Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • 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

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

95 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Establishing Guilt
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
(1) Actus Reus- pysical act
(2) Mens Rea- mental state
(3) Concurrence of mental fault with act
(4) Causation- result caused by act
Justification of Punishment
(1) Deterrence- general
(2) Incapacitation- isolate/incarcerate
(3) Retribution- guilty should be punished
(4) Rehab- jail, death, $...never the sole reason
Necessity (General)
a defense may be raised when D compelled to commit a criminal act, no by coercion from another human beign but by non-human events
(1) conservation of life
(2) necessity of obedience
(3) necessity to satisfy present hunger
Necessity (TX
TXPC 9.22
(1) Lesser evil
(2) Imminent threatened harm
(3) Reasonable belief conduct will avoid it
Elements of Just Punishment
Culbability: safeguard conduct that is without fault from condemnation is criminal
Legality: fair warning of nature of the conduct declared to constitute offense
Proportionality: differentiate on reasonable grounds btwn serious v. minor offenses
Actus Reus
actu must be a voluntary conscious exercise of the will because an involuntary act would not be deterred by punishment, so not basis for criminal liability (exception- SL)
D's failure to act extablishes liability if
(1) knowledge of facts creating duty
(2) Reasonably possible to perform
(3) no additional danger to self
(duty created 5 ways...)
Duty Created by...
(1) Contract
(2) Relationship
(3) Assumption of Care
(4) Peril
(5) Statute
(TXPC 6.01)
Possession (generally)
can be an "act" if D had control of an item for long enough to discover it or terminate the possession--> must be aware of possession but not aware of illegality
Possession (TX)
TXPC 6.01: knowledge and awareness
(1) voluntarily engages in conduct
(2) voluntary if knowingly obtained or aware of control for enough time to terminate
Mens Rea
Mental state- an unwarrantable act without a viscious will is not a crime
(1) level of intentionality is what D knew/should have known
(2) judged by RM standard
Intent (TX)
TXPC 6.03- conscious objective desire to engage in conduct or cause the result
Culpable Unintentional Actions
awareness of recklessness and negligence is key- purposfully, knowingly, recklessly and negligently
Mistake of Fact
mistake must negate the state of mind
Mistake of Fact (TX)
txpc 8.02- reasonable belief about a matter of fact if mistaken belief negates culpability required for commission of the offense (not an affirmative defense because D only has burden of production)
Mistake of Fact (MPC)
mpc 2.04- defense if it
(1) negates purpopse/knowledge/belief/recklessness/negligence OR
(2) state of mind constitutes defense
Mistake of Law
Rarely a defense, but affirmative if
(1) statute not available prior to conduct
(2) statute is later declared unconstitutional
(3) reasonable reliance on official interpretation or advice from someone charged with interp of the law
(4) reasonable relience on advice of private counsel NOT allowed
Mistake of Fact/Law (TX)
affirmative defense if burden of production/persuasion by preponderance
(1) ignorance of law after fact not an excuse
(2) affirmative if reasonable relaince on official statement in written order from admin agency charged with interpretation of the law
Rape (CL)
sexual intercourse by a male with a female, not his wife
(1) forcibly
(2) through deception
(3) while the woman was asleep
(4) undercircumstance where woman not competent to consent
Rape (TX)
sesual assault includes all forms of sexual penetration, requires intentional or knowing classifications of mens rea
Rape (MPC
acting purposely, knowingly or recklessly regarding each of the material elements of the offense he has sexual intercourse with a woman under any of the circumstances
(1) under 10
(2) unconscious
(3) compels to submit by force/threat
(4) drugs/impairs her ability to resist
Common Law Rape Force & Resistance
woman had to resist to the utmost- now intercourse if forcible if (1) threaten bodily harm or (2) threatens bodily harm to a 3rd party
Majority have removed resistance requirements- just show that sex was without consent
Statutory Rape (all)
Victim below agen of consent- SL
TXPC 22.011: under age of 17 and not the spouse of the actor
MPC: no strict liability crimes, no statutory rape, but persons under 10 a crime
Homicide (general)
at CL...
(1) justifiable
(2) excusable
(3) criminal
Homicide (TX)
19.01 Capital Murder- intentional murder of another while commiting felony
19.02 Murder- unintentional OR knowing killing of another
19.03 Felony Murder- unintentional killing while in the commission of another felony
19.04 Manslaughter- reckless killing of another (no vol/invol)
6.03 Criminally Negligent Homicide
Common Law Murder
Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, which exists if:
(1) intent to kill
(2) intent to inflict bodily injury
(3) reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life
(4) intent to commit a felony
Criminal Homicide (MPC)
mpc 210.1: unjustifiably and inexcusably taking the life of another human by purposeful, knowing, reckless, negligent act
Criminal Homicide (TX)
txpc 19.01: intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual
killing distinguishable from murder by the existence of adequate provocation (ex: heat of passion)
(1) arousal of sudden and intens passion in the mind of an ordinary person
(2) D must have in fact been provoked
(3) no sufficient cooling off time
(4) D in fact did not cool off
Provocation (tX)
txpc 19.02- can be built up and brought back if (1) reasonable provocation (2) in the heat of passion (3) no cooling off (4) D was in fact not cooled off
Manslaughter (mpc)
guilty of manslaughter if
(1) recklessly kills another or
(2) kills another under circumstances that would normally constitute murder, but as a result of extreme emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable excuse
Involuntary Manslaughter
(not in tx) if death is caused by criminal negligence, killing is involuntary manslaughter and requires greater deviation from reasoalbe person standard that civil liability
Criminally Negligent Homicide (tx)
txpc 19.05: if death caused b criminal negligence, actor should have been aware of risk of activity (DWI)
Involuntary Manslaughter (MPC)
person who kills another recklessly is guilty of manslaughter- no liability based on criminal negligence under MPC
Agency Theory
killing must have been cause by D or someone acting as D's agent
Proximate Cause Theory (TX)
D can be liabile if innocent party killed by resistance from the victim or police because death is a direct result of the felony
D's conduct must be the cause-in-fact and proximate cause of the specified result...But for D's voluntary actions
Causation (TX)
txpc 6.04: person criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating alone or concurrently iwth another cause unless the cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor was clearly insufficient
Causation (MPC)
2.03 applies "but for" sine qua non rule
Foreseeability (PC)
if result was a natural and probable consequence of his act and in intervening factor sufficient to break causal connection...distinguishes btwn
(1) responsive intervening cause where har occurs defpendent result of prior wrong (NOT an excuse) and
(2) coincidental intervening cause where external force that occurs was not in respons to the inital wrong RELIEVES D of liability
Superceding acts
no pc if chain of events were affected by acts that replace the original harm
Apparent Safety Doctrine
if D's unlawful act puts victim in danger, the act is the PC of any resulting harm unless victim has an obvious rout to safety yet continues the path of harm
Free Deliberate, Informed Human intervention
D may be relieved of liability if victim's voluntary informed acions comprise a superseding cause of the harm suffered, so long as the decision doesn't result from duress...was it a FR of D's actions?
Preexisting conditions
take the victims as you find them (eggshell skull)
Foreseeability (TX)
no mention in txpc, but can be found in case law
Foreseeability (MPC)
MPC 2.03: but for test, in order to find D criminally liable, social harm actually inflicted must not be too remote or accidental in its occurrence from what was designed, contemplated or risked- actual result must be a probably consequence of D's conduct
act that, although done with the inteitnion of committing a crime, falls short of commission
(1) specifi intent to commit
(2) an overt act in furtherance of that attempt
Overt act/ substantial step
D must have committed an act beyond mere preparation...tests:
Last Act
Indispensible Element
Probably Distance
Proximity Test
evaluate how close D came to completing the offense
Last Act Test
an attempt is considered to have occurred at least by the time of the last act commited by D in furtherance of the target crime
Indispensable Element Test
attempt occurs when D has obtained control of an indispensable feature to the criminal plan
Unequivocality Test
Res Ipsa Loquitur! attempt occurs when D's conduct, alon, unambiguously manifests his criminal intent
Attempt (TX)
txpc 15.01: person commits an offense if he does an act more than preparation and fails
Attempt (MPC Test)
requires that hte act or omission constitutie a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of a crime- an act will not qualify as a substantial step unless strong corroboration of the actual criminal purpose
can be a defense for attempt...
(1) Factual impossibility is no defense because of attendant circumstances beyond their control (pickpocket)
(2) Legal impossibility IS a defense, if the things attempted would not be a crime (stuffed deer)
if D has gone beyond preparation for a crime, abandonment is never a defense
Abandonment (tx)
txpc 15.04- affirmative defense if undercircumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of criminal conduct, or if abandonment insufficient to avoid commission of the offense by taking futher affirmative action that prevented the commission
Abandonment (mpc)
withdrawal is a defense only if
(1) full, voluntary abandon
(2) not bc of difficulty in completion of crime
(3) COMPLETE abandonment under circumstances manifesting renunciation of criminal purpose, not just postponement
Punishment for Attempt (tx)
txpc 15.01: criminal attempt is one category lower than the offense attempted, and if the offense attempted is a state jail felony, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor
Punishment for Attempt (mpc)
may be punished to the same extent, except capital crimes and most serious felonies reduced
Conspiracy (cl)
combination or agreement btwn two or more persons to accomplish some criminal or lawful purpose by unlawful means
conspiracy requirements
(1) no merger
(2) liability of one conspirator is allowed if the crimes were committed in furtherance of broad goals, and forseeable consequences
(3) attempt distinguished as a substantial step
Conspriacy (TX)
txpc 15.02:
(1) agree to engage in conduct that would constitute an offense
(2) he or more than 1 performs or plans criminal conspiracy if he agrees with the intnatn to engage in conduct that constitutes an offense and one or more conspirators perform/plan the offense
Conspiracy (MPC)
agree to
(1) commit an offense
(2) attempt to commit
(3) solicit another to commit
(4) aid another person in planning or commission of an offense
Meeting of the Minds for Conspriacy (scope)
required between 2 of conspirators
(1) need not be express- action/awareness enough
(2) multiple crimes- if parties agree to commit several crimes= one conspiracy
Wharton Rule
2 or more people necessary for commiting the offense, no crime of conspiracy unless more parties participate than required to commit the actual crims (not recogized by MPC)
corrupt motive doctrine
in addition to the pecific intnent, parties to a conspiracy must also have known that their objective was criminal
conspiracy to commit strict liability crimes
no intent, but D's must agree to commit strict liablity crimes and intend to carry out substantive crim to be charged for conspiracy
Chain Relationship
one large conspiracy- series of agreements that are considered part of a single scheme
Hub and Spoke
one participant enters into several agreements with different parties, same central figure, regarded as numerous conspiracies
Acquittal of other conspirators
Precludes conviction in most courts
TXPC 15.02- no defense for another conspirator that 1 has been acquitted, but cannot be 2 or more
Defense to Conspiracy (TX)
txpc 15.04: affirmative defense if under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of criminal objective, actor withdrew from conspiracy before commission and took further action to prevent
Defense to Conspiracy (MPC)
voluntary withdrawal is a defense if D renounces his criminal purpose and thwarts the success of others
Self Defense (justification)
privilege to use force as reasonably necessary to defend agains apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another
Self Defense (TX)
txpc 9.31- justified in use of force against another if reasonabe force is immediately necessary to protect against another's unreasonable force
(1) belief in necessity
(2) imminent harm
(3) unlawful threatened harm
(4) unreasonable force
Deadly Force (TX & MPC)
threat must be infliction of death or great bodily harm
TX: requires duty to retreat
MPC: requires actor to take a known safe avenue to retreat
Defense of 3rd Parties (all)
CL: limited to family members
TX: justified in use of force, but does not extend to reckless injury or death
MPC: relationship irrelevant
Protection of property
(1) reasonable apprehension
(20 design to commit a felony, or
(3) inflict injury to result in loss of life or bodily harm and
(4) danger imminent
Protection of property (TX)
txpc 9.41
(1) reasonable belief reasonable force immediately necessary
(2) prevent or terminate unlawful interference with property
Resisting Lawful Arrest
pwerson acts at his own peril and is criminally liable for offenses
Citizen's Arrest
use reasonable, non-deadly force as necessary
Resisting Un-lawful arrest (tx)
txpc 9.31- no unreasonable force unless in response to excessive force during arrest before any resistance
threat from a human actor due to fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury
(1) lesser evil (2) imminent threat of death of BI (3) reasonable belief results will occur
Duress TX
txpc 8.05-
(1) burden on D
(2) threat of serious bodily injury or death
Duress MPC
mpc 2.08
does not have to be imminent threat- but not available if actor placed themselves in the situation
Voluntary Intoxication
not an excuse, but can serve as elimination of mens rea element to crime
Voluntary intoxication tx
txpc 8.04: no defense but can serve as lack of mens rea
Involuntary Intoxication
Defense if:
(1) injested intoxicant unknowingly
(2) unforeseen medical reaction to perscription
defense distinguishes between bad and mad- punish the bad and treat the sad/mad
McNaughten Test
excuses D from liability if at time of crime
(1) d was laboring under such a defect of reason for the disease of the mind
(2) he does not know the nature and quality of act he was doing
Irresistable Impulse Test
did D act with an irresistable impulse for which he was unable to control an urge? Understand right/wrong, but cannot control
MPC Insanity Test
4.01- if at time of conduct, as result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of conduct or to conform to requirement of law
Durham Test (NH only)
if as a result of a mental illness, the person committed the act in question but for a mental illness, the person would not have committed the crime
Mental Competency
difference from insanity- mental competency is at time of trial...entitled to exam, and will usually commit if unable to stand trial