Criminal Law

Front 1

Elements of Ignorance or Mistake?

Back 1

Ignorance or mistake concerning a matter of fact will affect criminal liability only if:

1. it shows D lacked the intent required for the crime
2. the mistake was objectively reasonable

Front 2

What if mistake shows lack of specific intent?

Back 2

Then it need not be reasonable

Front 3

Specific intent crimes

Back 3

1. Larceny & others (permanently deprive)
2. Burglary (intent to commit offense)
3. attemt & conspiracy (complete the target offense)
4. Any defined as doing something "with intent to..."

Front 4

The major crimes that are not specific intent crimes?

Back 4

Rape and arson

Front 5

Under Modern Statutes, when does mistake of fact require acquittal?

Back 5

Whenever it shows the lack of whatever mental state is required for the crime.

Front 6

In a larceny prosecution where D took property, mistakenly believing it belonged to D, what happens?

Back 6

No intent to deprive another of that person's property.

Front 7

Criminal Intent?

Back 7

Crimes generally require mens rea or intent:
1. D must have been aware of the facts that constitute the crime
2. D need not have known anything about the law

Front 8

Exceptions to intent?

Back 8

Strict liability crimes:
1. Statutory rape
2. Bigamy
3. Regulatory crimes

Front 9

Meaning of purpose

Back 9

A conscious desire

Front 10

Meaning of knowledge

Back 10

Awareness of a practical certainty

Front 11

Meaning of recklessness

Back 11

Awareness of a substantial risk

Front 12

Meaning of negligence

Back 12

A reasonable person would have been aware of a substantial risk

Front 13

General rule of Modern Statutory Construction

Back 13

A modern crime usually requires that the defendant have acted at least recklessly concerning all physical elements of the offense.

Front 14

Transferred intent

Back 14

If D intends to injure one person and accidentally inflicts a similar injury upon another person, she will be trated as if she intended to injure the person actually harmed.

Front 15

Meaning of Ignorance or Mistake of Law?

Back 15

Ignorance that the criminal law makes one's conduct a crime is not a defense.

Front 16

Ignorance of the criminal law IS a defense if:

Back 16

1. The belief was objectionably reasonable; and
2. The D relied upon:
a. a statute later held invalid
b. a judicial decision later overruled
c. an official interpretation of the law by a public official

Front 17

Can the defense of mistake of law be based on the advice of counsel?

Back 17

NO. (except if the crime requires knowledge that the law is being violated).

Front 18

Insanity. What is the M'Naghten Rule?

Back 18

D is entitled to acquittal only if facts show that at the time of the crime:
1. D had serious mental illness or defect
2. That caused a defect in his reasoning abilities, and
3. Therefore, he did not either:
a. understand the nature of the act he was doing, or
b. understand that his act was wrong

Front 19

Does an inability to control conduct fit the M'Naughten Rule?

Back 19

No. That won't show insanity.

However, if a modern statute says that loss of control or "irresistible impulse" is sufficient, insanity defense would work.

Front 20

Unconsciousness

Back 20

1. Criminal liability must be based upon a voluntary act of the defendant.
2. If the defendant was unconscious, her behavior cannot constitute the necessary voluntary act.

Front 21

What is the significance of impaired consciousness?

Back 21

It may show absence of a voluntary act but not insanity. Example is Sleepwalking.

Front 22

When is Intoxication involuntary?

Back 22

If:
1. D did not know substance was intoxicating, OR
2. D consumed substance under duress.

Front 23

How is involuntary intoxication treats in the courts?

Back 23

It is treated as a mental illness and the jurisdiction's insanity test is applied.

Front 24

What is Voluntary Intoxication?

Back 24

Defendant should be acquitted only if the crime requires proof of a specific intent and the intoxication shows he lacked that intent.

Front 25

How is voluntary intoxication treated when charged with a crime?

Back 25

It can disprove premeditation.
It cannot disprove malice aforethought and reduce murder to manslaughter.

Front 26

Under modern statutory analysis, when does voluntary intoxication require acquittal?

Back 26

If:
1. Crime requires mental state higher than recklessness; and
2. Intoxication shows lack of this mental state.

Front 27

The minority approach for voluntary intoxication?

Back 27

It's completely irrelevant to criminal liability

Front 28

What if recklessness is sufficient for criminal liability, will voluntary intoxication be a defense?

Back 28

NO.

Front 29

Majority Rule.
When does Entrapment occur?

Back 29

1. D was not predisposed to commit crimes like this; and
2. Police officers created the intent to commit the offense in D's mind.

Front 30

Minority Rule on Entrapment

Back 30

Entrapment occurs if police activity would cause a reasonable and unpredisposed person to form the intent to commit the crime.

Front 31

Why is necessity or choice of lesser evils a defense?

Back 31

1. D believed that commiting the crime would prevent an imminently threatened harm
2. D believed this threatened harm would be greater than the harm that would result from commission of the crime; and
3. These beliefs were objectively reasonable

Front 32

Necessity is not a defense if:

Back 32

1. D wrongfully created the situation making the choice necessary, or
2. D killed another to avoid his own death.

Front 33

General rule for duress or coercion

Back 33

It is a defense that the defendant was compelled to commit the crime by a threat that if he did not do so, the threatening person would do:
1. Immediate and physical harm
2. to D or or a third person

Front 34

Exception to duress as defense

Back 34

Duress is not a defense to a crime that consists of an intentional killing.

Front 35

When can duress be available as a defense to even murder?

Back 35

If the prosecution's theory of guilt does not require proof of intent to kill.

Front 36

General rule for Self-Defense defense?

Back 36

D believed:
1. He was in imminent danger of being harmed by another
2. The force used was necessary to prevent the threatened harm; and
3. These beliefs were objectively reasonable.

Front 37

Deadly force and self-defense?

Back 37

If crime involved deadly force, D has a defense only if she reasonably believed:
1. she was threatened with imminent death or serious bodily injury; and
2. deadly force used was necessary to prevent that harm to her.

Front 38

Need to Retreat Minority Rule

Back 38

Any opportunity to retreat must be taken before using deadly force:
1. applies only if retreat possible with complete safety
2. no duty to retreat when attacked in one's own home

Front 39

Need to Retreat General Rule

Back 39

Opportunity to retreat is factor to consider in determining whether deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances.

Front 40

Aggressor Rules

Back 40

1. A person who starts a fight cannot use force in self defense during the fight
2. An aggressor retains the right to use force in self-defense during a fight by either
a. withdrawing from the fight, or
b. giving notice of desire to do so.

Front 41

A defendant charged with murder who actually but unreasonably believed killing was necessary in self-defense...?

Back 41

1. Is not entitled to acquittal.
2. Should be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder.

Front 42

Defense of Other Persons

Back 42

It's a defense that:
1. D believed that another person was threatened with imminent unlawful physical harm by a third person;
2. D beleived that the force she used was necessary to prevent the harm; and
3. these beliefs were objectively reasonable

Front 43

What does the availability of this defense of other persons turn on?

Back 43

Whether it reasonably appeared to D that the person she aided was in the "right."

Front 44

General rule for Defense of Property

Back 44

It is a defense that force was used in the reasonable belief that it was necessary to prevent unlawful interference with real or personal property.

Front 45

Limits to defense of property.

Back 45

1. Only non-deadly force can be used to defend property.
2. Force can only be used to prevent the interference, and not to regain the property, except in immediate pursuit.