Criminal Law

Front 1

Actus Reus

Back 1

1. A voluntary act that causes an unlawful result, an omission to act where the defendant is under a legal duty to act, or vicarious liability where the defendant is responsible for the acts of another party.
2. Acts that are reflexive, convulsive, performed while unconscious, or otherwise involuntary are insufficient, as are mere bad thoughts unaccompanied by action.

Front 2

Mens Rea

Back 2

1. One acts intentionally when he desires that his acts cause certain consequences or knows that his acts are substantially certain to produce those consequences.
2. One acts knowingly when he knows the nature and/or result of his conduct. Lack of knowledge can often excuse criminal liability under the defense of mistake of fact. Traditionally, intent includes knowledge.
3. One acts purposefully when there exists a conscious objective to engage in such conduct or to cause such a result.
4. The term willfully encompasses the concept of "intentionally and "purposely" as opposed to accidentally or negligently, and has been used to imply evil purpose in crimes involving moral turpitude.
5. Wantonness is greater than criminal negligence. It is akin to recklessness in that both a high degree of harm and an awareness of such harm is required. This is the standard for depraved heart murder.

Front 3

Murder

Back 3

1. Unlawful killing of a hum being with malice aforethought, the actus reus may be a voluntary act, an involuntary act arising from a voluntary act, or an omission to act where there is a legal duty to act.
2. In situations where a victim is already dying, if the defendant's actions bring about the victim's death more quickly than if the defendant had not acted, the defendant's actions would be an actual cause of the killing.
3. Where the victim's death was a "natural and probable" consequence of the defendant's conduct, the defendant may be guilty of murder, even where he did not foresee the exact chain of events that resulted in the victim's death.
4. Where the reasonably foreseeable result of a conspiracy is a homicide, and that homicide was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, then all members of the conspiracy can be held liable for the homicide, regardless of which of the conspirators actually caused the killing.

Front 4

Specific Intent

Back 4

1. A defendant possesses specific intent if he wants, hopes, or wishes that his conduct will bring about a particular result, regardless of the objective likelihood of the result occurring, or he expects that his purposeful act will have that particular result, even though he does not necessarily want a particular result to happen.
2. Voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake may negate requisite specific intent elements.

Front 5

General Intent

Back 5

1. A general bad state of mind will suffice where such a criminal act is committed voluntarily and purposely.
2. Negligence or recklessness is a sufficient mental state for general intent crimes. While mere ordinary negligence does not amount to criminal negligence, negligence which causes a greater risk of harm than ordinary negligence or ordinary negligence where a defendant is consciously aware of the risk will amount to criminal negligence. It may also be called gross or culpable negligence.

Front 6

Malice

Back 6

1. Malice is the reckless disregard of a high risk that harm will occur. A defendant who acts with malice either has the specific intent to bring about the particular criminal result or acts with wanton and willful disregard of the risk that the criminal result may come about.

Front 7

Transferred Intent

Back 7

1. The transferred intent doctrine preserves liability where a defendant intends criminal conduct against one party but instead harms another party, so that his actions bring about an unintended, yet still criminal, result.

Front 8

Intent to Kill

Back 8

1. Conduct where the defendant consciously desires to kill another person or makes the resulting death inevitable constitutes an intent to kill.
2. A defendant's own statements may provide proof of an intent to kill.
3. Under the deadly weapons doctrine an inference of intent to kill is raised through the intentional use of any instrument which, judging from its manner of use, is calculated to produce death or serious bodily injury.

Front 9

Intent to Cause Serious Bodily Harm

Back 9

1. Intent to inflict serious bodily injury malice, like intent to kill malice, can arise from a conscious desire or a substantial certainty that the defendant's actions will result in the victim's injury.
2. Like intent to kill, must be proved by looking to the surrounding circumstances, including the words and behavior of the defendant. Similarly, the intentional use of any deadly weapon in a way that is likely to cause serious injury provides evidence of intent to inflict serious bodily injury.

Front 10

Depraved Heart Murder

Back 10

1. Depraved heart murder is an unintentional killing resulting from conduct involving a wanton indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury.
2. A defendant may knowingly create a very high risk of death or serious bodily injury for a logical and socially reasonable purpose, in which case the conduct would not be considered depraved heart murder.

Front 11

Felony Murder

Back 11

1. Felony-murder is an unintentional killing proximately caused during the commission or attempted commission of a serious inherently dangerous felony.
2. The felony murder rule is limited by requiring that the underlying felony be collateral.
3. The felony must be an inherently dangerous one, such as burglary, arson, robbery, rape or kidnapping. Also included are felonies that are dangerous by manner of commission.
4. For purposes of felony murder, the felony starts when the defendant could be convicted of attempting the underlying felony. There is no requirement that the felony must be completed.
5. If he reached a place of temporary safety, the felon is deemed to have terminated and the defendant can no longer be found guilty of felony murder.
6. Any defense to the underlying felony negates the felony murder.
7. Redline limitation - a co-felon is not guilty of felony murder where the killing constitutes a justifiable or excusable homicide.

Front 12

Vicarious Liability

Back 12

1. All felons are liable for any homicide that occurs during the perpetration of a felony.
2. Under the majority rule, there is no felony murder liability when a non-felon kills a felon, but there is vicarious liability when a non-felon kills another non-felon.

Front 13

First Degree Murder

Back 13

1. First degree murder includes intent to kill murder committed with premeditation and deliberation, and felony murder.
2. Where defendant was voluntarily intoxicated, but still sober enough to form an intent to kill, he may be able to avoid liability for first degree murder by showing that the intoxication precluded him from acting with premeditation and deliberation.

Front 14

Second Degree Murder

Back 14

1. Second degree murder is murder that does not meet the elements of first degree murder, for example, where the defendant's malice is intent to inflict serious bodily injury, wanton or willful misconduct, or felony-murder where the underlying felony is not specifically listed in an applicable first-degree murder statute.

Front 15

Voluntary Manslaughter

Back 15

1. An intentional killing mitigated by adequate provocation or other circumstance negating malice aforethought.
2. Adequate provocation is measured objectively, and must be such that a reasonable person would lose self control. It must not be long enough that a reasonable person would have cooled off. Mere words are not enough for adequate provocation.
3. Imperfect self-defense may mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter where a defendant was either at fault for starting an altercation, or unreasonably, but honestly believed that harm was imminent or that deadly force was necessary.

Front 16

Involuntary Manslaughter

Back 16

1. An unintentional killing resulting without malice aforethought caused either by criminal negligence or during the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful act.
2. Criminal negligence requires that the defendant's conduct creates a high degree of risk of death or serious injury beyond the tort standard of ordinary negligence. This is more than mere ordinary negligence, but less than wanton and willful misconduct. The majority of jurisdictions do not require that the defendant be consciously aware of the risk created.
3. The commission of a malum in se or of a felony which is not of the inherently dangerous type is classified as involuntary manslaughter.
4. Death resulting from malum prohibitum crimes can only be sufficient for involuntary manslaughter, when the killing is either a foreseeable consequence of the unlawful conduct or amounts to criminal negligence.
5. Analogous in many respects to intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, where the defendant intends to injure the victim to some lesser degree but this unexpectedly causes the death of the victim, an involuntary manslaughter results.

Front 17

Battery

Back 17

1. Criminal battery is the intentional or reckless, unlawful application of force to the person of the victim.
2. This is a general intent crime, and therefore may be guilty where he acts recklessly, negligently, or with knowledge that his act or omission will result in criminal liability.
3. A simple battery becomes an aggravated battery when the defendant causes the victim serious bodily injury, the defendant uses a deadly weapon to commit the battery, or the defendant batters a woman, child, or law enforcement officer.
4. Defenses include consent, self defense or defense of others, or when using an offensive touching to prevent a crime.

Front 18

Assault

Back 18

1. Assault is an attempted battery in the majority of states, thus, in those states an intent to frighten will not suffice for an assault. Recklessness and negligence in almost causing an injury will not be an assault. Victim's unawareness is no defense. In addition, most states do not permit avoidance of liability, because the defendant lacked the ability to consummate the battery.
2. Intentionally causing fear of a battery, requires defendant to act with threatening conduct intended to cause reasonable apprehension, or intend to cause the victim harm. A conditional threat is insufficient, unless accompanied with an overt act. The victim does not have to be afraid, but rather simply anticipate or expect that the defendant's act will result in immediate bodily harm. For this type of assault if the victim is unaware of the threat of harm, no assault is committed. Aggravated if attempted with dangerous weapon, or with an intent to rape or murder.

Front 19

False Imprisonment

Back 19

1. False Imprisonment is the intentional, unlawful confinement of one person by another.
2. Blocking one exit but leaving another open does not amount to false imprisonment.
3. Victims are not required to try to resist or attempt escape where the defendant has the apparent ability to effectuate threats. Victims are not confined if they are aware of reasonable escape means, but are not required to affirmatively search for potential escape routes.

Front 20

Kidnapping

Back 20

1. Kidnapping, under the common law, consists of 1) an unlawful, 2) restraint of a person's liberty, 3) by force or show of force, and 4) so as to send the victim into another country.
2. Under modern law, it usually suffices that the victim be taken to another location or concealed.

Front 21

Rape

Back 21

1. Intercourse accomplished by mere threats rather than force may be enough to constitute rape. In addition, if the victim is unable to consent the intercourse is rape. the modern trend is to require actual consent, or the sexual act is unlawful.
2. Rape refers to the penetration of the vagina by the penis of a male, the slightest penetration is sufficient to constitute the crime.
3. An act of intercourse constitutes rape despite her apparent consent, if the female is under the statutorily prescribed age. Where the parties are married, a husband cannot be convicted of statutory rape.
4. In many jurisdictions there is a rebuttable presumption that males under the age of 14 are incapable of rape.

Front 22

Larceny

Back 22

1. A trespassory taking (requires the assertion of dominion and control over property by a defendant who does not have lawful possession), and carrying away (slightest of movement is sufficient), of the tangible person property (has been expanded to include the theft of services), of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner (as a general rule the initial taking must be wrongful).
2. Abandoned property is not subject to larceny although lost or mislaid property can. In order to be guilty must intend to steal and know or has reason to believe the owner can be found.
3. This is a specific intent crime.

Front 23

Embezzlement

Back 23

1. The fraudulent conversion or misappropriation (conversion is action toward property that seriously interferes with the owner's rights), of the property of another, by one who is already in lawful possession (typically someone who is entrusted with the property).

Front 24

Robbery

Back 24

1. All the elements of larceny plus the taking must be from the presence of the victim, and the taking must be accomplished by force, intimidation, threat, or violence.

Front 25

False Pretenses

Back 25

1. A false representation of a present or past material fact by the defendant which causes the victim to pass title to his property to the defendant who knows his representation to be false and intends thereby to defraud the victim.

Front 26

Larceny by Trick

Back 26

1. Larceny by trick is a form of larceny whereby the defendant obtains possession of the personal property of another by means of a representation or promise that he knows is false at the time he takes possession. The main distinction between larceny by trick and false pretenses is that possession not title is conveyed.
2. Factual misrepresentations and false promises are typically deemed sufficient for the fraud element of larceny by trick.

Front 27

Extortion

Back 27

1. Obtaining property of another by the use of threats of future harm to the victim or his property. This includes threats to expose a person or his family to disgrace and threats to accuse the victim of a crime.
2. Even if the threat is to reveal factually correct information that defendant is entitled to reveal, the crime of extortion may nonetheless be committed.

Front 28

Receiving Stolen Property

Back 28

1. Receiving stolen property, known to be stolen, with the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner.

Front 29

Forgery

Back 29

1. Fraudulent making (this includes creating a new document, altering an existing document, inducing someone to sign where they don't know the document's significance), of a false writing with apparent legal significance (must have value beyond document's own existence), with the intent to make wrongful use of the forged document.

Front 30

Burglary

Back 30

1. The breaking (satisfied with the slightest enlargement of an opening), and entering (entry through an open door where the defendant later opens an inside closet door is sufficient), of a dwelling (any structure under modern statute), of another, in the night (modern statutes have eliminated this element), with the intent to commit a felony or larceny therein.

Front 31

Arson

Back 31

1. The malicious burning (most be more than blackening, there must be some charring) of a dwelling (this now includes virtually any structure), of another (this includes own structure if for things such as insurance fraud).

Front 32

Solicitation

Back 32

1. Enticing, advising, inciting, inducing, urging, or otherwise encouraging another to commit a felony or breach of the peace.
2. MPC defines it broadly to include requesting another to commit any offense.
3. The solicitor must intend that the solicitee perform criminal acts (specific intent), mere approval is not enough. It is unnecessary for an agreement to be made, the person solicited does not even have to respond.
4. A solicitor is treated as an accessory before the fact and thus will be guilty of any solicited crime by the solicitee.
5. The offense is complete at the time the solicitation is made.
6. Solicitation merges with the target felony upon completion.
7. Defenses include voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact, since it is a specific intent crime.

Front 33

Attempt

Back 33

1. Attempt requires a specific intent to bring about a criminal result, and a significant overt act in furtherance of that intent.
2. Once the target crime is committed, the attempt merges into the target crime.
3. Attempt is a specific intent crime.
4. Liability requires the defendant to commit an act of perpetration as opposed to acts of mere preparation. Acts prior to the last act are sufficient as long as the act is a substantial step toward commission of the crime.
5. At common law, abandonment was not a defense to attempt once the attempt is complete. Under the MPC a voluntary and complete abandonment is a defense. Legal impossibility is a defense.

Front 34

Conspiracy

Back 34

1. An unlawful criminal combination, between two or more persons, who enter into an agreement, with the specific intent to commit an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means.
2. About half the states require an overt act.
3. Conspiracy does not merge upon the completion of the target crime, because criminal combinations are deemed to be dangerous apart from the underlying crime.
4. Co-conspirators are liable for each others crimes where the crimes are both a foreseeable outgrowth of the conspiracy, and committed in furtherance of the conspiratorial goal.
5. In a chain relationship where several crimes are committed under one large scheme in which each member knows generally of the other parties' participation and a community of interest exists, one single conspiracy results.
6. In a hub and spoke relationship, where on common member enters into agreements to commit a series of independent crimes with different individuals, multiple conspiracies exist.
7. Conspiracy is a specific intent crime.

Front 35

Defense to Conspiracy

Back 35

1. At common law, withdrawal was not recognized as a valid defense to conspiracy, because the conspiracy was complete as soon as the parties agreed tot he crime. Under the MPC withdrawal of a co-conspirator may be a valid affirmative defense where the renouncing party gives timely notice of his plans to all members of the conspiracy and performs an affirmative act to thwart the success of the conspiracy.

Front 36

Principle in the First Degree

Back 36

1. The actual perpetrator who performs the criminal act with the requisite mental state.

Front 37

Principle in the Second Degree

Back 37

1. One who is present at the scene of the felony and aids, abets, or otherwise encourages the commission of the crime with the requisite intent is guilty as a principle in the second degree. May be punished to the same extent as the perpetrator.

Front 38

Accomplice

Back 38

1. An individual is criminally liable as an accomplice if he gives assistance or encouragement, or fails to act where he has a legal duty to oppose the crime of another (actus reus), and purposefully intends to effectuate the commission of the crime (mens rea).
2. A defendant is responsible for the criminal acts of another whom he aided, abetted, or facilitated, provided the criminal consequences are reasonably foreseeable in terms of the acts the defendant intended to aid or abet.
3. Withdrawal may be a valid defense where an accomplice makes a timely repudiation and takes sufficient steps to neutralize any assistance or material he has provided before the commission of the crime.

Front 39

Accessory Before the Fact

Back 39

1. One who aids, abets, counsels or otherwise encourages the commission of a felony, but is not present at the scene, is guilty as an accessory before the fact. An accessory before the fact may be punished to the same extent as the principal for all crimes committed within the scope of the conspiracy.
2. Under the majority rule the principal need not be convicted in order for the accessory before the fact to be convicted.

Front 40

Accessory After the Fact

Back 40

1. A completed felony must have been committed, the accessory must have known of the commission of the felony, and the accessory must have personally given aid to the felon to hinder the felon's apprehension, conviction or punishment.
2. Focused on punishing for his own actions, and not holding the accessory after the fact vicariously liable for the underlying felony.

Front 41

Insanity

Back 41

1. M'Naghten Test - relieved of criminal liability upon proof that at the time of the commission of the act, he was laboring under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, not to know what he was doing was wrong. Some jurisdictions will find defendant guilty if he knew it was illegal.
2. Irresistible Impulse Test - a defendant will not be found guilty where he had a mental disease that kept him from controlling his conduct.
3. Durham Rule - not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect.
4. MPC - if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. Does not require total loss of cognitive ability, just substantial lack of capacity.

Front 42

Voluntary Intoxication

Back 42

1. May be a valid defense for a specific intent crime if it negates the requisite mental state. However, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to crimes involving malice, recklessness, negligence, or strict liability.
2. Involuntary intoxication is a defense to a crime, even if it does nto negate an element of the crime, under the same circumstances as insanity.

Front 43

Justification

Back 43

1. Self-Defense - if a person has a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm, he may use that amount of force in self-defense that is reasonably necessary to prevent such harm, unless he is the initial aggressor. The force must be proportional to the initial attack, and initial attack must be unlawful. Aggressors can regain the right of self-defense upon complete withdrawal perceived by the other party, or escalation of force by the victim against the aggressor.
2. Defense of a Third Party - the amount of force used must be proportional to the initial attack, as in self-defense, if something short of deadly force would ward off the attack, deadly force is not necessary and therefore not reasonable. Look to the reasonableness of the defendant's belief that the third party was being unlawfully attacked.
3. Reasonable non-deadly force is justified in defending one's property from theft, destruction, or trespass where the defendant has a reasonable belief that the property is in immediate danger and no greater force than necessary is used. Non-deadly force is improper where a request to desist would suffice.

Front 44

Duress

Back 44

1. The defense of duress justifies criminal conduct where the defendant reasonably believes that the only way to avoid unlawful threats of great bodily harm or imminent death is to engage in unlawful conduct. For duress, the threat comes from human forces, rather than natural forces.

Front 45

Entrapment

Back 45

1. The defense of entrapment exists where the criminal act is the product of creative activity originating with law enforcement officials, and the defendant is in no way predisposed to commit the crime.

Front 46

Mistake

Back 46

1. To negate the existence of general intent, a mistake of fact must be reasonable tot he extent that under the circumstances a reasonable person would have made that type of mistake.
2. To negate a specific intent, a mistake of fact need not be reasonable, it may be unreasonable provided it is honest.
3. Generally, a mistake of law is not a defense.