• 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

1/69

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;

69 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Goals of Criminal Punishment:
1.Deterrence – generally of society and specifically of the criminal
2.Retribution – tag the criminal and bring balance to society
3.Rehabilitation – give the criminal an attitude change
4.Incapacitation – separate criminals from society
5.Education - to inform society
Actus Reus
voluntary act, omission, or possession
Possession
Possession - (1) Possessor knowingly obtains; OR (2) Person is aware of his control of the thing for a sufficient time to permit him to terminate his control. You don’t have voluntary control at the time of arrest, just sometime in the past.

Rule: A person has to knowingly obtain OR have control over the thing to be in voluntary possession.
Guilt by association
If you are not aware of your control of the thing but are aware of your control of the place where the thing is, this is guilt by association.
Voluntary acts
Voluntary Act – a conscious, willed choice to perform an act.
If an act is involuntary, none of the reasons for criminal punishment apply.
Voluntary Act Examples:
Martin v. State (1944) – Crime to be (1) drunk (2) in a public place (3) engaging in loud and boisterious conduct OR loud and profane discourse. Martin is arrested in his home and he has to be dragged to the police car. He was drunk and cussed at the police on the way to the car and they arrested him for public intoxication.
Martin cannot check the actus reus box for getting drunk in his home because this is legal. He crossed the line from legal -> illegal when he engaged in loud and profane discourse.
Rule: Only some unlawful act needs to be voluntary, not every act.
Omissions – Criminal Liability for Failure to Act
Failure to act is not an actus reus unless there is a legal duty.
omission ex.
people v beardsley
dude' s mistress od's
court ruled that he did not assume care b/c he gave her to scoba and also would not enforce the relationship of a mistress - not a husband and wife relationship

Rule: The only punishment for a person under a moral duty, but not a legal duty, is social condemnation. There is no criminal liability.
Types of Legal Duties

WHY ME?
1.Statutory Duty
-----a.Statute can announce a duty.
------b.Statute can define a crime in terms of failure to act (usual).
2.Status Relationship
----a.Parent to child
----b.Husband to wife
----c.People on a joint inherently dangerous venture
3.Contractual duty
4.Voluntary Assumption of Care of a Helpless Person (Rescue Doctrine)
5.Creation of the Peril
Failure to Perform a Duty (Omission) May Create Criminal Liability if:
1) statute
2) status relationship
3) contractual duty
4) voluntarily assumed care for another
Hypo: Dad is unaware that the kid is drowning. There is no physical capacity to perform the duty because the facts leading to the duty are not known.
Rule: There is no legal duty when the person is not aware of the facts giving rise to the legal duty.
Hypo: Grandma is watching the kids and they drown while she is in a drunken stooper. She claims that she didn’t know that she had a legal duty to the kids.
Rule: Failure to know of the legal duty is not a defense.
Strict Liability
Strict Liability – liability without fault; Actus Reus = Criminality
Justifications for Strict Liability:
1.Crime is usually minor – fine as punishment; little social stigma
2. Public Good/Welfare – greater good of society is protected from situations where they cannot protect themselves
3.Defendant is in a position of control – the person is in a position to protect others from harm
4.Defendants are usually culpable but it is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt – ensures government efficiency
How to Determine Whether a Crime is a Strict Liability Crime or a True Crime:
1. Look at the statute itself.
a. If there are –ly terms, this is a true crime.
b. If there are no –ly terms, this is strict liability. The statute might outright say it’s strict liability but this is rare.
2. Look at the potential victim.
a. If the potential victim is an individual, it is probably a true crime.
b. If the potential victim is the society, it is probably a strict liability crime.
3. Look at the justifications of strict liability – if it fits, then it is usually this type of crime.
General Mens Rea (Old Approach)
a person is guilty if he commits an actus reus with a vicious will, evil mind, or a morally blameworthy state of mind. Mens rea was divided into:
• General criminal culpability
• General legal culpability
• General moral cupability
Mental States and Modern Mens Rea
Modern Mens Rea – matching one’s liability and punishment to their particular degree of mental culpability or blameworthiness.

4 stages of mental culpability:
1. Intentionally – intended to do the very act with which he is charged.
2. Knowingly – aware of the necessary consequences of his act.
3. Recklessly – probable result which is foreseen, but act anyway
4. Negligently – probable result which should have been forseen.
Intentionally (purposely)
Circumstance
He is aware of such circumstances or hopes they exist

Result
It is his conscious objective to cause such a result

Conduct
It is his conscious objective to engage in conduct of that nature
Knowingly
Cricumstance
He is aware that such circumstances exist

Result
He is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result

Conduct
He is aware that his conduct is of that nature
Recklessly
Circumstance
He consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists

Result
He consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element will result from his conduct

AND THAT DISREGARD WAS A GROSS DEVIATION FROM an OP standard of care
Negligently
Circumstances
He should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists

Result
He should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element will result from his conduct
THE RISK MUST BE OF SUCH A NATURE THAT HIS FAILURE TO PERCIEVE IT IS A GROSS DEVIATION from the OP standard of care
• Hypo: Kids leaned over an overpass and threw a watermelon at a car, that killed the passenger.
o Intentionally (Murder) – NO – it was not their conscious objective to kill the passenger.
o Knowingly (Murder) – NO – it was not reasonably certain that throwing the watermelon would kill the passenger.
o Recklessly (Manslaugther) – MAYBE – could argue that the kids were aware of a substantial risk that throwing the watermelon would kill the passenger.
o Negligent (Criminally Negligent Homicide) – YES – the kids ought to be aware of a substantial risk that throwing the watermelon would kill the passenger.
• Hypo: Serr arrives at the airport and starts driving to Waco but is tired. He stops to get a latte but he is still tired. He has the option of finding a hotel, stopping at a rest stop, or continuing driving. He continues to drive and kills someone in an accident when he falls asleep.
o Intentionally – NO – it was not his conscious objective to kill the person.
o Knowingly – NO – he was not aware that continuing to drive was would make it reasonably certain to kill the person.
o Recklessly – MAYBE – he was possibly aware that driving while tired could result in killing a person and he consciously disregarded this substantial risk. The question would be is this a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise (defense would argue that this behavior is not grossly deviant; everyone drives when they are tired).
o Negligent – YES – he ought to be aware of the substantial risk that driving while tired could possibly kill someone in an accident. A reasonable person would perceive this risk.
Rule: Transfer of intent only applies when the actual result is the same or substantially similar to the intended result.
Example:
• Hypo: Serr want to throw a brick through Bates window. He hits Bates instead and kills him. He would only be guilty of manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide because he did not have the intentionally or knowingly “vicious will” to kill Bates

• Hypo: Serr sees what he thinks is Bates outside of his house. He shoots the person and kills them and then finds out that it is Bate’s brother. Serr did not intend to kill Bate’s brother but will still be guilty of murder because the intentionally or knowingly “vicious will” that was present for Bates.
Mistake of fact
a defense if (1) the defendant was reasonably mistaken and (2) the mistake of fact negates the culpable mens rea.
MOF red umbrella hypo
• Hypo: Bates is walking out of the law school and accidentally picks up the wrong red umbrella (both umbrellas were new). He could use a mistake of fact defense because it was reasonable mistake and it negated the intentionally mental state required for theft.

• Hypo: Bates is walking out of the law school and accidentally picks up a new red umbrella when his red umbrella is old and tattered. He could not use a mistake of fact defense this is an unreasonable mistake because he would have noticed that it wasn’t his.
• People v. Bray (1975) - Bray was convicted of a crime in the past (in Kansas) and did not know whether he was a felon or not. In CA, he was convicted of being a felon and possessing a concealable firearm.
oRule: Bray’s mistake of fact that he didn’t know he was a felon negated his required mens rea of knowingly.
Mistake of Law
Mistake of law – is not a defense because there is no excuse for ignorance of the law. HOWEVER
Rule: Ignorance of the Law is no defense because the government doesn’t have to prove your conscious of wrongdoing if the actus reus box and mens rea box are checked (all elements of the crime are proved).

You cannot add or subtract elements to the crime. Justifications are:
•Be true to the law – it is paramount.
•Discourage ignorance of the law/encourage citizens to educate themselves.
Crime is not actus + mens + knowing you were committing a crime)
Mistake of law examples

Bray knew he was a felon but didn't know it was a crime to be a felon in possession
Either way, the mens rea boxed is checked that he knew he was a felon so Actus Reus + Mens Rea = Crime.
Exceptions to this rule (defense of “I didn’t do it” but the defense points to the law):
1. Ignorance of the collateral law that negates the mens rea of the governing law.
2. Reasonable reliance on the (mistaken) legal advice of (certain) public officials. (still a mistake of governing law).
3. Due Process lack of notice (Lambert)
Diminished Capacity
Evidence of diminished capacity is admissible to establish that a person did not have the requisite mens rea.
1.Involuntary Manslaughter vs. Criminally Negligent Homicide
Rule: Reckless homicide is distinguished from criminally negligent homicide in awareness of the substantial and unjustifiable risk and in punishment.

• Reckless Actor – conscious risk taker, gambler, punished more severely
• Negligent Actor – inadvertent risk creator, ignoramous, punished less severely
2 step process for calculating recklessnes vs. negligence
Reckless:
Step One-The defendant was aware that his conduct posed a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death.
Step Two -Given the nature and degree of the risk, the defendant's conscious disregard of the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the defendant's standpoint.

Negligent:
step one -The defendant was unaware that his conduct posed a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
step two - Given the nature and degree of the risk, the defendant's failure to perceive the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the defendant's standpoint.
step 1 vs step 2
Step One is a subjective question because it is judged this from the viewpoint of the actor’s mind in the real world. We do not compare this to whether the ordinary person would be aware.
• The only exception is when a defendant claims he is unaware but the jury finds that it is unreasonable to believe that the defendant was unaware.
• This is where people that are lacking in “care” (common sense or judgment) are given consideration.

Step Two is an objective question because it judged outside of the viewpoint of the actor. The defendant is taken out of the situation and the ordinary person of care is put in their place with all the surrounding circumstances.
• The only exception are personal characteristics that fundamentally counter to being a ordinary person of “care”. E.g. common sense, judgment.
• Hypo: Two men were drinking. One decides to try to shot a beer can off the head of the other. He misses and causes serious injury to the other.
If he did cause murder, the defendant would be guilty of manslaughter because he did perceive the risk and an ordinary person like him – no an expert shooter – would not have disregarded the risk of death.
• State v. Williams – Misdemeanor killing when the person engages in ordinary, simple negligence. The Williams, a Native American family, had a child that was sick from an abscessed tooth. The family did not take the child to the doctor because they thought it wasn’t serious and they feared that the child would be taken away. The baby died 2 weeks later
. In the case, the court convicted the Williams of manslaughter because they were aware in the crucial time that they should’ve taken the child to the doctor.

dont forget about the causation. the prosecution had to find that they were guilty at a time when there non-negligene could have saved the baby's life. afterwards, negligence was not a cause.
Misedemeanor Manslaughter
Definition: Misdemeanor Manslaughter – when a person is killed during the occurrence of a misdemeanor; based on general mens rea.
Misdemeanor manslaughter example

• United States v. Walker – Crime to unlawfully kill with the intent to commit a misdemeanor inherently dangerous in itself (Involuntary manslaughter). Walker dropped an unlicensed gun in a stairwell that went off and killed another person.
The court convicted him of involuntary manslaughter because carrying an unlicensed gun was dangerous in itself because the person might not be capable of carrying the gun safely.
Voluntary Manslaughter or
Mitigated Murder
an intentional, unjustified killing committed while in a reasonable fit of passion.
Proximate Cause Limitation
there must be a logical connection between the felony and the homicide.
• Must show that the felony was a but for cause AND a proximate cause for the death of the individual.
• Hypo: Serr started a fire and the firefighter was killed trying to put it out.
If there was not a fire, the firefighter would not have been there trying to put it out – common sense connection between the Serr’s actions and the death of the firefighter.
Causation
For criminally liability of injury or death, there has to be a but for and proximate cause.
• But for cause is necessary but it is not sufficient to be the legal cause.
o There are an infinite number of but for causes.
• A proximate cause is required to filter through the but for causes.
But For Causation
But For Cause – the injury or death would not have occurred but for the defendant’s actions.
There is a But For Cause When:
1. Both injuries are deadly and each would have caused death standing alone.
2. Neither injury was deadly standing alone but the combination caused death.
3. The injury inflicted by the defendant is deadly and the other injury is not deadly.

4. The injury inflicted by the defendant is not deadly and the other injury is deadly.
•There are three situations where the defendant’s action would be a but for cause: see next card
The injury inflicted by the defendant is not deadly and the other injury is deadly.
•There are three situations where the defendant’s action would be a but for cause:
• (1) If the non-deadly blow accelerated the injury or death.
o Example: The deadly blow to the victim does not kill them immediately. If the non-deadly blow is given and the victim then dies, the non deadly blow is a but for cause because it speed up the death of the victim.
• (2) If the non-deadly blow put the victim in the position to receive the deadly blow.
o Example: If the victim was hit by the defendant with a brick to the forehead that made the victim fall back and take a deadly blow to the back of his head. The defendant’s actions would be a but for cause of death.
• (3) If there is joint enterprise between the person’s giving the deadly and non-deadly blow (accomplice liability).
o Example: The defendant and his friend both get a brick and agree to hit the victim at the same time. The defendant blow is not deadly but the friend’s blow is. The defendant’s blow would still be considered a but for cause because he was on a joint enterprise with the friend that caused the deadly blow.
Proximate Causation
Proximate Cause - relieves a defendant of ultimate legal causal responsibility (even though the defendant is a but for cause) when the result is so illogical, unnatural, extraordinary, unforeseeable in light of the defendant’s conduct that it is simply unfair (contrary to common sense and public policy) to hold defendant legally responsible for causing the result.
•Looking for a common sense connection
• Looking for a common sense connection between the defendant’s action and the result. Break the connection into:
o WHO got hurt? (victim)
o HOW did they get hurt? (manner of harm)
o WHAT did the victim suffer? (degree of harm)
• The question isn’t whether the defendant foresaw the action (defendant’s actions are given) but whether the WHO, HOW, and WHAT was foreseeable.
•Easy test: Can you tell the story of the result without mentioning the defendant’s behavior.
Plaintiffs strategy in a proximate cause question
• The plaintiff must establish that given the defendant’s conduct, the result was not unforeseeable or extraordinary. The plaintiff will try to establish that there was no surprise of the result of the defendant’s conduct.
o The victim was the natural, foreseeable victim.
o The manner of harm was the natural, foreseeable result.
o The degree of harm was natural, foreseeable harm.
Defendants strategy in a proximate cause question
Defendant’s Strategy:
• For the defendant to establish that his actions were not the proximate cause, he must prove that another intervening, superseding cause was the proximate cause of the result.
o Interveneing – occurred between the defendant’s action and the result.
o Superseding – much more directly related or immediate proximate cause that trumps the proximate cause of the defendant
• It is not sufficient for the defendant to blameshift to another but for cause; this only points to another (multiply sufficient) cause and does not take blame off of the defendant.
• If the defendant points to interveneing, superceding cause that can be pointed back to him, the defendant will still be the proximate cause to the result.
Solicitation
Solicitation – The crime of encouraging or inducing another to commit a crime or join in the commission of a crime.
justification mens and actus for solicitation
Justification – there are special concerns about dangers posed by recruiting others to engage in criminal activity (group criminality).

• Mens Rea – intent to commit or that a capital felony or felony of the first degree be committed.
• Actus Reus – the request, command, or attempt to induce another to engage in the conduct that would constitute a capital felony or felony of the first degree or make that person a party to the felony.
Solicitation Examples:
• Hypo: Serr and Counselor are watching Oprah about annoying coworkers. Serr asks Counselor to kill Bates. Counselor refuses
Serr would be guilty of solicitation because he attempted to solicit Counselor to commit a felony of the first degree (murder).
• Hypo: Serr tells Counselor that he is going to kill Bates and he wants Counselor to be the getaway driver.
Serr would be guilty of solicitation, whether Counselor agreed or not and because he tried to make Counselor a party to the commission.
Renunciation for solicitation requires:
•
o Voluntary and complete – a true change of heart without new circumstances or intent to commit at a later time;
o Countermand the solicitation; and
o Affirmative action that prevents the commission of the crime.
Example:
• Hypo: Serr asked Counselor to kill Bates and they set the date for the next week. A couple of days later, Serr has a change of heart and calls Counselor and tells him to call off the plan. Counselor kills Bates on the set date.
. Serr could not use renunciation as a defense because he did not take affirmative action to prevent Bates from being killed.
Accomplice Liability/Complicity
Definitions: Accomplice Liability/Complicity – Theory of vicarious responsibility that links the accomplice with the perpetrator and gives the accomplice the same liability as the perpetrator.
Justification of accomplice liability
Since the accomplice has embraced the crime by getting behind it and pushing it to commission, he is liable for the offense as well.
Aiding and Abetting (Actus Reus)
• To be liable under accomplice liability, there must be a commission of a crime or an attempt to commit the crime. A person cannot be an accomplice to solicitation or conspiracy.
aiding and abedding hypo
Serr gets an insane person to assassinate the police officer.
If the insane person is not convicted, Serr would still be liable for capital murder.
Actus Reus for Accomplice Liability includes:
• Solicits;
• Encourages;
• Directs;
• Aids; or
• Attempts to Aid.
Accomplice liability requires AT LEAST (in regards to encouragement – presence w/o lifting a finger):
• (1) Presence of the accomplice; and
• (2) Intent to aid if necessary; and
• (3) Communicated intent to the perpetrator.
o Does not have to be verbal and as long as it is clearly communicated.
Accomplice Liability Actus Reus Examples:
• Pace v. State – Pace was driving his wife and kids and Rootes in the car. Pace stopped to pick up a hitchhiker, Reppert. Rootes then pulled a knife and took Reppert’s wallet and later Rootes took his watch when Reppert got out of the car. Pace ignored the situation and kept driving.
. His conviction of accessory before the fact of robbery was reversed because there was no evidence that Pace aided or abetted the crime. Pace did not do anything to approve or counter the robbery. Rule: Mere presence or failure to express disapproval (or even mere mental approval) is NOT sufficient to give a defendant the same liability as the perpetrator.
• (Encourages) Hypo: Serr and Counselor are walking together and Counselor decides to rob the convenient store. Serr tells Counselor that he will be across the street waiting if counselor needs back up.
Serr’s actus reus would be the outward encouragement of committing robbery because his mere presence (without lifting a finger) would not be an overt act. His mens rea would be intention to promote or assist Counselor in the commission of the crime. If Counselor went through with the commission of robbery, Serr would be guilty of robbery as well through accomplice liability.
Aids) State v. Ochoa - A & O are protesting for a prisoner to be let go. They hear shots and realize that their friends are shooting at the sheriff. The first shots miss. A & O start beating up the other officer and the sheriff is then killed.
The court held that a reasonable jury could infer that they were aiding the murderer of the sheriff by keeping the other officer from coming to his aid. A & O’a actus reus would be aiding in the commission of murder and their mens rea would be intention to promote or assist the killer in commission of murder. They would both be guilty of murder through accomplice liability.
• (Attempts to Aid) Hypo: Same situation as Ochoa, but A & O barr the door but the sheriff is killed before he ever reaches the door.
A & O’s actus reus would be attempting to aid in the commission of murder. Rule: Accomplice liability does not require causation from the accomplice’s action to the result because the person attempting to aid is vicariously responsible through the causation between the perpetrator and the result.
• State v. Tally - The Skelton brothers want to kill Ross and set out to kill him. Their brother-in-law, Tally, hears about their plan and goes to the telegraph office to make sure no one sends a warning to Ross.
Tally intended to promote and assist the murder. Tally aided (or at least attempted to aid) by preventing a warning from being sent. Tally embraced the crime and is guilty of murder (on the theory of accomplice liability as an aider and abettor).
Mens Rea – Peoni view
Accomplice liability requires intent to promote or assist in the commission of an offense (crime or attempted crime).
Accomplice Liability Mens Rea Example:
• Ochoa Hypo: A & O are protesting for a prisoner to be let go. They hear shots and realize that their friends are shooting at the sheriff. The first shots miss. A & O decide to go back to the courthouse and bar the door so that the sheriff cannot retreat to safety. When the sheriff reaches the door, he is unable to get in and is shot in the back of the head.
A & O’a actus reus would be aiding in the commission of murder and their mens rea would be intention to promote or assist the killer in commission Rule: It does not matter if the person committing the crime knows that you are aiding or attempting to aid them in the commission, as long as your intent to promote or assist (mens rea) is present.