Criminal Law Cases

Front 1

State v. Utter

Back 1

CL

when the state of unconsciousness is voluntarily induced through the use of drugs or alcohol, not a complete defense. War vet stabbed son after drinking.

Front 2

Martin v. State

Back 2

CL

D was dragged, drunk, into public by police so not guilty. But MPC would probably say guilty because he drank.

Front 3

MPC§ 1.13(2)

Back 3

act = bodily movement (even involuntary)

Front 4

MPC§ 2.01(1)

Back 4

Not liable w/o voluntary act

Front 5

MPC § 2.01 (2)

Back 5

Involuntary acts are: (a) reflexif (b) while unconceous (c) hypnotized (d) other

Front 6

MPC§ 2.01(4)

Back 6

you POSSESS something if you've had a chance to throw it away.

Front 7

Peoplev. Decina

Back 7

MPC epileptic driver. Guilty because they knew about condition

Front 8

Jonesv. U.S

Back 8

CL Situationswhere legal duty to act

Statutory Duty

Front 9

Crimesof commission

Back 9

CL Duty by status, k, volunteering, risk creation

Front 10

Peoplev. Beardsley

Back 10

CL, "burns candle at both ends" Hehad no legal obligation to act, only a moral one which is notpunishable by law.

Front 11

Barberv. Superior Court

Back 11

CL: Removal of life support not act, ommission, Not guilty

MPC: removing life support is act: guilty.

Front 12

MPC§ 1.13(4)

Back 12

Omission = failure to act

Front 13

MPC§ 2.01(3)

Back 13

not liable for omission unless otherwise stated

Front 14

Social Harm

Back 14

Result: Death after manslaughter

Conduct: Driving after drunk

Attendant Circumstance: drunk while driving

Front 15

INTENT

Back 15

CL: PURPOSEto cause; KNOWLEDGE of result

Front 16

Transferred Intent Doctrine

Back 16

Intenttransfers if a person acts intentionally as defined above and if theresult of his conduct differs from that which he desired only inrespect to the identity of the victim. (Dillof’s specialty)

Front 17

Reginav. Cunningham

Back 17

CL: tore gas meter off wall to steal coins in it...???

Front 18

Specific/General Intent

Back 18

Defines specific mens rea in definition

/

any mens rea inferred from actus reus

Front 19

MPC§ 2.02

Back 19

Culpability hierarchy:

Purposefully,

Knowingly,

Recklessly, or

Negligently.

Higher is sufficient for lower. If not specified first 3 will do.

Front 20

2.02(1)

Back 20

“Aperson is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely,knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law may require, withrespect to eachmaterial element ofthe offense.”Liabilityif C+R+AC + MR(C)+MR(R)+MR(AC).

Front 21

Transferred Intent Doctrine/MPC 2.03

Back 21

CL and MPC: only same crime transfers (MPC2.04(2) never worse crime)

People v. Conley: D intended to strike V1, accidentally struck V2, intent can be transferred.

Front 22

Willful blindness

Back 22

CL: Avoids knowing fact (Statev. Nations, underage dancer, got off because girl was supposedly on her way to her purse for ID.)

MPC: knowledge if aware of high probability

Front 23

CL Intent

Back 23

Have to interpret statute to see what Mens Rea applies to, courts often hold it doesn't apply to the Attendant Circumstances.

Flores-Figueroav. United States: comma placement implied guilt.

Front 24

MPC§2.02(4)

Back 24

Unless contrary purpose "plainly" (yeah right) appears, intent required for every element.

Front 25

Strict Liability

Back 25

No Mens Rea required, guilty if actus reus,

Type ii (limited) strict liability, one/some elements require no mens rea (statutory rape) Garnettv. State

Front 26

MPC§2.05

Back 26

No strict liability for imprisonable violations

Front 27

Mistake of fact (failure of proof)

Back 27

MPC 2.04(1) Not guilty if mistake (reasonable or unreasonable) negates mens rea

CL: Must be a REASONABLE mistake for General Intent crimes

Does not apply to strict liability offences.

Front 28

moral/legal wrong doctrines

Back 28

Even if you were mistaken/ignorant, if you still believed you were doing moral OR legal wrong, you're liable.

Test = D believe he was committing a socially wrong act?

D can be guilty of GREATER offense.

Front 29

MPC 2.04(2)

Back 29

Like moral wrong doctrine but,

you can be charged with the LESSER offense you BELIEVED you were committing.

Front 30

Peoplev. Marrero

Back 30

Mistake of law (ignorance) Corrections officer took gun into night club. Still liable because HE misread the statute. No Mistake of law.

Mistake of law requires that the law not be published (CL & MPC) or that it actually contradict itself (MPC 2.04(1))

Front 31

CL Reasonable Reliance/MPC 2.04(3)

Back 31

If a legitimate source told you the law wrong you're not liable.

Front 32

Lambert v. California

Back 32

Ex felon supposed to register with city but didn't.

Due Process violated if:

1 Criminalizes omission

2 based on status not conduct (AC not AR)

3 Mallum Prohibitum (Not inherently evil)

Front 33

Homocide

Back 33

Human to human w/o justification/excuse, (so the bear hypothetical makes sense for accomplice liability)

AR = the killing MR = distinguishes type of homocide

Front 34

CL

Murder (malice aforethought)

M1= "cool mind"

M2= default

Manslaughter 1 (voluntary)

Manslaughter 2 (involuntary)

Depraved heart = carelessly reckless

Back 34

MPC 210.1 - 210.2

Murder = does not require premeditation/deliberation

Manslaughter 210.3 = reasonable Ex.Mnt.Emo.Dst.

Negligent Homicide = clueless homicide

Front 35

CL v. MPC manslaughter?

Back 35

No "cooling off" period in MPC. The murder doesn't need to immediately follow the provocation under MPC.

Front 36

Midgettv. State

Back 36

CL, abusive father beat son to death, 2nd degree because no malice aforethought.

Front 37

Statev. Forrest

Back 37

Said he promised he wouldn't let father suffer, so there WAS premeditation and deliberation. 1st degree murder.

Front 38

FMR (controversial/judges don't like)

Back 38

CL = 1st = Arson,Rape,Burgl,Rob

2nd = any other non-enumerated felony

MPC = 210.2(1)(b) Arson,Rape,Burgl,Rob,Kidnapping,Escape

Front 39

Peoplev. Fuller

--CL--

People v. Stamp

Back 39

Car chase after car jacking, ran red light, 1st degree murder

gun point robbery, victim had heart attack later, 1st degree murder

Front 40

Merger limit and Inherently Dangerous Felony limit Doctrines

Back 40

Assault is manslaughter and IDF's are Murder 2

Front 41

Peoplev. Smith

Back 41

Mom beat child to death, Merger = couldn't be charged wit BOTH abuse AND murder 2.

Front 42

Kingv. Commonwealth (CL)

Back 42

1 of 2 drug smugglers died in plane crash, no FMR.

MPC 203.2 = cannot be too remote or accidental.

Front 43

Statev. Sophophone

CL

Back 43

No FMR for police killings

Front 44

Peoplev. Casassa

MPC

Back 44

Stalker killed V for rejecting him. Defense to M2 was EMED. Didn't work because the AR must be reasonable under believed circumstances and the believed circumstances must be reasonable by societal standards.