Set the Language

We weren't able to detect the audio language on your flashcards. Please select the correct language below.

Front

Back

Hint

Related Flashcards

Flashcards
»
GEP2013 Criminal Law

Gep2013 Criminal Law

by gplaw20009, Dec. 2012

Subjects: Criminal Law

Favorite

Add to folder

Flag

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

Play button

Progress

1/106

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;

106 Cards in this Set

Front
Back
3rd side (hint)

CRIMINAL LAW: What Steps Should You Walk Through When Approaching A Criminal Law Question?	STEP 1: CONSIDER GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY -1) Required Elements of a Crime -2) Multiple Criminal Actors STEP 2: CLASSIFY THE CRIME(S) STEP 3: DETERMINE WHAT DEFENSES CAN BE RAISED -1) General vs. Specific Intent Crimes -2) Mens Rea Requirement Irrelevant
STEP 1 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY: What Must The Prosecution Generally Prove To Establish A Defendant's Guilt	RULE: To establish a defendant's criminal liability, the prosecution generally must establish the concurrence of: -1) The defendant's physical act that caused the harm, AND -2) The defendant's culpable mental state at the time of committing the act.
When Is It Not Necessary To Prove The Concurrence Of The Physical Act & Mental State?	RULE: If the defendant has been charged with a strict liability crime, the defendant's mental state is irrelevant. Thus, the prosecution need only prove the physical act and causation elements to estalbish guilty for a strict liability crime.
PHYSICAL ACT	DEFINITION: A physical act is a voluntary, physical movement or behavior. RULE: For purposes of establishing criminal liability, the prosecution must prove the defendant's act was: -1) Voluntary, AND -2) The actual and proximate cause of the harm.	BAR TIP: Because the physical act requirement is an element of every crime, the prosecution bears the burden of proving voluntariness and causation beyond a reasonable doubt.
What Types Of Acts Will Not Be Considered Voluntary?	RULE: The following acts are not voluntary and therefore do not fulfill the physical act requirement: -1) Reflexive actions, -2) Convulsions, -3) Movements while unconscious, -4) Movements while asleep, -5) Actions under hypnosis.	NOTE: Regularly or habitually performed acts, even if performed without the full awareness of the defendant (i.e., doing something that is second nature), will be considered voluntary, even if the defendant was unaware she was performing the act at the time.
Can A Defendant Be Charged With A Crime For Failing To Act?	RULE: Generally, an individual cannot be charged with a crime for failing to act (i.e., no duty to rescue). EXCEPTION: A person can be charged with a crime for failing to act if he is legally required to act. A person is leggaly required to act only where: -1) A statute creates a duty to act, -2) The defendant has entered into a contract creating a duty to act, -3) The defendant has voluntarily assumed the duty to rescue, -4) The defendant is in a special relationship with the person harmed, OR -5) The defendant has created the condition which caused the harm to the victim.	NOTE: -1) A person will not be held liable for failing to act if he is unaware of the facts giving rise to the duty (e.g., father not knowing that an imperiled child is his son). -2) A person will not be held criminally liable for failing to perform an act that is not reasonably possible to perform, or that the person is physically incapable of performing.
Explain The Causation Requirement	RULE: For a defendant to be held criminally liable, it must be established that her act caused the harm to occur at the time it did. Two types of causation must be established: -1) Actual causation (cause-in-fact) AND -2) Legal causation	BAR TIP: Questions of causation arise most commonly in homicide questions.
ACTUAL CAUSATION: How Do You Prove The Defendant's Act Was The Cause-In-Fact Of The Harm?	RULE: Actual causation is established by proving that, but for the defendant's noluntary act, the harm would not have occurred.	NOTE: -1) If a harm is caused by two or more sources: ---(a) Actual causation is established for each person whose act, if carried out independently of the others, was sufficient to cause the harm. ---(b) Actual causation is also established for each person whose independent act was not sufficient in and of itself to cause the harm, but whose act was a substantial factor in causing the harm. -2) Actual causation is established when a person's act changes the time of an inevitable outcome (e.g., assisted suicide for a terminally ill patient).
LEGAL CAUSATION: How Do You Prove The Defendant's Act Was The Proximate Cause Of The Harm?	RULE: Legal causation is established by demonstrating that the harm caused is one a reasonable person would expect to result from the defendant's act.	BAR TIP: The connection between the defendant's act and the resultant harm generally must be stronger to establish proximate causation in criminal law than that required to establish proximate causation in tort law.
Mens Rea Requirement	DEFINITION: The mens rea requirement refers to the defendant's state of mind when she committed the crime. RULE: To establish criminal liability, the prosecution must prove the defendant had the requisite mental state at the moment she committed the crime.	NOTE: -1) Generally, the prosecution must prove the defendant's mental state with respect to each material element of the offense. -2) The mental state that must be proven to establish the defendant's criminal liability varies and depends upon the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed (common law or statutory) and the definition of th crime that was committed. BAR TIP: Remember that the prosecution does not have to prove mental state for strict liability crimes.
LIST 3 COMMON LAW CLASSIFICATIONS OF CRIMES Classified by Mens Rea	-1) General Intent Crimes -2) Specific Intent Crimes -3) Strict Liability Crimes
General Intent Crime	DEFINITION: A general intent crime requires only that the defendant intended to carry out the act which constitutes the crime and that he did so with a general criminal intent. RULE: To prove a defendant guilty of a general intent crime, the prosecution need only prove: -1) The defendant performed an act that satisfies the physical act requirement of the crime, AND -2) That he did so with a general criminal intent (i.e., acted recklessly or negligently).	BAR TIP: On the exam, a simple way to determine if you are dealing with a specific or general intent crime is to look to the definition of the crime. If the defendant's intent to achieve a specific result is not included as part of the crime, it is a general intent crime.
Specific Intent Crime	DEFINITION: A specific intent crime requires not only that the defendant intended to commit the criminal act, but that she did so with the specific intent of bringing about a criminal result. RULE: To prove a defendant guilty of a specific intent crime, the prosecution must prove: -1) That the defendant intended to commit the proscribed act, AND -2) That the defendant committed the act with the specific intent to further a proscribed result.	BAR TIP: Specific intent crimes often include words such as "intentionally," "with the intent to," "willfully," "purposely," or"knowingly."
Why Is The Difference Between General & Specific Intent Crimes Important?	RULE: The distinction between general and specific intent crimes is important because: -1) Specific intent crimes are more difficult to prove, as the prosecution must establish the additional element of the defendant's specific intent. -2) The classification of a crime as general or specific intent determines whether certain defenses will be available to the defendant (e.g., voluntary intoxication, mistake of fact).
Strict Liability Crime	DEFINITION: A strict liability crime requires only that the defendant committed the prohibited act, regardless of the defendant's state of mind. RULE: To prove a defendant guilty of a strict liability crime, the prosecution need only prove that the defendant committed the act.	BAR TIP: Traffic violations and statutory rape are two examples of strict liablity crimes where a defendant can be found guilty simply by proving she committed the act. The defendant's intent, knowledge (e.g., of the speed limit or victim's age), and/or lack of care are irrelevant to establishing her guilt.
List 4 Mental States Defined By The Model Penal Code	-1) Purposely -2) Knowingly -3) Recklessly -4) Negligently	BAR TIP: While the exam does not test specifically on the MPC, a question may include a criminal statute with one of these four mental states included as an element of the crime. Because many states have adopted the MPC's mental state classifications, they are accepted as general principles of criminal law and may apply on the exam.
MENTAL STATE: Purposely	DEFINITION: A defendant has acted purposely if: -1) She consciously chose to engage in the prohibited conduct, commit the prohibited act, or bring about a prohibied result, OR -2) She is aware of surrounding circumstances that, combined with her act, will bring about a prohibited result.
MENTAL STATE: Knowlingly	DEFINITION: A defendant has acted knowingly if: -1) He is aware that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, OR -2) He knows, believes, or is substantially certain that his act will bring about a prohibited result.	NOTE: -1) Because the test to determine whether the defendant acted knowingly is subjective, the defendant must have had actual knowledge, belief, or awareness of the circumstances. -2) However, in cases of willful ignorance, courts will generally find the defendant to have acted knowingly. BAR TIP: If a criminal statute on the exam uses the term "willfully" with no further explanation, apply the defition of knowingly to determine if the defendant had the requisite mental state to be found guilty of the crime.
MENTAL STATE: Recklessly	DEFINITION: A defendant has acted recklessly if he consciously or deliberately ignores a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm resulting from his conduct.	NOTE: The defendant's act must be a significant departure from the course of action a law-abiding person would follow if the law-abiding person were in the defendant's situation. BAR TIP: Note, however, that recklessly is measured by a subjective standard (i.e., the defendant actually ignored the risk).
MENTAL STATE: Negligently	DEFINITION: A defendant has acted negligently if the defendant should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm resulting from her conduct.	NOTE: The defendant's failure to appreciate the risk must be significant departure from the level of awareness or standard of care a reasonable person would have if that person were in the defendant's situation. BAR TIP: Note that negligently is measured by an objective standard (i.e., the defendant should have been aware of the risk).
MENTAL STATE: Doctrine Of Transferred Intent	DEFINITION: The doctrine of transferred intent works to transfer the defendant's intent to harm from the originally intended recipient of the harm to the person or thing actually harmed. RULE: Under the doctrine of transferred intent, a defendant's original intent to harm one individual is transferred to the person who actually suffered the consequences of the criminal act (i.e., the defendant's intent follows the act through to its legitimate results).	NOTE: The doctrine of transferred intent also applies where the defendant intends to harm one piece of property, but instead harms a different piece of property.
List 4 Roles An Individual May Play In The Commission Of A Crime	-1) Principal in the First Degree -2) Principal in the Second Degree -3) Accessory Before the Fact -4) Accessory After the Fact
Principal In The First & Second Degree	PRINCIPAL IN THE FIRST DEGREE: The principal in the first degree is the person who carries out the act that constitutes the criminal offense with the requisite mens rea. PRINCIPAL IN THE SECOND DEGREE: A principal in the second degree is a person who is present at the time of the criminal act and who intentionally assists the first-degree principal to carry out the criminal act.	NOTE: An individual who uses an innocent instrumentality (e.g., a trained watchdog or robot) to carry out the criminal act is held responsible as a principal in the first degree.
Accessory Before & After The Fact	ACCESSORY BEFORE THE FACT: An accessory before the fact is a person who is not present during the commission of the crime, but who assisted, solicited, or counseled the first-degree principal to commit the crime. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT: An accessory after the fact is a person who, knowingthat another has committed a crime, helps that person to escape punishment (i.e., arrest, trial, or incarceration) after the crime has been committed.
To What Extent Will Accomplices Be Held Liable For Criminal Acts Committed By The First-Degree Principal?	SECOND-DEGREE PRINCIPALS: Principals in the second degree can be held fully liable for the acts committed by the first-degree principal. ACCESSORIES BEFORE THE FACT: Accessories before the fact can be held fully liable for the acts committed by the first-degree principal. ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT: Accessories after the fact will not be held liable for the crimes committed by the first-degree principal, but will be held liable for the separate (and usually lesser) crime of accessory after the fact.
STEP 2 - CLASSIFY THE CRIME: What Are The 3 Broad Categories Into Which Crimes Can Be Categorized? (Classified By Actus Reus)	-1) Inchoate Crimes -2) Crimes Against People -3) Crimes Against Property
Inchoate Crimes	DEFINITION: An inchoate crime is a crime that results from action that is performed with a criminal mental state, but falls short of attaining the criminal goal (i.e., incomplete crimes). The three most common types of inchoate crimes are: -1) Attempt -2) Solicitation -3) Conspiracy
Attempt	DEFINITION: Attempt is an overt act toward committing a criminal offense with the specific intent of completing the criminal offense.	NOTE: -1) The overt act must be a substantial step toward the commission of the crime. Mere preparation is not sufficient to establish criminal liability, unless the preparation brings the defendant very close to completing the target crime. -2) If the defendant completes the target criminal offense, attempt merges with the completed crime.
Solicitation	DEFINITION: Solicitation is the encouraging, inciting, advising or requesting another to commit a crime with the specific intent to cause the other to commit an illegal act.	NOTE: -1) The soliciting party can be foudn guilty of solicitation even if she is not successful in her effort to induce criminal behavior (i.e., the solicited party's agreement to commit the crime is irrelevant to determining solicitor's guilt). -2) At common law, guilt for solicitation can be sestablished regardless of whether the act solicited was a misdemeanor or felony. The modern trend is to limit solicitation to the encouraging, etc. of serious felonies. -3) Solicitation merges with the target crime (including attempt and conspiracy) upon completion of the crime.
Conspiracy	DEFINITION: Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people that is entered into with the specific intent of committing a criminal act.	NOTE: Conspiracy may be found even if the agreement is merely implied (i.e., through the actions of the parties).
Are Conspirators Responsible For The Criminal Acts Committed By Their Co-Conspirators?	RULE: At common law, a party to a conspiracy is responsible for all criminal acts committed by a co-conspirator if: -1) The criminal act falls within the scope of the conspiracy, OR -2) The criminal act is a foreseeable consequence of the illegal collaboration.
List 7 Commonly Tested Crimes Against The Person	-1) Homicide -2) Assault -3) Battery -4) Kidnapping -5) Mayhem -6) Rape -7) Statutory Rape
Homicide	DEFINITION: Homicide is the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being.	NOTE: The term homicide is an umbrella term that encompasses all types of criminal or unlawful killing of a human being (e.g., murder, manslaughter, etc.) BAR TIP: The 6 types of homicide to be familiar with for purposes of the exam are: -1) First-degree murder -2) Common law murder (a.k.a. second-degree murder) -3) Felony murder -4) Voluntary manslaughter -5) Involuntary manslaughter -6) Misdemeanor manslaughter
What Is The Approach To Analyzing A Homicide Question?	AFTER DETERMINING THAT A KILLING HAS OCCURED: -1) First, put on the prosecution's "hat" and try to charge the defendant with the highest possible level of murder (or manslaughter, if murder is unavailable): ---(a) Can you establish the malice aforethought necessary to prove murder? ------(i)If yes, you have established second-degree or common law murder. Next, try to prove the elements necessary to elevate the charges to first-degree murder. ------(ii) If no, see if the prosecution can establish voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. -2) After determining the most severe crime that the defendant can be charged with, put on the defendant's "hat" and try to: ---(a) Reduce the charges, then ---(b) Present any possible defenses.
What Homicide Crimes May A Defendant Be Convicted Of Under The Common Law?	The common law provides for the following crimes under the homicide umbrella: -1) Murder -2) Manslaughter	NOTE: The common law does not divide murder into degrees. Degrees of murder have been created through statutory interpretations of the common law.
Common Law Murder	DEFINITION: At common law, murder is the unlawful killing of a human by another with malice aforethought.	BAR TIP: For purposes of analysis, it may help to view the definition of murder broken down into the basic elements generally required to prove a crime: -1) Act (unlawful killing of a human) -2) Causation (by another human being) -3) Mens rea (with malice aforethought)
COMMON LAW MURDER: In What 4 Ways Can Malice Aforethought Be Established	RULE: Malice aforethought can be established by a showing that the defendant acted with: -1) The intent to kill, -2) The intent to inflict serious bodily harm, -3) A depraved heart, OR -4) The intent to commit a felony (felony murder).	NOTE: -1) Malice aforethough is the intent (mens rea) requirement of common law murder. It is a term of art and does not mean that ill-will or hatred must be present. Rather, proving any of the above-listed mental states will establish malice aforethought. -2) Intent to kill is express malice. Depraved heart, felony murder, and intent to cause serious bodily harm are implied malice.
MALICE AFORETHOUGHT: How Can Intent To Kill Be Established?	RULE: Intent to kill can be established by proving the defendant acted with: -1) The intent to cause the death of the victim, OR -2) Substantial certainty that the victim's death would occur.	NOTE: Even killings carried out at the victim's request (i.e., mercy killings) will fulfill the malice aforethought requirement if it can be demonstrated that the defendant intended to kill the victim.
Deadly Weapon Doctrine	RULE: Under the Deadly Weapon Doctrine, the defendant's intent to kill may be inferred from the defendants intentional use of a deadly weapon.	NOTE: This rule allows (but does not require) the jury to infer from the defendant's intentional use of a deadly weapon that he intended to kill the victim, even if no other evidence of intent is offered. BAR TIP: A deadly weapon is any instrument that is likely to, or will usually, cause death or serious bodily harm.
MALICE AFORETHOUGHT: How Can Malice Aforethought Be Established Through The Intent To Cause Serious Bodily Harm Approach?	RULE: The malice aforethought required for common law murder will be satisfied if the unintentional death of a victim results from the defendant's intentional act to cause serious bodily harm to the victim.	NOTE: Though the defendant need not have intended to kill the victim for a finding of murder under this approach, the defendant must have intended to cause serious bodily harm.
MALICE AFORETHOUGHT: How Can Malice Aforethought Be Established Through The depraved Heart Approach?	RULE: A defendant will be found to have acted with a depraved heart if the defendant's act results in the unintentional death of another and: -1) The defendant acted in a manner showing a reckless indifference to human life, OR -2) The Defendant acted with disregard of a very high risk or death or serious bodily harm to others.	BAR TIP: Note the difference between intent to kill, where a defendant has the requisite intent if she acts in a manner that is substantially certain to cause the death of another, and depraved heart, which requires only that the defendant acted in a mnner that carried a very high or reckless risk of causing another's death.
MALICE AFORETHOUGHT: Felony Murder	DEFINITION: Felony murder is an accidental killing that occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony. RULE: Common law felony murder will be found if it can be established that in the process of committing or attempting to commit a felony, the defendant: -1) Killed another person, AND -2) Intended to commit the underlying felony.	NOTE: The defendant need not have inteded to kill the victim. Felony murder provides for what is essentially strict liability for a death that results from (i.e., was caused by) the defendant's commission of a felony. BAR TIP: Not all felonies qualify as predicate felonies for felony murder. If an accidental killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony that does not qualify as felony murder (i.e., the predicate felony was not sufficiently serious or enumerated), the resulting offense will be involuntary manslaughter.
First-Degree Murder	DEFINITION: Murder in the first degree is common law intent-to-kill murder that was committed: -1) With premeditation and deliberation, -2) In the course of committing an inherently dangerous felony (i.e., first-degree felony murder) -3) In a manner specifically proscribed by statute (e.g., torture, lying in wait), OR -4) With an instrument or weapon specifically proscribed by statute (e.g., poison, weapon of mass destruction)	BAR TIP: If a killing is elevated to first-degree murder, a statute will generally be provided that enumerates the predicate felonies, manners of killing, or instruments of killing that will raise the offense to first-degree murder.
What Is The Premeditation & Deliberation Required For A Finding Of First-Degree Murder?	PREMEDITATION: Premeditation is the defendant's act of thinking about the killing before carrying it out (i.e., the forming of a specific intent to kill). DELIBERATION: Deliberation is the defendant's reconsidering and reaffirming of her decision to kill (i.e., cold and dispassionate).	NOTE: Generally, a reasonable length of time must elapse between the defendant's formation of the intent to kill and the carrying out of the killing for a finding of premeditation and deliberation.
FIRST-DEGREE MURDER: How Do You Determine If Felony Murder Is Murder In The First-or-Second-Degree?	RULE: Generally, felony murder is murder in the second degree (common law murder). However, statutes in most jurisdictions have modified the common law felony murder rule by classifying as first-degree any murder carried out in the commission of felonies considered inherently dangerous, specifically enumerated in the statute, or carried out with a deadly weapon.
What Are The Inherently Dangerous Felonies That Will Raise Felony Murder To A First-Degree Offense In Most Jurisdictions?	-1) Arson -2) Burglary -3) Kidnapping -4) Rape -5) Robbery
Manslaughter	DEFINITION: Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being by another without malice aforethought. Manslaughter may be categorized as: -1) Voluntary Manslaughter -2) Involuntary Manslaughter -3) Misdemeanor Manslaughter
Voluntary Manslaughter	DEFINITION: Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing committed in the heat of passion that was caused by adequate provacation.	NOTE: The adequate provocation and heat of passion elements serve as mitigating factors that reduce the defendant's level of culpability and decrease the crime from murder to manslaughter.
What Is The Testt To Determine If A Defendant May Be Guilty Of Voluntary Manslaughter?	RULE: If the facts establish second-degree (common-law) murder, a defendant may be entitled to a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter if she can prove: -1) The killing was in response to a provocation that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control, -2) Insufficient time passed between the provocation and the act of killing to allow a reasonable person to cool off and regain self-control, -3) The defendant actually lost self-control due to the provocation (i.e., acted in the heat of passion), AND -4) The defendant actually had not cooled off or gained self-control before killing.	BAR TIP: Voluntary manslaughter is most often looked to as a lesser form of liability by a defendant after the prosecution has established the elements of common law murder.
What Level Of Provocation Is Considered Adequate For The Charge Of Voluntary Manslaughter?	RULE: Adequate provocation is an event or occurrence that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. A split of authority exists as to the timing of the provocation: -1) Majority: Only events that occur suddenly (i.e., that take the defendant by surprise) are considered sufficient to cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. -2) Minority View: Cumulative acts (e.g., repeated taunting, beating, etc.) are considered sufficient provocation to cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. suddenness is not required.	NOTE: The reasonable person standard is an objective standard. BAR TIP: -1) Action commonly found to be adequate provocation include: ---(a) Seeing one's spouse in the act of adultery, ---(b) Being physically attacked. -2) Words generally are not considered reasonable provocation. However, if the words convey information (e.g., "I'm leaving you"), they may be considered sufficiently provocative.
Involuntary Manslaughter	DEFINITION: Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing without malice aforethought that occurs as a result of the defendant's criminally negligent or reckless behavior.	NOTE: The level of negligence required is criminal or gross negligence, a higher standard than tort negligence. BAR TIP: Look for deaths resulting from an accidental killing as a potential involuntary manslaughter issue.
MISDEMEANOR MANSLAUGHTER (Unlawful-Act Manslaughter)	DEFINITION: Misdemeanor manslaughter is an unintentional killing that occurs during: -1) The commission of a misdemeanor, OR -2) The commission of a felony that does not qualify as a predicate for felony murder.	NOTE: Misdemeanor manslaughter is a form of involuntary manslaughter.
HOMICIDE: Year-And-A-Day Rule	COMMON LAW: The victim must die within one year and a day from the time the defendant carried out the act that caused the victim's death to hold the defendant liable for a homicide. MODERN VIEW: Most jurisdictions have extended the time period by statute or eliminated completely the time requirement.
ASSAULT: List 3 Types Of Assault	-1) Attempted-Battery Assault -2) Intent-to-Cause-Fear Assault -3) Aggravated Assault	NOTE: Attempted-battery assault and intent-to-cause-fear assault are collectively referred to as assault or simple assault. Rather than being two separate crimes, they represent two distinct theories upon which a defendant can be convicted of assault.
ASSAULT: Attempted-Battery Assault	DEFINITION: Attempted-battery assault occurs when the defendant acts with the specific intent to commit a battery (i.e., intends to apply force to the victim), but fails to commit the battery. RULE: To establish the defendant's guilt of attempted-battery assault, the prosecution must prove that the defendant: -1) Performed an overt act toward committing a battery on the victim, -2) Acted with the specific intent to carry out a battery, AND -3) Failed to commit the battery.	BAR TIP: This is the most common approach to establishing guilty for assault.
ASSAULT: Intent-To-Cause-Fear Assault	DEFINITION: Intent-to-cause-fear assault occurs when the defendant acts in a threatening manner and with the intent to place the victim in fear or apprehension of imminent bodily injury. RULE: To establish a defendant's guilt under an intent-to-cause-fear theory of assault, the prosecution must establish that: -1) The defendant acted with the intent to place the victim in fear or apprehension of imminent bodily injury, -2) The defendant's act would cause a reasonable person to fear imminent bodily injury, AND -3) The victim actually feared imminent bodily injury.
ASSAULT: Aggravated Assault	DEFINITION: Aggravated assault is a simple assault that has been elevated to aggravated due to increased culpability of the defendant. RULE: Aggravated assault will be found when the defendant commits an assault: -1) Using a dangerous weapon, OR -2) With the intent to rape or cause serous bodily harm.
Battery	DEFINITION: Criminal battery is the application of force to the person of another that results in an offensive touching or bodily harm. RULE: To establish the defendant's guilt for criminal battery, the prosecution must prove: -1) The defendant directly or indirectly appliced force to the person of another, AND -2) The defendant's act caused an offensive touching or bodily injury to the victim.	BAR TIP: Because battery is a general intent crime, the prosecution can prove that the defendant acted intentionally, recklessly, or with criminal negligence to establish criminal culpability.
Kidnapping	DEFINITION: Kidnapping is the unlawful confinement of a person and the moving or concealing of that person. RULE: To establish the defendant's guilt for the crime of kidnapping, the prosecution must prove that without the victim's consent, the defendant: -1) Confined the victim through force or the threat of force, AND -2) Moved the victim to another place or concealed the victim.	NOTE: -1) At early common law, kidnapping also required the transportation of a person from her country to another country. -2) Modernly, the requirement that the defendant use force or threat of force to confine the victim has been removed.
Mayhem	DEFINITION: Mayhem is the intentional act of permanently disabling or disfiguring another. RULE: To establish guilty for mayhem, the prosecution must prove: -1) The defendant caused an injury that permanently disabled or disfigured the victim, AND -2) The defendant acted with the intent to cause permanent and serious injury.
Rape	DEFINITION: At common law rape was defined as sexual intercourse by a man with a woman not his wife without the woman's consent. RULE: To establish the defendant's guilt of rape under the common law, the prosecution must prove: -1) The defendant had sexual intercourse with a woman, -2) The woman was not the defendant's wife, AND -3) The woman did not consent.	NOTE: Under the modern rules: -1) Rape is defined in gender-neutral terms as to both the defendant and the victim. -2) Marital immunity is no longer absolute.
Statutory Rape	DEFINITION: At common law statutory rape was defined as non-forcible sexual intercourse with a female under the legal age of consent. RULE: To establish the defendant's guilt of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove only that the defendant had sexual intercourse with a female who was under the legal age of consent.	NOTE: -1) The legal age of consent is determined by statute and varies depending on the jurisdiction. -2) Moderlyn, statutory rape is defined in gender-neutral terms as to both the defendant and the victim. BAR TIP: Because statutory rape is a strict liability crime, the defendant's knowledge of the victim's age is irrelevant.
List 8 Commonly Tested Crimes To Property	-1) Arson -2) Burglary -3) Embezzlement -4) Extortion -5) False Pretenses -6) Larceny -7) Receiving Stolen Property -8) Robbery
Arson	DEFINITION: Arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. RULE: To establish the defendant's guilt for arson, the prosecution must prove: -1) The defendant burned the dwelling of another person, AND -2) The defendant acted with malice.	NOTE: -1) The malice requirement is met if the defendant acted with reckless disregard of a risk or if the defendant acted intentionally. -2) Modernly, arson has been expanded to include the burning of structures other than houses.
Burglary	DEFINITION: At common law, burglary is the intentional breaking and entry into the dwelling of another at night with the intent to commit a felony or larceny therein. RULE: To establish the defendant's guilt for burglary, the prosecution must prove: -1) The defendant committed a breaking and entry into the dwelling of another, -2) The act was committed at night, AND -3) The defendant had the intent to commit a felony or larceny within the dwelling at the moment of the breaking and entry.	NOTE: -1) The breaking may be actual (e.g., breaking a window or opening a door) or constructive (e.g., fraud or threat of force). -2) The entry requirement is met by placing any part of the defendant's body or an object held by the defendant inside the dwelling. -3) The modern approach has expanded the scope of burglary to: ---(a) Include daytime entry, ---(b) Remove the breaking requirement, AND ---(c) Cover structures other than residences.
Embezzlement	DEFINITION: Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion or misappropriation of the personal property of another by one who is already in lawful possession of the property. RULE: To establish the defendant's guilt for embezzlement, the prosecution must prove that the defendant: -1) Was in lawful possession of another's personal property, -2) Converted the property, AND -3) Acted with fraudulent intent.	NOTE: -1) Modern statutes extend embezzlement to cover both real and personal property. -2) The defendant's fraudulent intent is satisfied if the defendant knew the property belonged to another and did not intend to return the property. -3) Converting the property means to significantly deprive the rightful owner of the property's usefulness. BAR TIP: Note the distinction between embezzlement and larceny: Embezzlement requires that the defendant wrongfully appropriate property of which the defendant was in lawful possession; Larceny requires that the original possession be trespassory.
Extortion	DEFINITION: Extortion is the threatening of future harm to the victim or the victim's property with the purpose of obtaining another's property. RULE: To establish the defendant's guilt for extortion, the prosecution must prove the defendant: -1) Threatened to cause future harm to the victim, AND -2) Acted with the intent of obtaining the victim's property.
False Pretenses	DEFINITION: Obtaining property by false pretenses is the act of making a false representation of a present or past material fact with the intent to cause the victim to transfer title to her property to the defendant. RULE: To establish the defendant's guilt for false pretenses, the prosecution must prove: -1) The defendant made a false representation of a material fact (past or present) -2) The defendant knew the representation to be false, -3) The defendant acted witht he intent to defraud the victim, AND -4) The misrepresentation caused the victim to transfer title to the proprety to the defendant.	NOTE: -1) The representation by the defendant must be more than exaggeration. -2) Title of the property must pass to the defendant to complete the crime of false pretenses.
Larceny	DEFINITION: Larceny is the trespasory taking and carrying away of the personal proprety of another with the intent to permanently deprive. RULE: To establish the defendant's guilt for larceny, the prosecution must prove: -1) The defendant wrongfully took possession of another's property, -2) The defendant carried away the property, -3) The property was in the possession of and belonged to another, AND -4) The defendant acted with the intent to permanently deprive that person of her possession.	NOTE: The slightest movement will suffice to establish the defendant carried away another's property. BAR TIP: Remember that to be guilty of larceny, the initial taking must be trespassory. If the defendant was rightfully in possession of property but later converted the property to her own use, look to embezzlement.
Receiving Stolen Property	DEFINITION: Receiving stolen property is the receipt of property that the defendant knows to be stolen, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the proprety. RULE: To establish the defendant's guilt for receiving stolen property, the prosecution must prove the defendant: -1) Received stolen property, -2) Knew the property was stolen, AND -3) Acted with the intent to deprive the proper owner of the property.
Robbery	DEFINTION: Robbery is the forceful taking and carrying away of personal property from the presence of the victim with the intent to permanently deprive. RULE: To establish the defendant's guilt for robbery, the prosecution must prove the defendant: -1) Used force or intimidation to take tangible personal property from the person or presence of the victim, AND -2) Acted with the intent to permanently deprive the proper owner of the property.	NOTE: A threat of physical harm to the victim's family or some person in the victim's presence will fulfill the force or intimidation requirement.
STEP 3 - DEFENSES: List 12 Specific Intent Crimes Under The Common Law	INCHOATE CRIMES: -1) Attempt -2) Conspiracy -3) Solicitation CRIMES TO THE PERSON: -1) Assault -2) First-Degree Premeditated Murder -3) Voluntary Manslaughter CRIMES TO PROPERTY -1)Burglary -2) Embezzlement -3) Forgery -4) False Pretenses -5) Larceny -6) Robbery
List 6 General Intent Crimes Under The Common Law	-1) Battery -2) Depraved heart murder -3) Involuntary manslaughter -4) Kidnapping -5) Rape -6) Arson	NOTE: Though arson requires that the criminal act be committed with malice, it falls under the same rules of general intent crimes for defense purposes because proof that the defendant acted recklessly or negligently is sufficient to meet arson's malice requirement.
GENERAL vs. SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES: List The Defenses Whose Availability Depends Upon Whether The Crime Charged Is A General Or Specific Intent Crime	-1) Dimished Capacity -2) Intoxication -3) Mistake of Fact -4) Mistake of Law
GENERAL vs SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES: Diminished Capacity	DEFINITION: Diminshed capacity refers to the mentla state of a defendant who, though not insane, suffers from a mentla deficiency that prevented the defendant from being able to form the requisite mens rea for a specific intent crime. RULE: In jurisdictions that allow the defense of diminshed capacity, a defendant may offer proof of his mentla deficiency to prove that he lacked the capacity to form the requisite mens rea for a specific intent crime. The defense usually is not available for general intent crimes.	BA TIP: Under statutory formulations, diminshed capacity may be offered as a defense to crimes with a mens rea requirement of purposely, knowingly, or recklessly, but it is not available as to crimes requiring only negligence.
GENERAL vs. SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES: Voluntary Intoxication	DEFINITION: Intoxication is voluntary if the intoxication results from the defendant's voluntary and intentional consumption of a substance that she knows to be intoxicating. COMMON LAW: Under the CL, voluntary intoxication is not available as a defense to general or specific intent crimes. MODERN VIEW: Modernly, voluntary intoxication is available as a defense to specific intent crimes if the defendant can show that her intoxication prevented her from forming the mental state requireed by the definition of the crime. It is not available as a defense to general intent crimes.	NOTE: Because the defense is available only if the intoxication actually prevented the defendant from forming the required specific intent or from acting purposely or with knowledge, the defendant's level of intoxication is extremely important. The defendant has the burden of production as to how much she drank and how drunk she was at the time the crime was committed. BAR TIP: Under statutory formulations, voluntary intoxication is available as a defense to crimes with a mens rea requirement of purposely or knowingly, but not recklessly or negligently.
GENERAL vs SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES: Involuntary Intoxication	DEFINITION: Involuntary intoxication occurs when a defendant is not to blame for becoming intoxicated. Involuntary intoxication will be found if the defendant: -1) Did not know the substance was intoxicating, -2) Was coerced into consuming the substance, -3) Consumed the substance at the direction of a doctor, OR -4) Was abnormally sensitive to the intoxicating effects of a substance (pathological intoxication) ---(a) NOTE: A defendant can claim pathological intoxication only if the defendant did not know of her sensitivity to the substance. RULE: Involuntary intoxication is treated as a form of temporary insanity and may be offered as a complete defense to general and specific intent crimes. To determine whether the defendant's intoxication rendered her insane, courts will apply the insanity test followed in the jurisdiction.	NOTE: At common law, intoxication resulting from alcoholism or drug addiction is considered voluntary. Modernly, most courts recognize permanent impairments caused by the long-term use of drugs or alcohol as relevant to establishing an insanity defense.
GENERAL vs. SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES: Mistake of Fact	SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES: Mistake of fact is available if the defendant's mistake: -1) Negates the specific intent required by the crime, AND -2) Was honest (i.e., the defendant genuinely believed his understanding of the circumstances to be accurate). GENERAL INTENT CRIMES: Mistake of fact is available if the defendant's mistake: -1) Negates the general intent required by the crime, -2) Was honest, AND -3) Was reasonable.	NOTE: -1) If the crime charged is strict liability, the defendant's mistake of fact is irrelevant. -2) If the crime charged is specific intent, mistake of fact is avaialbe as a defense regardless of the reasonableness of the defendant's mistake. BAR TIP: Under statutory formulations: -1) An honest and reasonable mistake of fact is available as a defense to crimes with a mens rea requirement of reckless or negligent. -2) An honest mistake of fact (regardless of its reasonableness) is available as a defense to crimes with a mens rea requirement of purposely or knowingly.
GENERAL vs. SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES: Mistake of Law	DEFINITION: A defendant's mistake of law may arise in two circumstances: -1) Mistake as to the existence of a law, OR -2) Mistake as to the interpretation of a law. RULE: At common law, everyone is presumed to know the law. Mistake or ignorance of the law is not available as a defense. EXCEPTIONS: -1) Mistake of law may be a defense to a specific intent crime if the defendant's mistake is a different law mistake. -2) Mistake of law may be available if the mistake negates an element of the crime (i.e., if the crime requires knowledge or awareness of an enumerated element). -3) Regardless of whether the crime charged is specific or general intent, mistake as to the existence or interpretation of a law is available as a defense if: ---(a) The defendant relied upon an erroneous or invalid judicial opinion, statute, or statement from the agency responsible for interpreting or enforcing the law, OR ---(b) In limited circumstances, the defendant was not given fair notice of the law.	NOTE: At common law, the defendant's reliance upon the erroneous advice of a police officer or prosecutor will not allow him to successfully argue mistake of law.
GENERAL vs. SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES: Different Law Mistake	DEFINITION: A different law mistake occurs when the defendant is not mistaken as to the existence or interpretation of the criminal law he is charged with violating, but as to the existence, interpretation or application of another law. SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES: A defendant's mistake as to the eistence or interpretation of a law other than that under which he is criminally charged is a defense if the mistake negates an element of the crime, regardless of whether the defendant's mistake was reasonable or unreasonable. GENERAL INTENT CRIMES: A defendant's mistake regarding a different law generally is not a defense, regardless of whether the defendant's mistake was reasonable or unreasonable. STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES: A defendant's mistake as to the existence or interpretation of a different law is never a defense to a strict liability crime.	BAR TIP: An example of a different law mistake is a man who erroneously believes that under family law his divorce from his first wife was valid and marries again, thereby violating a criminal law against polygamy.
List 13 Defenses Whose Availability Does Not Depend Upon Whether The Crime Charged Is General Or Specific Intent	-1) Insanity -2) Infancy -3) Duress -4) Consent -5) Defense of Self (Self-Defense) -6) Defense of Others -7) Defense of Property -8) Defense of Home -9) Necessity -10) Crime Prevention -11) Lawful Arrest -12) Resisting Arrest -13) Entrapment
INSANITY: What Is The General Rule Regarding Insanity?	RULE: A defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity and entitled to an acquittal if, at the time she committed the crime, the defendant was sufficiently impaired due to a mental illness as to be found insane according to the legal standard of the jurisdiction.	NOTE: Whether insanity will be found depends upon the test used in the jurisdiction of the court.
INSANITY: List 5 Tests That Can Be Used To Determine Whether A Defendant Is Insane	-1) M'Naghten Test -2) Irresistible Impulse Test -3) Durham Test -4) Model Penal Code Test -5) Federal Statutory Test
INSANITY: What Is The M'Naghten Test?	RULE: Under the M'Naghten Test, a defendant will not be held criminally liable for her acts if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, at the time she committed the act she: -1) Did not understand the nature and quality of her action, OR ---(a) NOTE: A defendant does not understand the nature and quality of her actions if she does not understand the natural consequences of her act. -2) Did not know her action was wrong (even if she did understand the nature and quality of her acts). ---(a) NOTE: A defendant does not know her actin was wrong if her condition caused her to believe that: (i) Majority: Her conduct was legally permissible. (ii) Minority: Her conduct was morally permissible or required.	NOTE: The M'Naghten Test is followed in a majority of jurisdictions. BAR TIP: Under the M'Naghten Test, insanity will not be found where the defendant is aware that her conduct is wrong but was unable to control her behavior.
INSANITY: What Is The Irresistible Impulse Test?	RULE: Under the Irresistible Impulse Test, a defendant will not be held criminally liable for his acts if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, the defendant acted from an irresistible impulse such that his will was destroyed and his actions were beyond his control.	NOTE: The Irresistible Impulse Test does not require that the defendant be acting impulsively. Even if the defendant deliberated or planned his action, he still may be found insane under this approach if he can prove that he was unable to stop himself from committing the criminal act as a result of his mental disease. BAR TIP: Note that the Irresistible Impulse Test is broader than the M'Naghten Test, as it allows for a finding of insanity if a defendant knows right from wrong but cannot control himself.
INSANITY: What Is The Durham Test?	RULE: Under the Durham Test, a defendant will not be held criminally liable for her acts if the defendant's actions were the product of a mentla disease or defect.	BAR TIP: Note that the Durham Test is broader than both the M'Naghten Test and the Irresistible Impulse Test, as it allows for a finding of insanity if, as the product of a mental disease or defect, the defendant does not understand the nature of her acts or cannot control herself.
INSANITY: What Is The Model Penal Code Test?	RULE: Under the MPC Test, a defendant will not be held criminally liable for his acts if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, the defendant at the time of his actions lacked substantial capacity to: -1) Understand the wrongfulness of his conduct, OR -2) Conform his conduct to the requiremenets of the law.
INSANITY: What Is The Federal Statutory Test?	RULE: Under the FS Test, a defendant will not be held criminally liable for her acts if the defendant can prove by clear and convincing evidence that as a result of a severe mental disease or defect at the time of her actions, she was unable to appreciate: -1) The nature and quality of her acts, OR -2) The wrongfulness of her conduct.	NOTE: All federal courts apply the Federal Statutory Test and require that the defendant prove her insanity by clear and convincing evidence. BAR TIP: Note that the FS Test sets the standard higher than the MPC Test by requiring that the defendant be completely unable to appreciate the nature or wrongfullness of her conduct, whereas the MPC Test requires only that the defendant lack substantial capacity to understand or conform.
INSANITY: Presumptions & Burdens Of Proof	RULE: Defendant's are presumed sane, and the defendant bears the burden of production regarding insanity (i.e., the burden of presenting some evidence that tends to show the defendant is insane). However, once the defendant has met his burden of production, a split of authority exists as to which party bears the burden of proof: -1) Historically: Once a defendant has raised the insanity defense and presented some evidence tending to prove he was insane, the burden was placed on the prosecution to prove the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. -2) Modern Trend: The defendant bears not only the burden of producing some evidence tending to show she is insane, but also the burden of proof of insanity by: ---(a) Clear and convincing evidence (federal courts), OR ---(b) A preponderance of the evidence (majority of states).
Infancy	RULE: At common law, a defendant's age could raise a presumption that she lacked the capacity to form criminal intent and thus was unable to commit a criminal act. The presumption raised depended upon the defendant's age at the time of the criminal act: -1) Children younger than 7: The defendant is conclusively presumed to lack the capacity to form criminal intent. Because the presumption is conclusive, it cannot be overcome, and the defendant cannot be convicted of a criminal act. -2) Children between 7 and 14: A rebuttable presumption of the defendant's lack of capacity exists. The Prosecution can overcome the presumption by offering evidence that the defendant appreciated the nature and quality of her acts and knew that her acts were wrong. -3) Children older than 14: The defendant is treated as an adult having full capacity to form criminal intent.	NOTE: Under the modern rules, the age of competency is determined by statute, and the age over which a child will be treated as an adult depends upon the jurisdiction.
Duress	DEFINITION: Duress is a defense in which the defendant argues that he committed a crime as a result of illegal coercion or threat of harm to himself or his family. RULE: A defendant may be acquitted of charges for all crimes except murder if the defendant can prove: -1) A third party threatened the defendant (or the defendant's family) with death or serious bodily harm, -2) The third party made the threat with the intention of forcing the defendant to commit an illegal act, -3) The defendant reasonably believed the threat would be carried out if he failed to commit the illegal act, AND -4) The defendant did not voluntarily place himself in a vulnerable position.	NOTE: -1) At common law, duress can be offered as a defense to every crime except murder. Modernly, a minority of jurisdictions recognize duress as an imperfect defense that can be offered to reduce an intentional killing to manslaughter. -2) Courts are split on the availability of duress as a defense to felony-murder.
Consent	RULE: The consent of a victim generally is not available as a defense to a criminal charge unless the victim's consent negates a specific element of the crime (e.g., rape, kidnapping).
Self-Defense	DEFINITION: Self-defense is a privilege to commit what would otherwise be a criminal act in order to protect oneself from a similar harm. RULE: Self-defense may be available to justify the action of a defendant if: -1) The defendant believed the use of force was necessary to prevent imminent unlawful harm, -2) The defendant's belief was reasonable, AND -3) The amount of force used did not exceed that with which the defendant reasonably believed she was threatened.	NOTE: -1) The availability of the defense does not require that the defendant be correct in her belief only that the belief be reasonable. -2) If the defendant, justifiably acting in self-defense against a deadly attack, kills a bystander due to the reckless handling of a weapon, she will be found guilty of manslaughter rather than intentional murder. BAR TIP: If the defendant's belief was unreasonable, or her use of force was disproportionate to the amount threatened, look to imperfect self-defense.
Imperfect Self-Defense	DEFINITION: Imperfect self-defense will allow a charge of murder to be reduced to manslaughter if the defendant acted with an honest but unreasonable belief or perception. COMMON LAW: At CL, imperfect self-defense is not available. If the defendant acted on a mistaken belief and failed to establish the reasonableness of that belief, he has no defense and can be convicted of murder. MODERN TREND: The defendant's honest but mistaken belief or reaction may be offered as an imperfect self-defense and will reduce a charge of murder to voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.	BAR TIP: A defendant will almost never be successful in an imperfect self-defense argument if the force used was excessive.
SELF-DEFENSE: How Much Force May A Person Use To Defend Himself Against An Attack?	NON-DEADLY FORCE: A person is priviliged to use non-deadly force when faced with an unlawful use of force that threatens any type of bodily harm if the force appears reasonably necessary to prevent immediate infliction of harm. DEADLY FORCE: A person is privileged to use deadly force when faced with an unlawful use of force that threatens death or serious bodily harm if: -1) Deadly force appears reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or imminent infliction of serious bodily harm by the aggressor, -2) Non-deadly force would not be sufficient to repel the attack, AND -3) Retreat is not feasible if a duty to retreat exists.	NOTE: -1) Deadly force is never allowed to defend from a non-deadly attack. -2) Deadly force is force capable of causing death or serious bodily harm.
SELF-DEFENSE: Does A Non-Aggressor Have A Duty To Retreat Before Using Deadly Force?	MAJORITY: There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force to defend against a deadly attack, even if retreat can be carried out safely. MINORITY: A duty to retreat before using deadly force to defend against a deadly attack exists if retreat may be carried out in complete safety. EXCEPTION: Even in jurisdictions that require a victim to retreat if she can do so safely, no duty to retreat exists if the victim is attacked in her own home.	NOTE: Though a duty to retreat before using deadly force may exist (depending on the jurisdiction), there is never a duty to retreat before using non-deadly force to protect against a deadly attack.
SELF-DEFENSE: Can One Who Initiated Aggression Ever Claim Self-Defense?	RULE: Generlly, an aggressor cannot raise self-defense to justify a criminal act. EXCEPTION: An aggressor may raise the defense of self-defense if: -1) The aggressor makes a complete withdrawal and renounces his previous assault, OR -2) The initial non-aggressor resonds to the aggressor's non-deadly force with deadly force and the initial aggressor cannot withdraw to safety.	BAR TIP: It is helpful to know the rules for three commonly encountered situations: -1) A assault B with non-deadly force, B responds with deadly force, A responds by killing B. ---(a) Outcome: Imperfect self-defense is available, and A is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. -2) A assaults B with deadly force, B responds with deadly force, A responds by killing B. ---(a) Outcome: Imperfect self-defense not available, and A is guilty of intentional murder. -3) A assaults B with non-deadly force, B responds with deadly force, A completely withdraws and renounces his previous assault. However, B continues to attack A with deadly force. A cannot retreat to safety and responds to the attack by killing B. ---(a) Outcome: Complete self-defense justification is available for the killing, though A will still be liable for the initial assault on B.
Defense Of Others	RULE: A person generally may use force to defend a third party if he reasonably believes that the person being attacked has the right to use force in his own defense. A split of authority exists as to the effect of the defendant's incorrect belief that the third party ahd a right to self-defense: -1) Common Law (Alter-Ego Theory): If the third party did not have a right to self-defense (e.g., third party was lawfully arrested), then defense of others will not justify the defendant's use of force, regardless of the honesty or reasonableness of the defendant's belief. -2) Modern Approach: If the third party did not have a right to self-defense, defense-of-others will justify the defendant's use of force if the defendant's mistake as to the third party's right to defend herself was reasonable.	NOTE: -1) At CL, the right to use force in defense of others is limited to those with whom the defendant has a special relationship (e.g., family, servants, etc). Under the modern approach, no special relationship is required to claim the defense. -2) The defendant is justified in using only the amount of force that the person being aided would be justified in using.
Defense Of Property	RULE: A person may use non-deadly force to defend her possession of real or personal property if she reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent an imminent and unlawful taking of the property.	NOTE: -1) Deadly force can never be used to defend property. However, some jurisdictions allow a person to justifiably threaten the use of deadly force to prevent dispossession. -2) Defense of property justifies a person's use of force to retain rightful possession of (not title to) personal or real property. -3) A person cannot use force to recapture property of which she has been dispossessed unless she is acting immediately after the property has been taken (e.g., running after and tackling a purse-snatcher who has just taken one's purse).
Defense Of Home	RULE 1: A person may always use non-deadly force to defend his home. RULE 2: The use of deadly force is allowed to protect one's home if the occupant reasonably believes that: -1) The intruder intends to harm a person inside the home, -2) Deadly force is necessary to prevent an attacker from making an imminent and unlawful entry into the home, AND -3) The intruder intends to harm a person inside the home.	NOTE: Some jurisdictions allow deadly force to be used only if the occupant of the home reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a violent felony (e.g., murder, rape, burglary) inside the home.
Necessity	RULE: An otherwise criminal act may be justified if: -1) An emergency situation or force of nature created a clear and immediate danger to the defendant or others, -2) The defendant honestly and reasonably believed her act was necessary to avoid the danger, -3) The harm caused by the defendant's illegal act was less than the harm the defendant acted to avoid, AND -4) The defendant was not at fault in creating the situation necessitation her illegal act.	NOTE: Necessity is never a defense to a charge of homicide. BAR TIP: If it is unclear whether the harm caused by the defendant is less than that the defendant sought to avoid, most courts resolve ties against the defendant.
CRIME PREVENTION: What Type Of Force May Be Used To Prevent A Crime From Occurring?	RULE: The circumstances in which police officers and private citizens are justified in acting to prevent the commission of a crime depend upon the circumstances and level of force used: -1) Non-Deadly Force: A police officer or private citizen may use non-deadly force to prevent a crime from occurring or being completed if: ---(a) The citizen or officer reasonably believes a person is committing a felony or breach of the peace, AND ---(b) The amount of force used is necessary to prevent commission of the crime. -2) Deadly Force: A police officer or private citizen may use deadly force if: ---(a) Deadly force is necesary to prevent a crime from occurring or being completed, AND ---(b) The crime prevented is: (i) Majority - A violent or dangerous felony; (ii) Minority - Any felony (even nonviolent).
LAWFUL ARREST: What Type Of Force May A Police Officer Use To Make An Arrest Or Capture A Suspect After A Crime Has Been Committed?	NON-DEADLY FORCE: A police officer may use non-deadly force to carry out an arrest or apprehend a fleeing felon. DEADLY FORCE: -1) Common Law: At CL, a plice officer can use deadly force to capture or arrest a felony suspect, regardless of whether such force was reasonable or necessary. -2) Modern Approach: Under the modern approach, a plice officer may use deadly force to capture or arrest a suspect if: ---(a) The officer reasonably believes the suspect has committed a felony, ---(b) The suspected felon poses a threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or the community, AND ---(c) The use of deadly force is reasonably necessary to make the arrest or to prevent the suspect from escaping.	NOTE: If possible under the circumstances, the police officer must warn the suspect before using deadly force.
LAWFUL ARREST: What Type Of Force May A Private Citizen Use To Make An Arrest Or Capture A Suspect After A Crime Has Been Committed?	NON-DEADLY FORCE: A private citizen may use non-deadly force to capture or arrest a suspect if: -1) The private citizen reasonably believes the arrerstee committe a felony or breach of the peace misdemeanor, AND -2) The crime in fact was committed. NOTE: If the crime committed was a breach of the peace misdemeanor, the crime must also have occurred in the presence of the citizen making the arrest. DEADLY FORCE: A private person may use deadly force to apprehend or arrest a suspect if: -1) The committed was a violent or dangerous felony, -2) The person upon whom deadly force was used actually committed the crime, AND -3) Deadly force was reasonably necessary to apprehend or arrest the felon.
RESISTING ARREST: Resisting An Unlawful Arrest	COMMON LAW: Under the CL, a defendant may use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest by a police officer, even if the defendant knows the arrestor to be an officer of the law. MODERN TREND: A defendant may not resist an arrest that he knows is being made by a police officer, even if the arrest is unlawful.	NOTE: Under both the CL and the modern approach: -1) A defendant may use reasonable force to protect himself if he reasonably believes that an officer intends to use brutal or excessive force in carrying out the arrest. -2) A defendant may use reasonable force to protect himself from an unlawful arrest by a private citizen.
Entrapment	RULE: A defendant may successfully argue an entrapment defense if: -1) Law enforcement officers induced the defendant to commit the crime, AND -2) The defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime before being influenced by law enforcement officers.	NOTE: A defendant may also argue entrapment if a person acting at the direction of or cooperating with law enforcement officers induced the defendant to commit the criminal act.