• 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

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/203

Click to flip

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;

203 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Jurisdiction
Generally a state has jurisdiction if:

1. Any act constituting an element of the offense was committed in the state.

2. An act outside the state caused a result in the state.

3. The crime involved the neglect of a duty imposed by the law of the state.

4. There was an attempt or conspiracy outside the state plus an act inside the state.

5. There was an attempt or conspiracy inside the state to commit an offense outside the state.
Classification of crimes.
1. Felonies - generally punishable by death or imprisonment for more than a year.

2. Other crimes - misdemeanors.
Constitutional limitations on criminal statutes.
1. Fair warning - average person of ordinary intelligence must be able to discern what is prohibited.

2. No arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

3. No ex post factor laws

4. No bills of attainder.
Rules of interpretation of criminal statutes.
1. Construed strictly in favor of defendants.

2. If two statutes address the same subject matter but dictate different conclusions, the more specific statute will be applied.

3. More recently enacted statute controls over older statute.

4. Crimes committed prior to the new code are subject to the law as it existed at the time the offense was committed.
Merger under common law.
A person engaging in conduct that is both a felony and misdemeanor can only be convicted of the felony.
Merger under modern law.
No merger, except that one who solicits another to commit a crime may not be convicted of both the solicitation and the completed crime.

Can not be convicted of both the attempt and the completed crime.

Conspiracy does not merge with the completed crime.
Double jeopardy.
Prohibits trial or conviction of a person for a lesser included offense if he has been put in jeopardy for the greater offense.
Exception to double jeopardy.
Court can impose multiple punishments at a single trial where:

1. The punishments are for two or more statutorily defined offenses.

2. The statutes are specifically intended by the legislature to carry separate punishments even though the offenses arise from the same transaction and constitute the same crime.
Actus reus
Physical act.
Mens rea
Mental state.
Elements of a crime.
1. Actus reus.

2. Mens rea.

3. Concurrence of actus reus and mens rea.

4. May require proof of a result and causation.
Physical act.
Defendant must have either:

1. Performed a voluntary physical act or;

2. Failed to act under circumstances imposing a legal duty to act.
Omission as an act.
Failure to act gives rise to liability if:

1. There is a specific duty to act imposed by the law.

2. The defendant has knowledge of the facts giving rise to the duty to act; and

3. It is reasonably possible to perform the duty.
Legal duty to act can arise from:
1. Statute

2. Contract

3. Relationship

4. Voluntary assumption of care.

5. Creation of peril by defendant.
Major specific intent crimes.
1. Solicitation: Intent to have the person solicited commit the crime.

2. Attempt: Intent to complete the crime.

3. Conspiracy: Intent to have the crime completed.

4. First degree premeditated murder: premeditation.

5. Assault: Intent to commit a battery.

6. Larceny and robbery: Intent to permanently deprive the other his interest in the property taken.

7. Burglary: Intent to commit a felony in the dwelling.

8. Forgery: Intent to defraud.

9. False pretenses: Intent to defraud.

10. Embezzlement: Intent to defraud.
Attempt when crime attempted does not require specific intent.
Is still a crime.
Malice crimes
Common law murder and arson.
Intent required for malice crimes.
Reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that the particular harmful result will occur.
Defenses to specific intent crimes (e.g. voluntary intoxication) for malice crimes.
Do not apply.
Almost all crimes require:
General intent: Defendant must be aware that she is acting in the proscribed way and that any required circumstances exist.

Defendant need not be certain that all circumstances exist so long as she is aware of a high likelihood that they will occur.
Inference of intent from act.
A jury may infer the general intent merely from the doing of the act.
Concurrence of mental fault with physical act.
Defendant must have had the intent necessary for the crime at the time he committed the act constituting the crime, and the intent must have actuated the act.
Principal in the first degree under common law.
Person who actually engaged in the act or omission that constitutes the offense.
Principal in the second degree under common law.
Person who aided, commanded, or encourage the principal and was present at the crime.
Accessory before the fact under the common law.
Person who assisted or encouraged but was not present.
Accessory after the fact under common law.
Person who, with knowledge that the other committed a felony, assisted him to escape arrest or punishment.
Conviction of an accessory under the common law.
Conviction of the principal was required and the charge must have indicated the correct theory of liability.
Distinctions between parties to the crime under modern statutes.
Has been abolished. All can be found guilty of the principal offense.

Exception: accessory after the fact.
Mental state of accomplice.
Most jurisdictions require accomplice to give aid, counsel, or encouragement to the principal with the intent to encourage the crime.

Mere knowledge that a crime will result is not enough where aid is given in the form of the sale of ordinary goods at ordinary prices.
Inability to be a principal.
Is no bar to accomplice liability (e.g. woman and rape).
Liability of members of the protected class.
Are excluded from accomplice liability (e.g. woman transported across state lines).
Liability of parties not provided for.
Are excluded from accomplice liability (e.g. statute that makes selling heroin illegal but does not provide punishment for purchaser).
Liability of party that withdraws from a crime.
Are excluded from accomplice liability.

Must withdraw before crime becomes unstoppable.

Repudiation is sufficient withdrawal for mere encouragement.

Attempt to neutralize assistance is required if participation went beyond mere encouragement.
Solicitation.
Culpable Conduct: Solicitation of another to commit a felony.

Mental State: Specific intent that person solicited commit the crime.

Over Act: No act (other than solicitation).

Merger into Completed Crime: Yes

Withdrawal a defense: Generally no.
Elements of solicitation.
1. Inciting, counseling, advising, urging, or commanding another to commit a crime.

2. Intent that the person solicited commit the crime.
Defenses to solicitation.
That offense could not have been successful is not a defense.

In most jurisdiction, not a defense if solicitor withdraws.

Legislative intent to exempt is a defense (e.g. woman soliciting to be be brought across state lines.)
Conspiracy
Culpable conduct: Agreement between two or more people to commit a crime.

Mental State: Specific intent to (i) enter into agreement and (ii) achive objective.

Over Act: Act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Merger into Completed Crime: No.

Withdrawal a Defense: No, except for further crimes of co-conspirators.
Elements of conspiracy.
1. An agreement between two or more persons.

2. An intent to enter into the agreement.

3. An intent by at least two persons to achieve the objective of the agreement.

4. A majority of the states now also require an over act, but an act of mere preparation will suffice.
Agreement requirement of conspiracy.
Agreement need not be express, can be inferred from joint activity.
Husband and wife conspiracy under the common law.
Could not conspire under common law, but most sates have abandoned this.
Conspiracy between corporation and agent.
No conspiracy between a corporation and a single agent acting on its behalf.

Split of authority as to whether agents of corporations can be deemed co-conspirators with the corporation.
Wharton Rule.
Where two or more people are necessary for the offense (e.g. adultery) there is no crime of conspiracy unless more parties participate in the agreement.

Exception: Necessary parties not provided for by the substantive offense; both parties may be found guilty even though both are necessary for commission of the offense.
Agreement with person in protected class.
Persons within that class cannot be guilty of the crime itself or the conspiracy to commit that crime.

Nonprotected person cannot be guilty of conspiracy if the agreement was with the protected person only.
Effect of acquittal of some conspirators.
Traditional view: precludes conviction of the remaining defendant. Some jurisdictions: conviction against one defendant is allowed to stand when the alleged co-conspirator is acquitted in a separate trial.

Key: Acquittal. If other defendants not charged, then the one defendant can be convicted.
Effect of acquittal of some conspirators under the MPC.
Defendant can be convicted regardless of whether the other parties have been acquitted or where only feigning agreement.
Mental state for conspiracy.
Specific intent.

Parties must have (i) intent to agree and (ii) intent to achieve the objective of the conspiracy.
Overt act for conspiracy.
Most states require an act in furtherance of the conspiracy be performed.

Act of mere preparation usually sufficient.
Liability for co-conspirators' crimes.
Conspirator may be held liable from crimes committed by other conspirators if the crimes:

1. Were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and

2. Were foreseeable.
Termination of conspiracy.
Terminates upon completion of the wrongful objective.

Unless agreed to in advance, acts of concealment are not part of the conspiracy.

Government's defeat of the conspiracy's objective does not automatically terminate the conspiracy.
Termination of conspiracy is important because:
Acts and statements of co-conspirators are admissible against a conspirator only if they were done in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Impossibility as a defense to conspiracy.
Not a defense.
Withdrawal as a defense to conspiracy.
Generally not a defense to the conspiracy.

May be a defense to crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
When withdrawal is effective for conspiracy.
Conspirator must perform an affirmative act that notifies all members of the conspiracy of her withdrawal.

If assistance has been provided, assistance must be neutralized.
Merger and conspiracy.
No merger.
Chain relationship and conspiracy.
Chain relationship is a single, large conspiracy in which all parties to subagreements are interested in the single large scheme.

All members are liable for the acts of the others in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Hub and spoke relationship in conspiracy.
A number of independent conspiracies are linked by a common member.

Common member will be liable for all the conspiracies, members of the individual conspiracies are not liable for the acts of the other conspirators.
Transferred intent.
Defendant can be liable where she intends the harm that is actually caused, but to a different victim or object.

Defenses and mitigating circumstances may usually be transferred.

Doctrine does not apply to attempt.
Person found guilty of a crime on the basis of transferred intent.
Is usually guilty of two crimes. e.g. murder of V and attempted murder of X.
Motive.
Motive is the reason for the crime and is immaterial to substantive criminal law.
Strict liability offense.
One that does not require awareness of all the factors constituting the crime.

Mistake of fact is not available as a defense.
MPC and fault
Eliminates distinctions between general and specific intent.
Categories of intent under the MPC.
1. Purposely, knowingly, or recklessly. Subjective standard.

2. Negligence. Objective standard.
"Purposely" under the MPC:
A person acts purposely when his conscious object is to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result.
"Knowingly" under the MPC:
Person is aware that his conduct is of a particular nature or knows that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause a particular result.

Knowing conduct satisfies a statute requiring willful conduct.
"Recklessly" under the MPC:
When person knows of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and consciously disregards it.

Involves both objective ("unjustifiable risk") and subjective ("awareness") elements.
Negligence under the MPC:
When a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, where such failure is a substantial deviation from the standard of care.

Objective standard is used.
Vicarious liability.
Person without personal fault is held liable for the criminal conduct of another (usually an employee).

Trend is to limit it to regulatory crimes and limit punishment to fines.
Enterprise liability.
Under common law, a corporation does not have the capacity to commit crimes.

Under modern statutes, corporations may be held liable for an act by:

1. An agent of the corporation acting within the scope of his office or employment.

2. A corporate agent high enough in hierarchy to presume his acts reflect corporate policy.
Elements of attempt.
An act does with the intent to commit a crime, that falls short of completing the crime.
Mental state of attempt.
Defendant must intend to perform an act and obtain a result that if achieved, would constitute a crime.

Always requires a specific intent.
Attempt as to crimes involving negligence.
Not possible since it is impossible to intend to be negligent.
Overt act for attempt.
Act must go beyond mere preparation for offense.
"Proximity" test for attempt.
Traditionally courts followed proximity test which requires that the act be dangerously close to successful completion.
"Substantial step" test for attempt.
Most criminal codes and MPC require that the act or omission constitute a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime.
Defenses to attempt.
1. Impossibility of Success - only legal impossibility

2. Abandonment is not a defense.
Impossibility of success as a defense to attempt.
1. Factual impossibility is not a defense. This includes impossibility due to mistake in attendant circumstances (purchasing "stolen goods" from undercover officer.)

2. Legal impossibility is a defense.
Abandonment as a defense to attempt.
Not a defense.
Attempt and merger.
Attempt merges with completed crime.
M'Nagthen Rule
Defendant is entitled to acquittal only if they had a mental disease or defect that caused them to:

1. Not know that their act would be wrong.

2. Or not understand the nature and quality of their actions.

Loss of control because of mental illness is no defense.
Irresistible impulse test.
Defendant is entitled to acquittal only if, because of a mental illness, he was unable to control his actions or conform his conduct to the law.
ALI or MPC insanity test.
Defendant is entitled to acquittal if they had a mental disease or defect and as a result, they lacked the substantial capacity to either:

1. Appreciate the criminality of their conduct; or

2. Conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.
Durham (or New Hampshire) insanity test.
Defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was a product of their mental illness.
Burden of proof and insanity.
All defendants presumed sane.

Split among jurisdiction as to whether defendant raising the issue bears the burden of proof.
When insanity defense may be raised.
Defendant may plead not guilty at arraignment and raise the defense at a later time.
Pretrial psychiatric examination.
If defendant does not raise the insanity issue, they may refuse a court-ordered psychiatric examination to determine competency to stand trial.

If defendant raises the insanity issue, they may not refuse to be examined by a psychiatrist appointed to aid the court.
Post acquittal commitment to mental institution.
A defendant acquitted by reason of insanity may be committed to a mental institution until cured.
Mental condition during criminal proceedings.
Under the Due Process clause, a defendant may be not be tried, convicted, or sentenced if, as the result of a mental disease or defect they are unable to:

1. Understand the nature of the proceedings brought against them.

2. Assist their lawyer in the preparation of their defense.

Defendant may not be executed if they are incapable of understanding the nature and purpose of the punishment.
Diminished capacity.
Some states recognize.

Defendant asserts that as a result of a mental defect short of insanity, they did not have the mental state required for the crime charged.

Most states that allow it limit it to specific intent crimes.
Intoxication as a defense.
May be caused by any substance.

May be raised whenever it negates one of the elements of the crime.

Law usually distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
When intoxication is voluntary.
When it is the result of the intentional taking without duress of a substance known to be intoxicating.
Voluntary intoxication as a defense.
May only be offered if the crime requires a purpose (intent) or knowledge and the substance prevented the defendant from having such.

Is often a good defense to specific intent crimes.

Not available if defendant purposely becomes intoxicated in order to establish defense.
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to crimes:
Involving malice, recklessness, negligence, or strict liability.
Intoxication is involuntary when:
It result from:

1. The taking of an intoxicating substance without knowledge of its nature.

2. Under duress imposed by another.

3. Or pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the substance's intoxicating effect.

May be treated as a mental illness and defendant is entitled to acquittal if they meet the jurisdiction's insanity test.
Intoxication's relationship to insanity.
Continuous excessive drinking or drug use may bring on actual insanity and defendant may be able to claim both as a defense.
Infant liability under common law.
No liability for act committed by a child under age seven.

Rebuttable presumption that child was unable to understand the wrongness of his acts for ages seven to 14.

Children age 14 and older were treated as adults.
Infancy and moder statutes.
No child can be convicted until a stated age is reached, usually 13 or 14.

Children can be found to be delinquent in special juvenile or family courts.
Self-defense, non-deadly force.
Person without fault may use such force as reasonably appears necessary to protect self from the imminent use of unlawful force upon them.
Self-defense, deadly force.
Person may use deadly force if:

1. Without fault

2. Is confronted with unlawful force.

3. Is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm.
Imperfect self-defense doctrine.
IF defendant kills in self-defense, but not all three elements are met, may be found guilty of manslaughter instead of murder.
Retreat and self-defense.
Generally no duty to retreat.

Minority view requires retreat if the victim can safely do so unless:

1. The attack occurs in victim's home.

2. The attack occurs while the victim is making a lawful arrest or

3. The assailant is in the process of robbing the victim.
Right of aggressor to use self-defense.
Aggressor may use force in defense only if:

1. Effectively withdraws from the altercation and communicates to the other their desire to do so,

or

2. The victim of initial aggression suddenly escalates the minor fight into a deadly altercation and initial aggressor has no chance to withdraw.
Right to defend others.
May defend others if person reasonably believes that the person assisted has the legal right to use force.

All that is necessary is the reasonable appearance of the right to use force.

No special relationship needed between defender and defendee.
Defense of a dwelling, non deadly force.
Nondeadly force may be used to:

1. Prevent or terminate what is reasonably regarded as an unlawful entry into or attack on dwelling.
Defense of a dwelling, deadly force.
Deadly force may only be used to:

1. Prevent a violent entry made with the intent to commit a personal attack on an inhabitant,

or

2. Prevent entry to commit a felongy in the dwelling.
Defending possession, deadly force.
Never allowed.
Defending possession, non-deadly force.
May be used to defend property in one's possession from unlawful interference.

May not be used if a request to desist or refrain from the activity would suffice.
Regaining possession and force.
Force cannot be used to regain possession of property wrongfully taken unless person using force is in immediate pursuit of taker.
Crime prevention, non-deadly force.
May be used to the extent that it reasonably appears necessary to prevent a felony or serious breach of the peace.
Crime prevention, deadly force.
Deadly force may used to terminate or prevent a dangerous felony involving risk to human life.
Effectuate arrest, non-deadly force.
May be used by police officers if it reasonably appears necessary to effectuate arrest.
Effectuate arrest, deadly force.
Reasonable only if:

1. It is necessary to prevent a felon's escape

and

2. The felon threatens death or serious bodily harm.
Arrest by private person, non-deadly force.
May be used if:

1. A crime was in fact committed.

and

2. The person has reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested has in fact committed the crime.
Arrest by private person, deadly force.
May only be used if:

1. Person harmed was actually guilty of the offense for which the arrest was made.
Resisting arrest, non-deadly force.
May be use to resist an improper arrest even if a known officer is making the arrest.
Resisting arrest, deadly force.
May only be used to resist an improper arrest if person does not know that the person arresting him is a police officer.
Necessity defense.
Only a defense if the person reasonably believed that commission of the crime was necessary to avoid an imminent and greater injury to society than that involved in the crime.

Test is objective; a good faith belief is not sufficient.
Necessity defense limitations.
1. Death. Causing death of another person to protect property is never justified.

2. Fault. No available if defendant is at fault in creating the situation requiring that they choose between two evils.

3. Requires pressure from natural or physical forces. Duress involves human threat.
Public policy as defense.
Officer acting pursuant to law, court order or process.
Domestic authority as defense.
Parents of a minor child or "in loco parentis" may use reasonable force on child for the purpose of promoting child's welfare.
Condonation or criminality of victim.
Not a defense.
Entrapment
Exists if:

1. The criminal design originated with law enforcement officers

and

2. The defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to contact by the government.

3. Cannot be entrapped by a prive person.
Entrapment if material for crime is provided by government agent.
Entrapment defense is not available.
Battery.
1. Unlawful application of force to person of another.

2. Resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.

3. Need not be intentional.

4. Force need not be applied directly.

5. Some jurisdiction recognize consent as defense to simple battery.

6. Simple battery is a misdemeanor.
Aggravated battery.
Most jurisdiction treat as aggravated batteries:

1. Battery with a deadly weapon.

2. Battery resulting in serious bodily harm.

3. Battery of a child, woman, or police officer.
Assault.
Either:

1. An attempt to commit a battery

or

2. The intentional creation, other than by mere words, of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of imminent bodily harm.
Aggravated assault.
Treated more severely than simple assault.
Mayhem
1. Common law crime.

2. Required either dismemberment or disablement of a bodily part.

3. Recent trend is to abolish it as a separate offense and treat it as a form of aggravated battery.
Categories of homicide under common law.
1. Murder.

2. Voluntary manslaughter.

3. Involuntary manslaughter.
Common law murder.
1. The unlawful killing of a human being

2. With malice aforethought
Malice aforethought
Exist if:

There are no facts reducing the killing to voluntary manslaughter or excusing it

and it was committed with one of the following states of mind:

1. Intent to kill.

2. Intent to inflict great bodily injury.

3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life.

4. Intent to commit a felony.
Intent to kill.
Use of a deadly weapon is a permissive inference of intent to kill.
Voluntary manslaughter.
Killing that would be murder but for the existence of adequate provocation.
Provocation for voluntary manslaughter.
Is adequate if:

1. It was a provocation that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person, causing them to lose self-control.

2. The defendant was in fact provoked.

3. There was not sufficient time between provocation and killing for passions of reasonable person to cool.

and

4. The defendant in fact did not cool off.
Imperfect self-defense.
Reduces murder to manslaughter even though:

1. The defendant was at fualt in starting the altercation.

or

2. The defendant unreasonably but honestly believed in the necessity of responding with deadly force.
Involuntary manslaughter.
1. Committed with criminal negligence (grossly negligent).

2. During the commission of an unlawful act (misdemeanor or felony not included within felony murder rule).
Statutory modification of common law classification of murder.
1. Second degree murder unless:

1. Deliberate and premeditated.

2. Felony murder.

3. Others, e.g. torture.
First degree murder, deliberate and premeditated.
If defendant made the decision to kill in a cool and dispassionate manner and actually reflected on the idea of killing.
Premeditation and intoxication.
Intoxication may negate premeditation.

Can only be convicted of second degree or common law murder.
Felony murder - felonies included.
Felonies most commonly listed include arson, robbery, burglary, rape, mayhem and kidnapping.
Felonies included in felony murder.
Limited to felonies that are inherently dangerous.
Limitations on liability for felony murder.
1. Defendant must be guilty of the underlying felony.

2. Felony must be distinct from killing itself. (e.t. commission of aggravated battery that causes death does not qualify).

3. Death must have been a foreseeable result of the felony.

4. The death must have been caused before the defendant's immediate flight from the felony ends. Once the felon reaches a place of temporary safety, subsequent deaths are not felony murder.

5. In most jurisdictions, defendant is not liable for felony murder when a co-felon is killed as result of resistance from the victim or the police.

6. Defendant is not liable when an innocent party is killed unless the death is caused by the defendant or his agent.
Proximate cause theory.
Defendant may be liable when an innocent party is killed by the victim or police.
Causation for murder.
Defendant's conduct must be:

1. Cause-in-fact

and

2. The proximate cause of death.
Cause-in-fact
If the result would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct.
Proximate causation.
IF the result is a natural and probably consequence of the conduct.
Rules of causation.
1. Act that hastens an inevitable result is still the legal cause of that result.

2. Simultaneous acts of two or more persons may be independently sufficient causes of a singe result.
Year and a Day rule.
Traditionally, death must occur within one year and one day from infliction of injury.

Most states have abolished the rule.
Intervening acts and murder.
Generally intervening act shields the defendant from liability if act is a coincidence or is outside the foreseeable sphere of risk created by defendant.

Third party's negligent medical care is a foreseeable risk.
False imprisonment.
1. Unlawful confinement of a person

2. Without person's valid consent.

3. Is not confinement if there are alternate routes available.

4. Consent is invalidated by coercion, threats, deception, or incapacity due to mental illness, retardation, or youth.
Kidnapping
Modern statute often define as:

1. Unlawful confinement of a person that involves:

2. Some movement of the victim.

or

3. Concealment of the victim in a secret place.
Aggravated kidnapping.
Includes kidnapping for:

1. Ransom.

2. Purpose of committing other crimes.

3. For offensive purposes.

4. Child stealing.
Rape.
1. Unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman by a man, not her husband, without her effective consent.

2. The slightest penetration is sufficient.
Rape and marital relationship.
Traditional rule is that a husband cannot rape his wife.

Most states today reject the rule entirely, or reject it where the parties are estranged or separated.
Rape and lack of effective consent.
Lack of effective consent exists:

1. Intercourse is accomplished by actual force.

2. Intercourse is accomplished by threats of great and immediate bodily harm.

3. The victim is incapable of consenting due to unconsciousness, intoxication, or mental condition.

4. The victim is fraudulently caused to believe that the act is not intercourse.
Statutory rape.
1. Carnal knowledge of a female under the age of consent.

2. Is a strict liability crime.
Adultery.
1. Adultery is committed by both parties if either is validly married to someone else.

2. Often required that behavior be open and notorious.
Fornication.
1. Sexual intercourse

or

2. Notorious cohabitation by unmarried persons.
Incest.
Marriage or a sexual act between closely related persons.
Seduction.
1. Inducing, by promise of marriage, an unmarried woman to engage in intercourse.

2. MPC does not require chastity or that the female be unmarried.
Bigamy.
Common law strict liability offense of marrying someone while having another living spouse.
Larceny.
1. A taking.

2. And carrying away.

3. Of tangible personal property.

4. Of another with possession.

5. By trespass.

6. With intent to permanently deprive that person of their interest in the property.
Larceny and possession.
If defendant has possession of the property at the time of the taking, it is not larceny.
Larceny, custody vs. possession.
Possession involves a greater scope of authority to deal with the property than custody.

If the defendant has possession then it may be embezzlement and not larceny.
Larceny and intent to permanently deprive.
1. Generally requires that at the time of taking, defendant intended to permanently deprive a person of their property.

2. Intent to create substantial risk of loss, or to sell goods to owner, is sufficient intent.
Not sufficient intent for larceny.
1. If defendant believes property is theirs.

2. Intends to only borrow the property.

3. To keep property as reppayment of debt.
Possibly sufficient intent for larceny.
1. Where defendant intends to pay for the goods (if the goods were not for sale).

2. Intends to collect a reward from the owner (if there is no intent to return the goods absent a reward).
Larceny and abandoned property.
Can not be committed.
Continuing trespass.
1. Defendant wrongfully takes property.

2. Without the intent to permanently deprive.

3. Later decides to keep.

It is larceny when defendant decides to keep it.
Embezzlement.
1. The fraudulent.

2. Conversion.

3. Of personal property.

4. Of another.

5. By a person in lawful possession of that property.
Conversion.
Dealing with the property in a manner inconsistent with the arrangement by which defendant has possession.
Embezzlement intent.
1. Must have intent to defraud.

2. If defendant intends to restore the exact property it is not embezzlement.

3. If returning same value but different money, is still embezzlement.
Embezzlement and claim of right.
1. Is not embezzlement if conversion is pursuant to a claim of right to the property.

2. Whether the defendant took the property openly is important.
False pretenses.
1. Obtaining title.

2. To personal property of another.

3. By an intentional false statement of past or existing fact.

4. With the intent to defraud.
Larceny by trick vs. false pretenses.
1. Larceny by trick: If victim is tricked into giving up mere possession of property.

2. False pretenses: If victim is tricked into giving up title to property.
Misrepresentation requirement for false pretenses.
1. Victim must actually be deceived by, or act in reliance on, the misrepresentation.

2. Misrepresentation must be major factor or sole cause of the victim passing title.

3. Misrepresentation as to what will occur in the future is not sufficient.

4. A false promise is also not sufficient.
Robbery.
1. A taking.

2. Of personal property of another.

3. From the other's person or presence.

4. By force or threats of immediate death or physical injury to the victim, a member of his family, or some person in the victim's presence.

5. With the intent to permanently deprive.

Victim must give up property because they feel threatened, not merely because they want the robber to go away. (may be guilty of attempted robbery).
Robbery vs. larceny.
Robbery requires that the defendant use force or threats to obtain or retain property.
Common law extortion.
1. The corrupt collection of an unlawful fee.

2. By an officer.

3. Under the color of office.
Extortion under modern statutes.
Often consists of obtaining property by means of threats to do harm or to expose information.

Some statutes do not require that the property need be obtained.
Extortion vs. robbery.
1. In extortion, threats may be of future harm

and

2. Taking does not have to be in presence of victim.
Receipt of stolen property.
1. Receiving possession and control.

2. Of stolen personal property.

3. Known to have been obtained in a manner constituting a criminal offense.

4. By another person.

5. With the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their interest in it.
Receipt of stolen property and possession.
1. Manual possession not necessary.

2. Possesses property when it is put in a location designated by them, or they arrange sale for the thief to a third person.
Receipt of stolen property and "stolen" element.
The property must be stolen property at the time the defendant receives it.
Attempted receipt of stolen property.
IF defendant intends to receive the property believing it to be stolen.
Theft.
Under many modern statutes, some or all of the property offenses are combined defined as theft.
Forgery.
1. Making or altering.

2. A writing with apparent legal significance.

3. So that it is false. (not merely inaccurate though).

4. With the intent to defraud.
Fraudulently obtaining the signature of another.
Defendant fraudulently causes a third person to sign a document that the third person does not realize he is signing, forgery has been committed.

If third person realizes they are signing the document, forgery has not been committed even if the third person was induced by fraud to sign it.
Uttering a forged instrument.
1. Offering as genuine.

2. An instrument that many be the subject of forgery and is false.

3. With the intent to defraud.
Malicious mischief.
1. Malicious.

2. Destruction of or damage to.

3. The property of another.

4. Damage or destruction must have been intended or contemplated by defendant.

No ill will or hatred required.
Burglary.
1. A breaking.

2. And entry.

3. Of a dwelling.

4. Of another.

5. At nighttime.

6. With the intent to commit a felony in the structure.
Modern statutes and burglary.
Often eliminate many of the technicalities (that structure be a dwelling, etc.).
Intent to commit a felony for a burglary.
Must be present at the time of entry.
Arson at common law.
1. The malicious.

2. Burning.

3. Of the dwelling.

4. Of another.
Arson under modern statutes.
Extends to structures other than dwellings.
Damage for arson.
1. Is not required.

2. Mere blackening by smoke or discoloration by heat is not sufficient.

3. Mere charring is sufficient.

4. Must be caused by the fire.
Perjury.
1. Intentional taking of a false oath.

2. In regard to a material matter.

3. In a judicial proceeding.
Subornation of perjury.
Procuring or inducing another to commit perjury.
Bribery at common law.
1. Corrupt payment or receipt of anything of value.

2. For official action.
Bribery under modern statutes.
1. May be extended to nonpublic officials.

2. Either the offering of a bribe or taking of a bribe will constitute the crime.
Compounding a crime.
1. Agreeing not to prosecute another for a felony

or

2. Concealing the commission of a felony or the whereabouts of a felon.

3. For valuable consideration.
Compounding a crime under modern statutes.
Definition refers to any crime.
Misprison of a felony under common law.
1. Failure to disclose knowledge of the commission of a felony.

or

2. Failure to prevent the commission of a crime.
Misprison of a felony under modern statutes.
1. Is no longer a crime.

2. Or if it is a crime, requires some affirmative action in the aid of the felon.