to be false when he made it

3. The Δ intended that the person to whom he made the false statement would rely on it, and

4. The person to whom the false statement was made did rely on it and consequently parted with property

- False Pretence may consist of an act, symbol, or token calculated to deceive, such as grossly off-market prices or credits stated on forms of an established automobile agency selling a respected line of automobiles.

- A false pretence may be made by implication as well as by verbal declaration

- Hot checks are not by Larceny by False Pretense when you tell someone not to cash a check until a certain time and then on that time you try to cash it and there is insufficient funds
Constructive Possession
- Where only have custody of proprety rather than possession

- Owners were also said to retain "constructive possession" of lost property or property delivered to another for very limited purposes

- Ex. If have property and then give it to someone like vallet
- When somone has control over property to use it with unrestrictive activity
- Embezzlment Larceny

- man caught fish and gave to another to sell it for him, who never paid man the money

- There mere failure to make good on a commercial transaction, whether a consignment or a transaction by another name, particularly in the context of bankruptcy, does not establish the criminal intent required for an embezzlement conviction.

- In cases in which the inference of an intent to steal or defraud is warranted, there is some evidence of an affirmative effort to mislead the owner of the property.
- Embezzlment

- Police officer who use his assigned sheriff’s department vehicle to steal a lawnmower. Δ was convicted under a statute providing that certain persons, clearly including Redondo, commit embezzlement if any such person “fraudulently appropriates to any use or purpose not in the due and unlawful execution of his trust, any property which he has in his possession or under his control by virtue of his trust.”

- Although Δ’s journey was brief, his use was without the authorization and was clearly inconsistent with the owner’s rights and inconsistent with the nature of the trust reposed in Δ.
- A city council person used a city-owned automobile to travel more than 4,000 miles on a pleasure trip.

- He was charged with willful or corrupt misconduct

- Appellate Court found that the Δ had embezzled property from the city.

- Such a journey without authorization required a use of the car that was inconsistent with its owner’s right and inconsistent with eh nature of the trust reposed in appellant and therefore it was embezzlement.
- Embezzlment

- Δ enlisted the aid of a phone company employee to provide him with a daily list of new phone company subscribers. After Δ was given the list, he quickly copied and retuned them to the employee

- Appellate Court found the lists were property because they were physical goods and had a value. They also found that even though the lists were returned promptly, an embezzlement had occurred and the Δ appropriated the lists with the intent to defraud.
- Embezzlment

- Bank had a limit of loans not in excess of $75,000 unless authorized, but bank employee deployed scheme to get person a lot more than that without approval by doing many loans under $75,000.
TPC § 31.02 Conslidation of Theft Offenses
- Theft as defined in § 31.03 constitutes a single offense superseding the separate offenses previously known as theft, theft by false pretext, conversion by a bailee, theft from the person, shoplifting, acquisition of property by threat, swindling, swindling by worthless check, embezzlement, extortion, receiving or concealing embezzled property, and receiving or concealing stolen property
TPC § 31.03 Theft
A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property

Appropriation of property is unlawful if:
i. It is without the owner’s effective consent

ii. The property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property knowing it was stolen by another; or

iii. Property in the custody of any law enforcement agency was explicitly represented by any law enforcement agent to the actor as being stolen and the actor appropriates the property believing it was stolen by another
TPC § 31.04 Theft of Service
A person commits theft of service if, with intent to avoid payment for service that he knows is provided only for compensation:

i. He intentionally or knowingly secures performance of the service by deception, threat or false token;

ii. Having control over the disposition of services of another to which he is not entitled, he intentionally or knowingly diverts the other’s services to his own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled to them

iii. Having control of property under a written agreement, he holds the property beyond the expiration of the rental period without the effective consent of the owner of the property, thereby depriving the owner of the property of its use in further rentals; or

iv. He intentionally or knowingly secures the performance of the service by agreeing to provide compensation and, after the service is rendered, fails to make payment after receiving notice
TPC § 31.05 Theft of Trade Secrets
A person commits an offense if, without the owner’s effective consent, eh knowingly:

i. Steals a trade secret;

ii. Makes a copy of an article representing a trade secret; or

iii. Communicates or transmits a trade secret

- An offense under this section is a 3rd degree felony
TPC § 31.06 Presumption For Theft By Check
If the actor obtained property or secured performance of service by issuing or passing a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, when the issuer did not have sufficient funds in or on deposit with the bank or other drawee for the payment in full of the check or order as well as all other checks or orders then outstanding, it is a prima facie evidence of his intent to deprive the owner of property under theft including a drawee or 3rd party holder in due course who negotiated the check or to avoid payment for service under theft of service if:

i. He had no account with the bank or other drawee at the time he issued the check or order; or

ii. Payment was refused by the bank or other drawee for lack of funds or insufficient funds, on presentation within 30 days after issue, and the issuer failed to pay the holder in full within 10 days after receiving notice of that refusal
TPC § 31.07 Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle
- A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly operates another’s boat, airplane, or motor-propelled vehicle without the effective consent of the owner.

- An offense under this section is a state jail felony
TPC § 31.10 Actor’s Interest in Property
- It is no defense to prosecution under this chapter that the actor has an interest in the property or service stolen if another person ahs the right of exclusive possession of the property
TPC § 31.11 Tampering with Identification Numbers
A person commits an offense if the person:

i. Knowingly or intentionally removes, alters, or obliterates the serial number or other permanent identification marking on tangible personal property; or

ii. Possesses, sells, or offers for sale tangible personal property and:
1. an actor knows that the serial number or other permanent identification marking has been removed, altered, or obliterated; or
2. a reasonable person in the poition of the actor would have known that the serial number or other permanent identification marking has been removed, altered, or obliterated.

b. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the person was:

i. The owner or acting with the effective consent of the owner of the property involved

ii. A peace officer acting in the actual discharge of official duties; or

iii. Acting with respect to a number assigned to a vehicle by the Texas Department of Transportation and the person was:

1. in the actual discharge of official duties as an emplopyee or agent of the department; or

2. in full compliance with the rules of the department as an applicant for an assigned number approved by the department

c. Property involved in a violation of this section may be treated as stolen for purposes of custody and disposition of the property

d. An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor
Robbery (Common Law)
- Common law felony and is traditionally defined as larceny aggravated by the fact that the taking of the property is from the person or in presence of the owner by the use or the threatened imminent use of force

- Might not be common but it is LARCENY and ASSAULT
TPC § 29.02 Robbery
A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chp. 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:

a. Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to another, or

b. Intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death

c. An offense under this section is a felony of the 2nd degree
TPC § 29.03 Aggravated Robbery
A person commits an offense if he commits robbery, and he:
a. Causes serious bodily injury to another;
b.Uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
c. Causes bodily injury ot another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is:

i. 65 years of age or older, or
ii. A disabled person

2. An offense under this section is a felony of the 1st degree

3. In this section, “disabled person” means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm
Extortion (Common Law)
- At common law was a misdemeanor. This could be committed only by a public officer and consisted of taking of a fee not authorized by law.

i. The verb for extortion is THREAT (to do something in the future that will harm or embarrass you, does not have to be bodily injury)
Burglary (Common Law)
Burglary Elements of Common Law:
1. a break, and
2. entering, of
3. the dwelling of,
4. another,
5. at night,
6. with the intent to commit a felony within

- Now days does not have to be at night or a break and not just limited to a dwelling (like home)
TPC § 30.02 Burglary
A person who commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:

a. Enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or

b. Remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or

c. Enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault
Arson (Common Law)
- Common law was willful burning of the dwelling house of another person
TPC § 28.02 Arson
A person commits an offense if the person starts a fire, regardless of whether the fire continues after ignition, or causes an explosion with intent to destroy or damage:
a. Any vegetation, fence, or structure on open-space land; or

b. Any building, habitation, or vehicle:
i. Knowing that it is within the limits of an incorporated city or town;
ii. Knowing that it is insured against damage or destruction;
iii. Knowing that it is subject to a mortgage or other security interest
iv. Knowing that it is located on property belonging to another;
v. Knowing that it has located within it property belong to another; or
vi. When the person is reckless about whether the burning or explosion will endanger the life of some individual or the safety of the property of another
Assault (Common Law)
- battery was the application of force to the person of another that resulted in injury or offensive touching. Assault was an attempted or failed battery
Assault (Modern)
- both battery and assault are under same heading

- Majority --> present ability is not required for a charge of assault
- Ex. Pointing of the gun at another would be an assault since it places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a batter

- Minority --> an assault of the attempted battery type requires that the Δ have had “present ability” to commit the battery.
- Ex. Thus if the accused has pointed a gun at his victim and pulled the trigger but unknown to either the gun is loaded, there would be no assault
TPC § 22.01 Assault
A person commits an offense if the person:
1. Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person’s spouse;

2. Intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person’s spouse;

3. Intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive.

ii. See statute for grading of offense.
TPC § 22.02 Aggravated assault
A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined above and the person:

1. Causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person’s spouse; or

2. Uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.

ii. See Statute for grading of offense
Simple Assault
Is an:
1) an attempted battery or

2) an act by Δ that put person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm

- The “threat to kill” is not in itself sufficient to support a conviction under the 2nd “concept” of “assault” and that the facts and circumstances must be such as to show that persons subjective apprehension of bodily harm was “reasonable”
Act Required for Kidnapping (Common Law)
- the forcible asportation of a perosn from their own country to another
Act Required for Kidnapping (Modern)
- now been codifid along with a similar offense of False Imprisonment and can "technically" be committed in connection with a number of other offenses
TPC § 20.02 Unlawful restraint
i. A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.

ii. It is an affirmative defense if:
1. the person restrained was a child younger than 14
2. the actor was a relative of the child; and
3. the actor’s sole intent was to assume lawful control of the child.

iii. See statute for grading of offense
TPC § 20.03 Kidnapping
i. A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person

ii. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution in this section that:
1. The abduction was not coupled with intent to use or threaten to use deadly force;
2. The actor was a relative of the person abducted; and
3. The actor’s sol intent was to assume lawful control of the victim.

iii. 3rd degree felony
TPC § 20.04 Aggravated Kidnapping
i. A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:
1. Hold him for ransom or reward;
a. Use him as a shield or hostage;
b. Facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
c. Inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually;
d. Terrorize him or a third person; or
e. Interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.

ii. A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.

iii. 1st degree felony

iv. Except: the Δ may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place.
1. Will drop it down to a 2nd degree instead of 1st (policy consideration)
To determine whether the movement or confinement was beyond that necessary to consummate the act of attempted sexual battery
look at whether the additional movement or confinement:
a. prevented the victim from summoning help

b. lessened the Δ’s risk of detection

c. created a significant danger or increased the victim’s risk of harm
When kidnapping is essentially incidental
1) The removal or confinement did not substantially increase the risk of harm to the victims

2) The victims’ movement was slight

3) The confinement was brief

4) The victims “were not harmed in any way”