Criminal Law Nwcu

Front 1

The Corpus Delicti

Back 1

The corpus delicti is the body of the crime, meaning the prima facie case or elements of the crime.

Generally, the term embodies both the obvious evidence of a crime and the logical conclusion based upon that evidence that the elements of a crime have been committed, for example, a dead body with a knife sticking out and the logical conclusion that a homicide has been committed.

Front 2

Actus Reus

Back 2

The overt act.

Front 3

Malum In Se

Back 3

Refers to a wrong in itself, in other words, something naturally evil.

Front 4

Malum Prohibitum

Back 4

Refers to something made wrong by legislation.

Front 5

Felony

Back 5

In most jurisdictions, a crime that is punishable by death or by a sentence of more than one year even though the sentence actually imposed is one year or less.

However, in some states, a crime whose sentence is to be served in a state prison, as opposed to a county or city jail.

Front 6

Misdemeanor

Back 6

Any crime that is not felony.

Front 7

Merger Rule

Back 7

Under the Doctrine, when all the elements of one crime are included within the elements of another crime, the lesser crime merges with the greater and a defendant cannot be convicted of both crimes.

For example, larceny merges with robbery and battery merges with murder.

Additionally, the Merger Rule applies to solicitation and attempt, to prevent a person from being convicted of either of these and of the completed target crime.

Front 8

Mens Rea

Back 8

Refers to a guilty mind or wrongful intent.

Front 9

Concurrence

Back 9

Refers to the requirement that the actus reus and mens rea exist at the same time.

Front 10

General Intent

Back 10

Under common law, refers to the purposeful commission of a prohibited act where the performance of the act is sufficient to establish intent to commit the crime because intent is inferred from the fact that the act was done.

Examples of general intent crimes are battery and rape.

Front 11

Specific Intent

Back 11

Refers to the purposeful commission of a prohibited act with the aim of producing a particular result.

Examples of specific intent crimes are burglary and larceny: for burglary, the specific intent to commit a felony within the dwelling house of another is required to constitute the crime (under common law); for larceny, the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner is required.

Front 12

Transferred Intent Doctrine

Back 12

The Doctrine is applicable when a defendant, while in the process of committing a crime against one person, unintentionally commits the crime against a different person or commits a different crime. In such a case, the defendant’s wrongful intent is transferred to include the unintended victim or crime.

Applies only to general intent crimes.

Front 13

Intent under the Model Penal Code

Back 13

Under the MPC, the distinction between general and specific intent has been abandoned, and a person is generally guilty of an offense only if he acted:

purposefully,

knowingly,

recklessly or

negligently,

as the law for a particular crime may require, with respect to each material element of the offense.

Front 14

Purposefully

Back 14

Under the MPC, means that the defendant acted with the conscious object to do the act or to cause the result of his act, or that the defendant acted while aware or hopeful that the circumstances which led to harm existed.

Front 15

Knowingly

Back 15

Under the MPC, means that the defendant acted with conscious awareness or substantial certainty that his act would produce its result or that the circumstances which led to harm existed.

Front 16

Recklessly

Back 16

Under the MPC, means that the defendant acted with conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act would result in a crime, such that his disregard involved a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.

Front 17

Negligently

Back 17

Under the MPC, means that the defendant should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a crime would result from his act. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

Front 18

Intent for Inchoate Crimes

Back 18

The specific intent to commit the target crime, even if a general intent crime.

Front 19

Causation

Back 19

Proof that the defendant’s act is the actual and proximate cause of harm is required in order to establish that a defendant should be found guilty of a crime that includes a harmful result.

Front 20

Actual Cause (or Cause in Fact):

Back 20

The cause which starts, ignites or makes possible the result which follows, and which satisfies the “But For" or Substantial Factor Test.

Front 21

“But For” Test

Back 21

Used to establish actual cause in criminal cases which include a harmful result as an element of the crime.

To apply the test, the state must show that “but for” the defendant's act, the harm would not have occurred.

Front 22

Substantial Factor Test

Back 22

Used to establish actual cause where more than one act contributes to the harm. The defendant is said to be an actual cause of the harm if the defendant’s act is a substantial factor in bringing the harm about. This means that the defendant's act contributed to more than a trivial degree to the resulting harm.

Front 23

Proximate Cause (or Cause in Law)

Back 23

In criminal law, an actual cause of harm is also the proximate cause if the act is closely connected enough to the resulting harm that it is fair to hold the defendant responsible for causing the harm.

Under the Model Penal Code, this means that the resulting harm is not “too remote or accidental” from the defendant’s act to make it unfair to hold him responsible.

Front 24

Principal in the First Degree

Back 24

Under common law, one who personally performs the actus reus of the crime.

Front 25

Principal in the Second Degree

Back 25

Under the common law, one who does not personally perform any actus reus of the crime, but who is actually or constructively present and who aids and abets in the commission of the crime.

Front 26

Principal

Back 26

Modernly, most jurisdictions have abandoned the common law title of “principal in the first degree” and refer to the person who commits the actus reus of the crime simply as a this.

Front 27

Constructive Presence

Back 27

Presence that is legally imputed to one who, while not physically present during an act, is so situated as to give assistance to the perpetrator.

For example, a lookout or the driver of a getaway car during a robbery is constructively present at the crime.

Front 28

Aid and Abet

Back 28

Means to knowingly or intentionally assist in or facilitate the commission of a crime.

Front 29

Accessory

Back 29

One who knowingly counsels, commands, encourages, or aids in the perpetration of a crime, but who is not present during the actual crime.

Front 30

Accessory before the Fact

Back 30

Counsels, commands, encourages or assists prior to the actus reus of the crime and is not present during the commission of the crime.

Front 31

Accessory after the Fact

Back 31

One who was not present during the commission of the crime, but who provides aid with knowledge that the crime was committed, for example, by aiding the felon in avoiding arrest, conviction or punishment.

Front 32

Accomplice

Back 32

Modernly, one who intentionally and knowingly participates or assists in the commission of a crime

In the minority of jurisdictions which still use the term “accessory before the fact,” one who participates or assists in a crime and who is present during the crime.

Front 33

Accomplice Liability

Back 33

Under the theory accomplices are guilty of the target crime and, in most jurisdictions, are also guilty of all acts by all accomplices or principals which are in furtherance of the target crime and all additional crimes which are a natural or probable consequence of the target crime.

Front 34

Misprision of a Felony

Back 34

Under common law, the nondisclosure of the known felony of another.

However, modernly it is the concealment of a known felony of another.

Front 35

Compounding the Crime

Back 35

The acceptance of anything of value under an unlawful agreement not to prosecute a known offender, or to limit or to otherwise hinder the prosecution of his case.

Front 36

Inchoate

Back 36

partly or imperfectly formed, or incomplete.

Front 37

Solicitation

Back 37

Occurs when one counsels, incites, solicits, or requests another to commit an unlawful act.

Front 38

Attempt

Back 38

Occurs when criminal intent becomes accompanied by an act which comes within close proximity of committing a crime.

Front 39

Conspiracy

Back 39

Results when two or more persons agree together to accomplish a criminal or unlawful act or to do a lawful act by criminal or unlawful means.

Front 40

Pinkerton’s Rule

Back 40

Under this Rule, each member of a conspiracy can be charged with crimes committed by co-conspirators if those crimes were committed in furtherance of the target crime or if they were a natural and probable consequence of the target crime.

Front 41

Wharton’s Rule

Back 41

Under this Rule, when a crime requires the participation of more than one person, (e.g., dueling, bribery, etc.) the perpetrators cannot be charged with conspiracy.

However, if there are more perpetrators than the crime, by definition, logically requires, then conspiracy can be charged.

Front 42

Battery

Back 42

The intentional, harmful or offensive touching of another person.

Front 43

Assault

Back 43

The intentional

threatening of another with battery and

the creating of reasonable apprehension

of immediate bodily harm in the victim.

Additionally, in criminal law, an assault is an attempted but failed battery regardless of whether the intended victim was aware of the attempt

Front 44

Rape

Back 44

Sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent.

Front 45

Statutory Rape

Back 45

Sexual intercourse with a willing female under the age of consent

Front 46

Sodomy

Back 46

The term used generically to cover what the common law or state legislatures regard as seriously "deviate" or "unnatural" sexual practices.

Front 47

Mayhem

Back 47

The malicious maiming or disfiguring of another.

Front 48

False Imprisonment

Back 48

The intentional confinement of another person against his will.

Front 49

Kidnapping

Back 49

The movement of a person

against his will

from one place to another

Front 50

Homicide

Back 50

The killing of one human being by another human being.

Front 51

Murder

Back 51

A homicide committed with malice aforethought.

Front 52

Malice Aforethought

Back 52

The mens rea required for murder. It exists by one of the following intentions:

1) an intent to kill as expressed by the defendant;

2) an intent to cause serious bodily harm as implied by the defendant’s actions;

3) a wanton and willful disregard of human life (depraved or malignant heart) as implied by the defendant’s actions; or

4) an intent to commit a dangerous felony as implied by the defendant’s actions.

Front 53

First Degree Murder

Back 53

Murder committed by

poison;

torture;

lying in wait;

or other willful,

deliberate and

premeditated means;

or murder that results from application of the Felony Murder Rule.

Front 54

Torture

Back 54

Occurs when a person inflicts great bodily injury on another with intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic purpose.

Front 55

Willful

Back 55

Voluntary and intentional.

Front 56

Deliberate

Back 56

Carefully considered.

Front 57

Premeditated

Back 57

Thought out or planned beforehand.

Front 58

Felony Murder Rule

Back 58

Under this Rule, if a death occurs during the attempt or commission of a serious felony, is causally related to that felony, and is not a lesser included offense, then the felon can be charged with first degree murder.

Front 59

Second Degree Murder

Back 59

All murders which are not first degree murder,

in other words, those homicides committed with malice aforethought but which do not meet the requirements for murder in the first degree.

Front 60

Voluntary Manslaughter

Back 60

A murder which, because of mitigating circumstances, is treated as less heinous than first or second degree murder.

Front 61

Heat of Passion

Back 61

One mitigating factor that can reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter,

if the defendant can prove the following elements:

1) adequate provocation to lead a reasonable person to lose his normal self-control (objective test),

2) the defendant actually lost his self-control,(subjective test) and

3) there was not enough time for the defendant to cool off between the provocation and the murder.

Front 62

Involuntary Manslaughter

Back 62

An unintentional homicide committed without malice but under circumstances involving either gross negligence or the commission of a crime not covered by the Felony Murder Rule.

Front 63

Burglary

Back 63

The breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony therein.

Front 64

Statutory Burglary

Back 64

An unlawful entry into a structure or vehicle with the intent to commit a felony or theft, including petty theft, once inside.

Front 65

Arson

Back 65

The malicious burning of the dwelling house of another.

Front 66

Statutory Arson

Back 66

The malicious burning of any structure.

Front 67

Larceny

Back 67

The trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof.

Front 68

Larceny by Trick

Back 68

Larceny in which the taking of the personal property of another was done with the owner’s consent; however, the consent was obtained by deceit or fraud.

Front 69

Obtaining Property by False Pretenses

Back 69

The obtaining of title to the property of another through a false representation of fact with the intent to defraud.

Front 70

Embezzlement

Back 70

The fraudulent taking of the personal property of another by one to whom possession has been entrusted.

Front 71

Robbery

Back 71

Larceny

from the person of another

by use of violence, force, intimidation, or threat of immediate harm.

Front 72

Extortion

Back 72

The unlawful obtaining of property from another through coercion, usually involving a threat to perform an illegal act in the future.

In some states, the term “extortion” applies to one acting in an official capacity or under color of office, while “blackmail” applies to any person.

Front 73

Blackmail

Back 73

In most states, is the same as extortion.

However, in some states, extortion applies to those acting under color of office, while this applies to any person obtaining property through coercion.

In other states, this applies to coercion through a threat to reveal information where such revelation would not be criminal in itself, but is only criminal because of the use of the threat to coerce the giving of property

Front 74

Bribery

Back 74

The corrupt payment or receipt of an advantage or anything of value with an intent to influence a person’s action, vote, or opinion, in any public or official capacity.

Front 75

Forgery

Back 75

The false making or material alteration of any writing of legal significance with the intent to defraud.

Front 76

Uttering

Back 76

The use of a forged instrument, knowing that it is forged, with the intent to defraud.

Front 77

Receiving Stolen Property

Back 77

The acquisition of stolen property with knowledge at the time of receipt that it was stolen, when done with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property.

Front 78

Perjury

Back 78

The making of a false oath or affirmation in a judicial proceeding in regard to a material matter.

Front 79

Subornation of Perjury

Back 79

The procurement of perjury from another.

Front 80

Embracery

Back 80

An attempt by corrupt and wrongful means to influence a juror in regard to the jury's verdict.

Front 81

Breach of Peace

Back 81

A willful act which unreasonably disturbs the public peace.

Front 82

Unlawful Assembly

Back 82

A meeting of three or more people with a common plan to commit an unlawful act or a lawful act in a manner likely to cause a breach of peace.

Front 83

Rout

Back 83

The movement of unlawful assemblers for the purpose of carrying out the common design.

Front 84

Riot

Back 84

A tumultuous breach of peace by three or more persons acting together to commit a crime by open force or to carry out any common enterprise.

Front 85

Affray

Back 85

A mutual fight in a public place.

Front 86

The defense of infancy

Back 86

A child under the age of 7: does not have the capacity to commit a crime,

there is a rebuttable presumption that a child aged 7 to 14: does not have the capacity to commit a crime,

and a child over the age of 14: has the same capacity to commit a crime that an adult has.

Front 87

Defense of unconsciousness

Back 87

Defense of a person who is unconscious, for instance, someone who is sleep walking, does not have the capacity to commit a crime.

Front 88

The defense of involuntary intoxication

Back 88

If a person is unintentionally intoxicated on alcohol or drugs as a result of force, fraud, medical prescription, reasonable mistake, allergic reaction, or the like, then his or her actions are excused to the same extent as they would be if those actions were the result of a mental disorder.

Front 89

The defense of voluntary intoxication

Back 89

A defendant who is intentionally intoxicated will be excused for his or her actions only if the intoxication has developed into a permanent mental disorder.

However, voluntary intoxication may mitigate the degree or severity of the crime or charge if, due to the intoxication, the requisite criminal intent is lacking.

Front 90

The M'Naghten Rule or The Right vs. Wrong Test of Insanity

Back 90

Under this Rule, a defendant is entitled to the defense of insanity

if he suffers from a mental disease of the mind and

does not know what he is doing or

does not know that what he is doing is wrong.

Also, a defendant is entitled to the defense of insanity

if he suffers from an insane delusion and

if the notion embodied in the delusion and believed to be a fact would excuse the defendant had the notion been true.

Front 91

Insane Delusion

Back 91

The product of a mental disorder in which the defendant has a false belief in something that would be incredible to others and that belief remains persistent despite proof to the contrary.

Front 92

The Irresistible Impulse Test

Back 92

Under this Test, a defendant is entitled to the defense of insanity if, because of a mental disorder,

he knows what he is doing is wrong

but cannot control his behavior.

Front 93

The Substantial Capacity Test or Model Penal Code Test

Back 93

Under this Test, a defendant is entitled to the defense of insanity

if at the time of his conduct, as a result of a mental disease or defect,

he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct

or

the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

Front 94

The Durham Rule or Product Rule

Back 94

Under this Rule, also known as the Product Rule, a defendant is entitled to the defense of insanity if,

because of a mental disease or defect,

he committed an unlawful act.

Front 95

The Diminished Capacity Test or Wells-Gorshen Rule:

Back 95

Under this Test, also known as the Wells-Gorshen Rule,

evidence of mental infirmity not amounting to insanity is admissible and

should be considered on questions of premeditation, deliberation, and malice,

although it is not a complete defense.

Front 96

Defense of Self-Defense

Back 96

A person who reasonably believes himself to be threatened with immediate bodily harm

may use whatever degree of force is apparently necessary to protect himself.

If the attack is with so-called “deadly force” the majority rule is that the one attacked may defend with “deadly force” if deemed reasonable under the circumstances.

The minority rule requires that the one attacked retreat if there is a safe means of doing so, unless the victim of the attack is in his “castle” (i.e., home).

Front 97

Defense of Defense of Others

Back 97

A person who reasonably believes another to be threatened with immediate bodily harm

may use whatever degree of force is apparently necessary to protect the personal safety of the other person.

Front 98

Step-In-Shoes Jurisdiction (Defense of Others)

Back 98

In some jurisdictions a person is not allowed to use the defense of “defense of others” unless the person being defended was not the aggressor and had the right to use self-defense.

Front 99

Reasonable Appearances Jurisdictions (Defense of Others):

Back 99

In other jurisdictions, a person defending another

in good faith and in ignorance of the fact that

the person being defended is the aggressor and not entitled to use self-defense is

nevertheless justified when acting upon reasonable appearances.

Sometimes it is further required that the person being defended is one whom the defender is authorized by statute to protect.

Front 100

Defense of Defense of Property

Back 100

A person may use reasonable force

that is not likely to cause death or serious bodily harm

to protect his or her possession of real or personal property

against an apparent trespasser.

Front 101

Defense of Prevention of Crime

Back 101

A person, whether a police officer or private person, may use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a crime which is apparently being attempted in his or her presence.

Front 102

Defense of Legal Authority

Back 102

A person may commit an otherwise criminal act if it is done under legal process or is otherwise authorized by law.

Front 103

Defense of Necessity

Back 103

A person may commit an otherwise criminal act

if that person is acting in an emergency situation

to protect himself or others

from a threatened injury to person or property.

The person claiming the defense of necessity may act on appearances. A reasonable mistake is permitted.

Front 104

Defense of Duress

Back 104

A person may commit an otherwise criminal act

if his act was the result of a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm

and if his fear was induced by a threat made by a third person.

However, this defense will not apply to an intentional killing of another.

Front 105

Defense of Entrapment

Back 105

A person may not be convicted of a crime if a law enforcement officer (or an agent of an officer) solicited, induced or encouraged the person to commit the crime

and if the person would not otherwise have committed it.

Front 106

Defense of Mistake of Fact

Back 106

Will disprove a criminal charge if it is honestly entertained,

based upon reasonable grounds and

is of such a nature that the conduct would have been lawful had the facts been as they were supposed to be.

Front 107

Defense of Mistake of Law

Back 107

A mistake of law is not a valid defense to a crime except in those rare instances where it negates an essential element of the crime.

Therefore, the old saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is appropriate as a general rule.

Front 108

Deliberation

Back 108

Craefully considered

Front 109

Intended Results Doctrine

Back 109

People can be held culpable for consequences they intend even if they result in ways they neither intended nor foresaw.

Front 110

Doctrine of Contributory Causes

Back 110

The Doctrine holds that when more than one cause brings about a particular result, then both are considered equally reesponsible.