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;
53 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Common Law Murder |
Killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought |
|
|
|
Human Being |
born alive |
|
|
|
Malice |
Express: Intent to kill Implied: 1. Depraved Heart 2. Great Bodily Harm 3. Felony murder |
|
|
|
Intent |
Purposely OR Knowingly |
|
|
|
Purposely |
Conscious objective to cause the harm |
|
|
|
Knowingly |
With substantial certainty that the result will occur |
|
|
|
Aforethought |
Thought about it before hand |
|
|
|
First Degree Murder |
Besides the intent, it has to be deliberate+premeditated+willful |
|
|
|
Deliberate |
Quality of thought |
|
|
|
Premeditated |
Quantity of time, it can be seconds, no specific time. |
|
|
|
Willful |
Voluntary (Muscular contraction) |
|
|
|
CL manslaughter |
killing of human being without malice aforethought and without justification. |
|
|
|
CL voluntary manslaughter |
Intentional killing of human being by another human being under sudden heat of passion as a result of adequate provocation without time to cool-off and there must be a causal link between the killing and the passion. |
|
|
|
Heat of passion |
Any violent or intense emotion |
Ex. Fear, wild desperation, resentment |
|
|
Adequate Provocation |
1. Mutual Combat 2. Aggravated assault and batt. 3. A man observing his spouse cheating 4. Illegal arrest 5. Crime against close relative |
|
|
|
CL involuntary manslaughter |
Unintentional killing of a human being as a result of an act lawful in itself but done in an unlawful manner OR lawful act done without due caution or circumspection. |
Equivalent to depraved heart under CL |
|
|
MPC Murder |
Under the MPC, homicide is the killing of a HB by another HB and it would constitute murder if it's committed purposely or knowingly or under extreme indifference to human life (extreme recklessness) |
|
|
|
Extreme Recklessness |
(Depraved heart) persons conduct manifests an extreme indifference to the value of human life. |
|
|
|
MPC Manslaughter |
A killing that is committed recklessly OR under extreme emotional distress |
MPC Manslaughter= voluntary manslaughter under CL |
|
|
Recklessness |
Aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and takes it anyway. |
Equivalent to depraved heart under CL |
|
|
EED |
To determine EED first apply the subjective test= what the person says they felt like, believed etc... Then apply objective test= based on a reasonable prudent person conduct based on circumstances. |
Learned hand formula: LH+ SH> CP, if less than, then no deviation. |
|
|
Negligent Homicide (ONLY MPC) |
Homicide that is committed negligently |
|
|
|
Negligently |
When actor should have been aware of an unjustifiable risk, that is a gross deviation from that of a reasonable person. |
|
|
|
Gross deviation |
To determine gross deviation you apply the learned hand formula |
|
|
|
Actus Reus |
The voluntary, physical aspect or omission of the crime, that leads to the social harm |
|
|
|
Mens Rea |
The guilty mind of the actor |
|
|
|
Social Harm |
The harm is experienced not only by the victim but also by society |
|
|
|
Burden of proof |
According to the due process clause in the constitution, it is the prosecutions burden of proof to prove the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt |
|
|
|
Felony Murder |
Besides some limitations, One is guilty of murder if a death results from conduct during the commission, attempted commission or fleeing of any felony. |
|
|
|
Limitations to felony murder |
Inherently Dangerous felony: there are two approaches courts look at, (1) the abstract approach= a court will ignore the facts of the specific case and, instead, consider the elements of the offense in the abstract--- look at the offense as defined by the stat. The test is whether the crime by it's very nature cannot be committed without creating a substantial risk that someone will be killed. (2) many states determine the dangerousness of a felony by considering the facts and circumstances of the particular case to determine if such felony was inherently dangerous in the manner and circumstance in which committed (the problem with this approach is that of course it was, someone is dead)
Independent Felony (or merger) limitation: the felony murder rule only applies if the underlying felony is independent of the murder. If the felony is not independent, then the felony is said to merge with the homicide and cannot serve as the basis for a felony murder conviction. The agency approach: felony murder rule does not apply if a non-felon personally commits the murder. The proximate cause approach: a felon is liable for any death that is the proximate result of the felony , whether the shooter is a felon or a third party. Res Gestae: time and distance limitation. Time= from the attempt to the completion. Distance= relatively close to where committed. |
|
|
|
Omissions |
1. Statute requires action 2. Status relationships: parent to child, spouse, doctor to patient. 3. Contractual obligation: if the D's performance is relied upon by others i.e lifeguards and air traffic controller 4. Rescuer and seclusion: voluntarily assuming a duty of care to another and failing to complete it. 5. D creates the risk: has a duty to make sure people are not harmed by the risk he created. |
|
|
|
Causation |
Actual Cause: (1) "but for" (but for D's voluntary act or omission, would the social harm have occurred? If yes, D not guilty; if no, D is the actual cause and is guilty (2) substantial factor (when more than one D). Proximate Cause: time framing test. Direct and natural result of the harm. Accelerating Result: Even if the outcome is inevitable, if D accelerated the death he can be guilty. Concurrent Causes: if two or more people act alone and their acts are sufficient to cause the result that occurred, the causes were concurrent Intervening Cause: it's an independent force. 1. De Minimus: if the intervening act is so small it will not supersede. 2. Foreseeability: D cannot escape liability if the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable, whereas an unforeseeable intervening cause is superseding in nature. - responsive: an act that occurs as a result of prior wrongful conduct. - coincidental: a force so abnormal it can't be foreseen. 3. Intended Consequence: the result happens no matter the manner how it happened 4. Apparent safety: if victim was in apparent safety already and something happens to them while there, D is not guilty any longer. 5. Human intervention: drag race case. If victim voluntarily chose to continue something, D is no longer liable for result. 6. Superseding cause: will break chain. |
Begin this analysis before explaining the crime. |
|
|
Self Defense |
CL: a non-agressor is justified in using deadly force when he reasonably believes such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent, unlawful use of deadly force against himself • if the person can safely retreat and therefore, avoid killing the aggressor, than deadly force is unnecessary
• must be proportionate, necessary, and reasonable to be justifiable |
|
|
|
Aggressor |
An aggressor has no right to claim self defense, although there is no universally accepted term for aggressor, it has been defined by one court as one whose affirmative unlawful act is reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences |
|
|
|
Imminent |
In the context of self defense force is said to be imminent of it will occur immediately or at the moment of danger. |
|
|
|
Reasonableness |
Under MPC reasonableness is determined only subjectively as opposed to CL where it is determined both objectively and subjectively. |
|
|
|
Deadly force |
One court summarized it on the basis of the likelihood of the force causing death or serious bodily injury |
|
|
|
How is self defense different in CL and MPC? |
1) MPC is subjective standard 2) it doesn't require that the aggressors force be imminent only requires that the force be immediately necessary |
|
|
|
Defense of others |
1. Alter ego: you stand on the same grounds of the victim. Must be no mistake as to who the victim is 2. Reasonable belief: you reasonably believed that the person who are defending actually is the victim. |
|
|
|
Defense of Habitation |
1. Early CL Approach "Castle doc": • reasonable belief that imminent and unlawful entry to dwelling • deadly force is justified
2. Middle approach: • the other person intends an unlawful and imminent entry of the dwelling • the intruder intends to injure or commit a felony within the home • deadly force is necessary to repel the intrusion
3. Narrow approach: • the person intends an unlawful and imminent entry of the dwelling • the intruder intends to commit a forcible felony therein • such force is necessary to prevent the intrusion |
|
|
|
Duress |
1. Immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury 2. Well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out 3. No reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm • not a defense to murder |
|
|
|
Insanity |
A D is entitled to an acquittal if at the time of the crime he was so impaired by mental illness or defect within the meaning of the law.
1. M'Naghten rule CL: (cognitive based/No volitional aspect) a person is insane if at the time of her act she was laboring under such a defect of reason, arising from a disease of mind, that: • she did not know the nature and quality of the act she was doing OR • if she did know it, she did not know what she was doing was wrong
Wrong: - Moral: if society deems it wrong - Legal: against the law If either prong is met, person is insane under this CL test.
2) MPC TEST: A D is not responsible for his/her criminal conduct if at the time of the crime under mental illness or defect he • lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his criminality (cognitive) OR • lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requisite of the law (volitional)
- Deific Decree: cases in which mentally disordered person believes that God has instructed or commanded her or him to do what she or he is on trial for committing. God talking to them.
3) irresistible impulse: acted from an irresistible and uncontrollable impulse where he could not control himself 4) Product (Durham) test: act was a product of the mental disease. |
|
|
|
Intoxication |
Voluntary: voluntary intoxication does NOT excuse criminal conduct, however, in limited circumstances, intoxication may negate the necessary mens rea for a given offense and thus, exculpate D. Involuntary intoxication: involuntary if D cannot be blamed for it. It may result from: • coerced intoxication • innocent mistake as to the nature of the substance being consumed or unexpected intoxication from a prescribed medicine, provided D didn't take more than prescribed dosage • "pathological intoxication": a temporary psychotic reaction, often manifested by violence, which= triggered by consumption of alcohol by a person with a pre-disposing mental or physical condition. The defense only applies if D had no reason to know he was susceptible to such a reaction. |
|
|
|
Attempt |
Complete: this occurs when D performs all of the acts that he set out to do, but fails to attain his criminal goal (i.e D aims to shoot V but misses) Incomplete: this occurs when D does some of the acts necessary to achieve the criminal goal but he quits or is prevented from continuing (i.e the police arrived before you can complete the crime)
Mens Rea of criminal attempt: 1) D must intentionally commit the acts that constitute the actus reus of an attempt (i.e acts that bring him in proximity to commission of a substantive offense or which otherwise constitute a substantial step in that direction) and 2) D must perform these acts with the specific intention of committing the target offense
Actus Reus of criminal attempt: courts have developed various tests to determine at what point D's conduct goes past preparation and is attempt
2 intents: 1. MR: specific intent • to commit target offense • intent to do the AR 2. AR (tests): some courts look at what you've done so far, some look at what is left to be done.
Tests: 1) Physical Proximity: the overt act required for an attempt must be proximate completed crime, or directly tending toward the completion of the crime, or must amount to the commencement of the consummation. How close in space and time the actor was to the target offense 2) dangerous proximity: how close the person is physically to the commission of the crime. How close the person is temporarily to commission of the crime. How serious the crime is 3) indispensable element: a variation of the proximity test, which emphasizes any indispensable (necessary) aspect of the criminal act over which the actor has not yet acquired control. 4) probable desistance: constitutes attempt if in the ordinance and natural course of events without interruption from an outside source, it will result in the crime intended. 5) unequivocally: attempt is committed when the actors conduct unambiguously manifests criminal intent. Ex: must get pretty close to know what they intent to do at that moment. 6) MPC: substantial steps are taken by D that corroborates the actors criminal purpose. • substantial steps: lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victim, incising or seeking to incise the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission, unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle or enclosure... Possession of materials to be used in crime that are specially designed for it or which may serve no lawful purpose.
|
|
|
|
Defense to attempt |
Abandonment: not a defense at CL. Once attempt has begun, actor may choose to abandon his conduct before the target offense is complete. The D must completely renounce his criminal purpose |
|
|
|
Solicitation |
Asking someone to commit a crime. This is completed when the person asks the question.
Defenses: CL= None MPC= renunciation (person who asked has to persuade the other to stop) |
|
|
|
Conspiracy |
Agreement between two or more people to commit crime
MPC: require substantial step (overt act); looked at only unilateral CL: looks at it bilateral (2 or more form an agreement or no agreement is made) and unilateral (focuses on the actor whose liability is an issue, rather than on the group)
Defenses: CL= None MPC= renunciation before the overt act happens and must try to actually stop it, don't have to communicate it to the group. |
|
|
|
Theft |
Larceny: crime at CL 1. Trespassory: (means the taking and carrying away of personal property without the possessors consent) BEGIN HERE, if not met= No larceny and stops here. 2. Taking (capture and control) 3. Carrying away (asportation) 4. Personal property of another (tangible, movable, some value) 5. With the intent 6. To deprive him of it permanently ( ALL MUST BE MET ) Physical possession= custody Constructive possession= remains with owner Larceny by trick: if lawful possession obtained but had intention from the beginning to keep it.
• employee/employer relationship: assumes that employer owns anything that is used by employee within the scope of employment (employer retains constructive possession) • Baylor/Bailee relationship: lawful possession has been given to the Baylor, only for the package NOT the contents inside. Baylor cannot "break bulk" (open) Ex. If Baylor opens the box, this is larceny Ex. If Baylor receives the box to deliver it and instead gives it as a "gift" to C, NOT larceny, this is embezzlement because he had lawful possession • Continuing trespass: if trespassory taking without the intent to keep but later decide to keep= larceny • Finders Rule: you are not guilty of larceny if an item is abandoned, but if an item is lost, person who lost it retains constructive possession of item and a finder will be guilty if there's a reasonable basis for finding the owner of the item, or you have a wrongful intent to keep it from the time you found it. |
|
|
|
Embezzlement |
1. Fraudulent 2. Conversion 3. Of property 4. Of another 5. By one who is already in lawful possession of it |
|
|
|
False Pretense |
1. Representation 2. Of material facts 3. Which D knows to be false and which he intends 4. To pass title of his property |
|
|
|
Necessity |
Only use when no other choice available.
1. D must be faced with a clear and imminent danger 2. There must be a direct causal relationship between the action and the harm averted; 3. There must be no effective legal way to avert the harm 4. The harm that D will cause by violating the law must be less serious than the harm he seeks to avoid. D's actions are evaluated in terms of the harm that was reasonably foreseeable at the time, rather than the harm that actually occurred 5. There must be no legislative intent to penalize such conduct under the specific circumstances 6. D must come to the situation with clean hands (i.e. He must not have wrongfully placed himself in that situation) |
|
|
|
Elements of every crime |
• Actus Reus • Mens rea • Causation
The due process clauses of the U.S Constitution require that the prosecutor persuade the fact finder beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute a crime. |
|
|
|
MPC Self-Defense |
The use of force is justifiable for protection of the person when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion. |
|
