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
Reading...
Front

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

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/24

Click to flip

24 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)
Conspiracy
Under CRIMINAL LAW a CONSPIRACY is an agreement between two or more people to work toward an illegal goal. Modernly an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy goal is required. Under the WHARTON RULE a conspiracy requires the participation of more than the minimum number of people necessary to commit the criminal act.
Accomplice?
Under CRIMINAL LAW a CONSPIRACY is an agreement between two or more people to work toward an illegal goal. Modernly an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy goal is required. Under the WHARTON RULE a conspiracy requires the participation of more than the minimum number of people necessary to commit the criminal act.
Criminal Assault
Under CRIMINAL LAW a CRIMINAL ASSAULT is an act with intent to cause a battery or to cause apprehension of a battery. The victim of the attempted battery does not have to be aware of the danger. If an assault is committed as part of a robbery or battery, the assault merges into more serious crime.
Criminal Battery
Under CRIMINAL LAW a CRIMINAL ASSAULT is an act with intent to cause a battery or to cause apprehension of a battery. The victim of the attempted battery does not have to be aware of the danger. If an assault is committed as part of a robbery or battery, the assault merges into more serious crime.
Larceny
Under CRIMINAL LAW a CRIMINAL ASSAULT is an act with intent to cause a battery or to cause apprehension of a battery. The victim of the attempted battery does not have to be aware of the danger. If an assault is committed as part of a robbery or battery, the assault merges into more serious crime.
False Pretenses
Under common law FALSE PRETENSES was the intentional misrepresentation of fact to obtain title to the property of another. Modernly false pretenses is defined by statute under the label of "theft."
Embezzlement
Under common law an EMBEZZLEMENT was the intentional trespassory conversion of the property of another by one who has been entrusted with it and who received it in lawful possession, without any intention of stealing. A defendant that receives property with an intent to steal it does not receive lawful possession and the crime that results is larceny, not embezzlement. Modernly embezzlement is defined by statute under the label of "theft".
Robbery
Under CRIMINAL LAW a ROBBERY is a larceny, defined above, from the person by use of force or fear.
Burglary
Under common law BURGLARY was the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another in the night with intent to commit a felony, and a CONSTRUCTIVE BREAKING was found to have occurred if entry was made by 1) fraud, ) threat or 3) conspiracy. The entry of structures near a dwelling constituted burglary if they were within a curtilage, the area about a dwelling. Modernly by statute the elements of night and dwelling have generally been eliminated, and a constructive breaking is generally found if there is a TRESPASSORY ENTRY, an entry by a means that was not expressly or impliedly consented to by the victim. Some courts also hold that an entry at a time that was not consented to by the victim is trespassory.
BEDONI
Attempt
Under CRIMINAL LAW an ATTEMPT is a committed when a significant step is taken, beyond mere planning and preparation, with the intent of committing an act that is actually a crime at the moment of the significant step
Murder
Under CRIMINAL LAW a MURDER is an unlawful HOMICIDE, the killing of one human being by another, with MALICE aforethought.
Malice
MALICE for murder may be 1) an EXPRESS intent to kill, or IMPLIED by 2) intent to commit great bodily injury, 3) intent to commit an inherently dangerous felony, the FELONY MURDER RULE, 4) intent to commit an act with awareness of and conscious disregard for the unjustified risk to human life, the DEPRAVED HEART MURDER rule, or 5) caused by resisting a lawful arrest.
First Degree Murder
Under common law there were no degrees of murder, but modernly murder is in the first degree if it is 1) willful and premeditated, 2) by enumerated means, or 3) during an enumerated felony.
Voluntary Manslaughter
Under CRIMINAL LAW, VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER is an intentional, unlawful homicide, the killing of one human being by another, without MALICE aforethought during a rage of passion, because of adequate provocation sufficient to raise a reasonable person to a rage of passion, which did raise the defendant to such a passion, and which was the actual cause of the homicide.
Involuntary Manslaughter
Under CRIMINAL LAW, an INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER is an unlawful, unintended homicide, the killing of one human being by another, without MALICE aforethought, as a result of CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE or during the commission of a CRIME insufficient for a charge of murder.
Criminal Negligence
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is an act taken without awareness of or regard for the unreasonably high risk posed to human life.
Insanity Defense
Under CRIMINAL LAW insanity is a defense if it negates criminal intent. The insanity defense is now prescribed by statute in almost all jurisdictions. Under the COMMON LAW M’NAUGHTEN RULE insanity was a defense if a disease of the mind at the time of the act prevented the defendant from knowing the nature and quality of his act, or that they were wrong. Under the IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE RULE insanity is a defense if the defendant knows it is wrong but cannot stop herself.
Self Defense
Under CRIMINAL LAW a defendant can claim SELF DEFENSE only if he used reasonable force in defending himself and 1) he was not the aggressor, 2) he attempted withdrawal but the other party continued the fight, or 3) the other party escalated the violence of the fight.
Defense of Others
Under CRIMINAL LAW a defendant can claim DEFENSE OF OTHERS only if he used reasonable force to aid a victim of aggression. Jurisdictions are split when the defendant mistakenly aids an aggressor. Some jurisdictions deny the defense to one who mistakenly aids an aggressor because the defendant STEPS INTO THE SHOES of the aggressor. Other jurisdictions allow the defense to one who acts with REASONABLE BELIEF the person aided was a victim of aggression.
Defense of Property
Under CRIMINAL LAW a defendant can claim DEFENSE OF PROPERTY only if reasonable and non-deadly force was used.
Jayne hates her neighbor. One evening she decides to burn her neighbor's house down, forcing her neighbor to move. Unbeknownst to Jane, the neighbor's sister was in the house at the time it burned and she died. Jayne is charged with both arson and felony murder. Jayne is convicted of felony murder but acquitted on the arson charge. The felony murder conviction should be:
a) Reversed b/c felony murer requires proof of intent and there was no inte to kill here.
B) Reversed b/c felony murder requires the conviction of a felony, and there was no underlying felony conviction here.
C) reversed b/c felony murder requires an independent felony, and arson is not independent.
B)
There was no underlying felony conviction here. Once Jayne is acquitted of the arson charge, she cannot be convicted of felony murder.
A and C do not provide a similarly valid rationale.
Bob, a petty thief, breaks into the house of another to steal some car seats. He lights a match to see where he is going and unintenionally sets fire to some stored gas, causing the house to burn down. Bob:
A) Would be guilty of arson b/c the intent to break into the house would transfer to the intent to burn down the house.
B) Would be guilty of arson b/c he acted negligently.
C) Would not be guilty of arson if he did not intend for the house to burn down.
D) Would not be guilty of arson if he only acted negligently.
D) B/c malice includes purposeful, knowing and reckless behavior, but not negligence, negligent conduct cannot constitute arson, regardless of the degree of negligence. A) is incorrect b/c intent is not transferred from one crime to another. B) is wrong b/c arson is limited to malicious conduct, not negligence. C) is wrong since malice includes recklessness, and Bob still would be acting with malice if he acted recklessly, albeit unintentionally.
The defendant, an adult male fired his gun at his neighbor's house, killing the neighbor. In which of the following situations would he be most likely convicted of manslaughter and not murder:
A) D was only trying to scare his neighbot by firig just above his neighbor's head.
B) D thought he was firing at his neighbor's brother and not his neighbor.
C) D simply intended to shoot at his neighbor's crowded dinner table and cause a little excitement.
D) D intentionally shot at this neighbor, honestly believing that the neighbor had picked up a rifle to shoot him first, when in fact the neighbor was just going to sweep the garage with a broom.
D is the correct choice. In D, defendant actually believed that the use of lethal force was necessary to defend himself. That belief was unreasonable, however, since the neighbor had picked up a broom with which to sweep the garage. Because the defendant's mistake was honest but unreasonable, this would be imperfect justification manslaughter. If the defendant's mistaken belief in the need for self-defense was reasonable as well as honest, it would have been mistake self-defense and a complete defense to a criminal homicide charge. B) is incorrect because it still presents a case of murder-the intent to kill a person is still present. A and C are examples of depraved heart murder.
Maggie was riding along the hwy on a stormy night when she took her eyes off the road to change the answer tune on her cell phone. Once she had picked "Ode to Joy" she glanced back towards the road, where, to her surprise, there appeared to be a person flailing with his arms right in front of her on the road. Before she could slow down, she hit and killed the victim. That person had been shot and left drunk and helpless on the road by Dan who has been charged with murder. Which of the following is most likely to occur:
A) A jury will find Dan not to have been a cause in fact of the victim's death.
B) The jury will find Maggie not to have been a cause in fact of the victim's death.
C) Provided that Maggie's conduct was inadvertent, she will be an intervening superseding cause, breaking the chain of causation.
D) If Maggie's negligence is considered to be gross, she will an intervening superseding cause, breaking the chain of proximate cause.
D) Gross negligence, as compared to simple neligence, acts as an intervening supersedin cause, breaking the chain of proximate causation. A) is wrong because Dan was a cause in fact of the victim's death--"but for" Dan leaving the victim on the road in the condidtion the victim was in, the victime would not have been killed at that particular time. B) is wrong because, by hitting the victim with her car, Maggie also was a cause in fact of the victim's death. C) is a incorrect statement of the law. Mere inadvertent behavior is not an intervening superseding cause which breaks the chain of causation.