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;
90 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Utilitarianism
|
Theory of Punishment
-Stress general deterrence -Uses others as example for the rest of society -Punish one it deters the rest -Specific Deterrence -Deter specific D from committing the crime again…intimidation -Incapacitation, -physically prevents that person from being on the street -Reform -may help reform |
|
|
Retributivism
|
Theory of Punishment
-Justified in punishing because wrongdoers do it -Wrongdoer should be punished regardless of if it reduces crime |
|
|
Legality Common Law
|
In order to be prosecuted for an offense the criminal conduct must be defined before a defendant can be prosecuted
1) Condemns Judicial Crime Creation 2) Statute cannot be vague 3) Strict Construction -If a statute has multiple reasonable interpretations it must be construed favorably to the defendant |
|
|
Legality MPC
|
Same as common law EXCEPT no strict construction
-Must give fair warning -Crimes or only found under code or other statute |
|
|
Actus Reus Common Law
|
Voluntary Act that causes social harm
Note: Only causes social harm if it is a result crime |
|
|
EXCEPTIONS to Common Law Actus Reus Requiement
|
Statust crimes-Crime to be addicted to drugs
Crimes of possession-However can be construed as actus reus in failing to dispossess |
|
|
Actus Reus-Common Law
"Commission by Omission" |
Generally: No criminal law duty to act to prevent harm
HOWEVER an ommission for a common law duty to act served as a voluntary act under certain exceptions |
|
|
Actus Reus-Common Law Duty to Act Exceptions
|
1) Status Relationship
2) Contractual Obligation 3) Act followed by Ommission -Creation of Risk -Voluntary Assistance 4) Statutes -Bad Samaritan Laws -Tax Laws |
|
|
Actus Reus-MPC
Non Voluntary Acts |
-reflex/convulsion
-unconscious bodily movement or sleep -conduct from hypnosis -habitual or conscious action that is not a product of the effort of determination of the actor |
|
|
Actus Reus
MPC v Common Law |
Pretty much the same
-MPC explicitly states for possession to be an act possessor has to knowingly receive or was aware of contol AND had time to dispose of it |
|
|
Mens Rea
|
Particular mental state provided for in the definition of an offense
|
|
|
Common Law-Intentional
MPC-Purposely |
conscious objective to cause the result or act with knowledge of attendant circumstances that will be certain for the social harm to occur
|
|
|
Common Law-Transferred Intent
|
-Intent can transfer from victim to victim
-Intent does not transfer from crime to crime -Intent does ot transfer on a statute for a specific victim |
|
|
Common Law Knowledge;
MPC Knowingly |
-Aware of the fact or certain that the fact exists
-One is aware that his conduct is of the nature and the attendant circumstances exist and is practically certain that his conduct will cause the required result |
|
|
Common Law Reckless;
MPC Recklessly |
Concious disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct...the risk must be of such a degree that it involves a gross deviation from the SOC that a law abiding person would observe in actor's situation
Note: Subjective to actor |
|
|
Common Law Malice
|
intentionally or recklessly causing the social harm prohibited by the offense
|
|
|
Common Law General Intent Crime
|
Any offense for which the only mens reas required was a blameworthy state of mind
-relates solely to the act |
|
|
Common Law Specific Intent Crime
|
The definition of the offense expressly required proof of a particular mental state
-inccludes an intent to do some future act beyond the conduct or result or requires actor to be aware of an attendant circumstance |
|
|
Common Law Criminal Negligence
MPC Negligently |
When an actor SHOULD be aware of a substantial risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct and that the actors failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the SOC that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situtation
|
|
|
MPC Mens Rea Nuances
|
-Must have one of the four mental states
-When it is not specified all but negligently are read into it -NO general/specific intent classifications |
|
|
MPC Transferred Intent
|
Intent transfers if it is purposefully or knowingly to both victims and crimes, but only to those crimes whose inury or results are less extensive than those complicated
|
|
|
MPC Violations
Strict Liability |
No strict liability crimes.
-violation...designated in statute or code, and can only incur a fine forfeiture or other civil penalty |
|
|
Willfull Blindness-Common Law
|
Jurisdictional:
Nations: struict view, must know of attendant circumstance Jewell: Knowing is satisfied if purposely disregarding learning of the potential cirumstance after suspicions have been aroused |
|
|
Willfull Blindness-MPC
|
Knowingly is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence unless he actually believes it does not exist
|
|
|
Statutory Interpretation Common Law
|
Look at wording itself, biggest key is legislative history and legislative intent
|
|
|
Strict Liability Crimes Common Law
|
-Usually some mens rea requirement
-Tend to not be punished with incarceration -small penalty -Pulic Welfare offenses |
|
|
MPC Violation
Strictly Liable |
-Must be punishable by fine, civil penalty or fofeiture
-Not a crime -Mistake no defense -Exception, crimes against children younger than 10 |
|
|
Mistake of Fact-Specific Intent
|
D is not guilty if his mistake of fact negates the specifict intent portion of the crime
-Subjective...does not matter if intentionally or recklessly |
|
|
Mistake of fact-General Intent
|
Not guilty of general intent if mistake is reasonable but guilty if unreasonable.
EXCEPTIONS: Moral Wrong and Legal Wrong |
|
|
Moral Wrong Doctrine-Common Law
|
Even if mistake was reasonable if the facts as the actor had believed the were morally wrong than a court may find him criminally liable
|
|
|
Legal Wrong Doctrine
|
May be found guilty even if a mistake is reaonable if the facts had been as the actor believed them to be his conduct would be illegal of a lesser crime he is still guilty for the more serious offense
|
|
|
MPC mistake of Fact
|
Acts as a defense if it negates the mens rea (no specific general distinction) same as legal wrong doctrine except guilty of lesser crime...no reasonableness requirement
|
|
|
Common Law Mistake of Law
|
Mistake of Law is never a defense, except for reasonable reliance and fair notice (Lambert)or failure to know a nonpenal law negates specific intent mens rea
|
|
|
Reasonable Reliance Common Law
|
Only excused for an offense if reasonably relying on a law
Statute later declared invalid -Judicial decision of the highest cour later determined to be erroneous -An official but erroneous interpretation secured from a public officer in charge of its interpretation administration or enforcement -AG’s -Must occur in an OFFICIAL manner -Private counsel does not suffice |
|
|
Fair Notice Lambert
|
Ignorance of law may be a defense if:
1)Punishes an omission 2)Duty imposed on the basis of status rather than activity…(Would you have a normal obligation to check it out?..Does the punishable conduct compel you to check out the law?) 3)Is it inherently evil? |
|
|
MPC Mistake of Law
|
Same as common law...shifts burden to defense
|
|
|
Causation-Common Law
|
For any result crime the affirmative act had to be the CIF and Px of social harm..CIF is standard but for
|
|
|
Px-Common Law
|
Based on reasonable foreseeabiltiy and whether there was an intervening cause:
Concidene-acts merely pu the victim in a certain circumstance allowing them to be acted upon...breaks chain unless it was foreseeable Response: Reactions to the conditions created by D...will only break the chain if it is abnormal or bizarre...grossly negligent medical EXCEPTIONS: Intended Consequence Rule -Ommissions not superseding |
|
|
Intended Consequence Rule
|
Exception to unforeseeable Px No matter how bizarre the intended result came may be held criminally liable
|
|
|
Apparent Safety Doctrine
|
When one reaches a place of safety the orignial wrongdoer is no longer responsible for the ensuing harm
|
|
|
Common Law/CA 187 Murder
|
The unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought
-In CA add fetus |
|
|
CA 188
|
Malice Aforethought Can be either
express: intention to kill implied=Done with an abandoned and malignent heargt |
|
|
Abandoned and Malignent Heart-CA
|
D acts with a high probability that it will result in death and does it with a base antisocial motive and wanton disregard for human life
|
|
|
CA 189
|
First Degree murder
-Willful, deliberate and premeditated killing -Must show long enough to afford a reasonable man time to subject the nature of his response -Done under one of the specified acts -multiple wounds shows lack of premeditation Second Degree: implied malice, abandoned and malignent heart |
|
|
Common Law Malice Aforethought
|
1) Intention to kill a human being
2) intention to inflict grievous bodily injury 3) An extreme Reckless disregard for the value of human life 4) Presumed in Felony murder |
|
|
Common Law Manslaugher
|
Unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought
-Involuntary v. Voluntary -Involuntary=Criminally Negligent homicides -Heat of Passion Killings |
|
|
Statutory First Degree Murder
(Pennsylvania model) |
First Degree: Statutorily specfice or willful deliberat and premeditated
Jurisdictional Schrader-Twinkling of an eye Morrin=long enough to afford a reasonable man time to subject the nature of his response a "second look" -Most require an absence of "hot blood" |
|
|
Second Degree Murder
(Pennsylvania Model) |
All other types of murder besides first
|
|
|
MPC Definitions
|
Human Being=Person born alive
bodily injury=physical pain serious bodily injury=substantial risk of death...serious disfigurement...impairment of bodily member or organ -Deadly weapon=any object that the manner it is used is known to be capable producing death |
|
|
MPC Homicide
|
purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently casuing death
|
|
|
MPC Homicide =Murder
|
Commited purposely, knowingly, or recklessly manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human live
|
|
|
MPC Homicide=Manslaugher
|
Commited Recklessly or under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance fromt he viewpoint of the actor under circumstances he believes them to be
|
|
|
MPC Homicide=Negligent Homicide
|
Commited negligently
|
|
|
Intoxication Excpeption to Reckless
|
Self induced intoxication that makes unaware of risk is not a defense
|
|
|
Common Law Heat of Passion
|
Intentional Homicide committed in HOP as the result of adequate provocation mitigates the offense to manslaugher
1) Adequate Provocation 2) Done in HOP -Can be any emotion fear, anger resentment 3) Must have not been adequate time to cool off 4) Causal connection between provocation, passion, and fatal act |
|
|
Traditional Adequate provocation for HOP
|
-agravated assault or battery
-mutual combat -Commission of a serious crime against relative -illegal arrest -observation of spousal adultery -Not Sexual unfaithfulness of a non spouse -mere words are never sufficient |
|
|
Modern Approach to adequate provocation
|
Sufficient if it would cause a reasonable person to lose control of her actions and reason.
-Words usually not enough, but some courts say information are -Reasonable man to lose control of actions and reason -May include characteristics that attest to the gravity of the provocation to particular defendant...cultural past experiences...England allows for everything that goes to this -Usually wont allosw for things that attest to the level of self control...drunk short tempered...HOWEVER England has allowed for Age and Sex |
|
|
MPC Approach to HOP
|
-murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance (subjective to individual) for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse (objective)
-Emcompasses HOP and Diminished Capacity -Mitigates from murder to manslaugheter -No provocation required -No cooling off rule -Words can be enough |
|
|
Felony Murder Rule Common Law
|
Guilty of muder if a death result from conduct during the commission or attempted commission of any felony....Applies for a period of time after commission of the cime until the felon has reached a place of safety
-Succumbing to medical problems invokes felony murder rule -Must be caused by felonious activity EXCEPTIONS: Statutes, Inherently Dangerous Felonies, Independent Felony Merger Limitation |
|
|
Inherently dagerous felony limitation
|
Limit rule to homicides that occur during the commission of felonies dangerous to human life. Determined by:
1) Abtract: look at offense as defined by statute and see if it can be done wthout creating a substantial risk that someone will be killed 2) Consider facts of the particular case 3) Both |
|
|
Killing by non felons while committing a felony
|
Agency approach-One is not liable for felony murder if murder is committed by a non-felon, BUT D is responsible for the acts of another if the actor is functioning as an agent of the non shooter
Px approch: Only criminally liable for homicides that are the Px of the act |
|
|
MPC Felony Murder
|
Homicide during commission attempt or flight of robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape
|
|
|
Common Law Self Defense
|
Nonagressor is justified in using necessary force to prevent imminent and proportional unlawful force from being used against him.
-Can't be agressor -May reestablish non agressor status with withrawal -non deadly agressor but response deadly...split jurisdictions on full or mitigation to manslaughter -Some require retreat before deadly force -Subjective belief by D and objectively reasonable -Unreasonable assessment or failure to retreat...imperfect... mitigating murder -Self Defense transfers to 3rd party harms, but look for recklessness |
|
|
MPC difference to Self Defense
|
-Only subjective belief is necessary
-Immediately NECESSARY as oppose to imminent -Can use to avoid death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, or sex -retreat requirement, unless home or work -Unless works there too Unless you are agressor -While it is subjective, if reckless or negligent than can be liable for crimes of that culpability |
|
|
MPC Deadly Forc
|
-Force actor uses with purpose or knows will cause substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury
-Even if dealy weapon not deadly force as long as his purpose was to create apprehension that he will use deadly force |
|
|
Ccomplice Liability MPC
|
Guilty for offense if it is committed by own conduct or that of abother if casing an innocent person to engage in such conduct or with the purpose of promonting or facilitating the commission of an offense he solicits, agrees to aid or attemtp, or has a legal duty to preven and does not.
|
|
|
Defense of 3rd persons Common Law
|
Person is justified in using force to protect 3rd party, on what reasonably appears
-Some employ in there shoes |
|
|
MPC Defense of others
|
1) Can't use more than what you are entitled to
2) cant use more than what D believes X to be justified in using 3) must believe intervention is necessary -D is not required to retreat unless she knows it will assure X's Safety -Must help X retreat if knowing D can retreat -No retreat at work or home |
|
|
Common Law Defense of Property/MPC
|
-Can never use deadly force
-Very limited can threaten deadly force -Usually cannot recover using force...unless hot pursuit and nondeadly -must be imminent |
|
|
Common Law Necessity
|
-Imminancy
-must believe will be effective..reasonable person -No legal way to avert harm -Harm causing less serious than to avoid -Not barred by law -Must not have substantially contributed to the situation -Some limit to property, natural disaster, and bar homicide |
|
|
MPC Necessity
|
Same as common law except:
-no immanency requirement -Does not automatically lose for contributing...just does not protect against reckless crime -may be employed in homicides |
|
|
Duress Common Law
|
Can be aquitted for everything except murder if
1) threatened to be killed or if ta 3rd party threatedend 2) reasonably believes threat is genuine 3) threat is present imminent, and impending 4) no reasonable escape 5) Actor not at fault -not a defense to murder but may be imperfect defense -only threat to bodily injury may raise defense |
|
|
Duress MPC
|
Compared to common law, abandons imminent deadly threat
-can be non deadly threat -can be the result of prior use of non-deadly force -can be raised in defense of murder -does not require to be family member |
|
|
Intoxication-Common Law
|
Generally voluntary intoxication is no defense.
-Does not negate mens rea in general intent crimes but does in Specific inten crimes -May arise in felony murder and first degree murder to second degree murder |
|
|
Intoxication MPC
|
-Can go to negate any mental state
-However may be reckless in getting drunk -If drunkness is not a defense to failing to be aware of a risk |
|
|
Insanity-Common Law
|
May not be fit to stand trial if found insane. Look at tests
|
|
|
McNaughton Test Majority
|
A person is insane if at the time of the act
1) Did not know the nature and the quality of the act that she was doing 2) or did not know what shwas doing as wrong |
|
|
McN + Volitional
|
insane if as the ruslut of a mental defact acted with an irresistable and uncontrollable impulse
|
|
|
Federal Standard- Insanity
|
clear and convincing evidence that she was unable to appreciate either the nature or the quality of the wrongfulness of her conduct
|
|
|
MPC Insanity
|
Not responsible for her conduct if at the time as a result of mental disease or defect she lacked the substantial capcity to appreciate the criminality of her actions or 2 conform her conduct to the requirements of the law
|
|
|
Common Law Attempt
|
Occurs when a person with the intent to commit an offense performs anty act that constitutes a substantial step beyond mere preparation toward the commission of that offense....incomplete v complete criminal attempt..
|
|
|
MPC Attempt
|
1)The purpose to commit the target offense ...purpose would be to cause the substantive offense
2)Conduct Constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the target offense...strongly corroborates criminal purpose |
|
|
Factual Impossibility
|
Not a defense to attempt
-When an actor's intended end constitutes a crime but she fails to complete te offense b/c of a factualy circumstance out of her control |
|
|
Legal Imossibility
|
Aplies whn an actor engages in lawful conduct she incorrectly believes constitutes a crime...defense to attempt
|
|
|
Common Law Abandonment
|
Originally there was no abandonment, but some jurisdictions are starting to recognize it
|
|
|
MPC Abandonment
|
Not guilty of an attempt even if her actions constitute a substantial step in the commission of an offense if she abandonse her effort to commit the crime or prevents it from being committed and her donduct manifests a complete and voluntary renunciation of her criminal purpose
|
|
|
Common Law Assault
|
Attempted battery...must engage iin conduct that is cloer to completion than is required for other attempt offenses...must committ last act
|
|
|
MPC Assault
|
Eliminates Common Law batter....actually injuring or attempting to put somoene in fear
|
|
|
Solicitation Common Law/MPC
|
Asking, enticing, inducing, or counseling of another to commit the crime.
-merges inot crime solicited if the latter offense is committed or attempted by the solicited party -guilty of solicitation even if the crime is not attempted -if committed than parties are accomplices |
|
|
Common Law Conspiracy
|
Mutual agreement or understanding between two or more persons to committ a criminal act
-Complete upon formation of agreement -must inted to combine with others -must intend to accomplish the illegal objective -Participation in conspiracy is enough to sustain a conviction for other offenses that can be foreseen in furtherance of the conspiracy |
