Mbe Criminal Law

Front 1

ATTEMPT of a crime requires:

Back 1

i) the SPECIFIC INTENT to commit the crime, and
ii) a SUBSTANTIAL STEP toward completion

Front 2

A legal duty to act may arise from a:

Back 2

Statute,
Contract, or
Voluntary assumption of care

Front 3

For an individual to be convicted as an "accessory after the fact" under modern statutes:

Back 3

i) Principal must have committed a FELONY, and
ii) the felony must have been COMPLETED before (or at the time) the Accessory renders aid.

It is not enough that the principal has taken a substantial step toward completion of the crime; the crime must have been completed at the time the accessory renders aid.

Front 4

Under modern statutes, what is the difference between a principal and an accomplice to a crime?

Back 4

•Principal actually commit the crime;

•Accomplice aids, counsels, or encourages the principal to commit the crime

Front 5

Under the Model Penal Code, a person acts negligently when:

Back 5

he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances

Front 6

A ∆ charged as an accomplice is responsible for:

Back 6

The crimes he did or counseled and any other crimes committed in the course of committing the crime contemplated, as long as the other crimes were probable or FORESEEABLE.

Note: one who cannot be convicted of being a Principal may be convicted of being an Accomplice.

Front 7

In order to be held criminally liable as an accomplice for additional crimes committed by the principal during the course of committing the contemplated crime, the additional crimes must have been:

Back 7

probable or foreseeable

Front 8

what is the necessary intent for the crime of CONSPIRACY?

Back 8

- intent to AGREE, and
- intent to ACCOMPLISH the objective of the conspiracy

Front 9

If conspirators are successful in completing the intended crime, they can be convicted of:

Back 9

both the crime of conspiracy and the completed crime.

*no merger in conspiracy

Front 10

A defendant charged with murder _______ be convicted of attempted murder; a defendant charged with attempted murder _______ be convicted of murder.

Back 10

May; May not

Front 11

A conspirator may be liable for the crimes of all other conspirators if the crimes were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy, and the crimes were _______.

Back 11

foreseeable.

As long as the crimes are in furtherance of the conspiracy’s objectives and foreseeable, the conspirator may be liable even if the crimes were not part of the original agreement.

Front 12

The crime of solicitation is completed when:

Back 12

the solicitation is made

Front 13

A conspirator can be convicted of a crime committed by another conspirator if:

Back 13

•the crimes were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy, AND
•the crimes were foreseeable.

Front 14

describe the sufficient intent to convict a defendant of an attempted crime.

Back 14

the intent to perform an act and obtain a result that, if achieved, would constitute a crime.

Front 15

Under common law, the elements of a conspiracy include:

Back 15

•an agreement between two or more persons,
•an intent to enter into an agreement, and
•an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement

Front 16

If the evidence is sufficient, a defendant charged with an attempt to commit a crime can be found guilty of:

Back 16

Attempt to commit the crime only.

A defendant charged only with an attempt to commit a crime can be convicted only of the attempted crime and may not be convicted of the completed crime, regardless of whether the evidence shows that he completed it.

Front 17

The Wharton rule states that:

Back 17

if the crime requires two or more parties to commit it, there can be no conspiracy to commit the crime unless more parties take part in the crime than are necessary for its commission.

Front 18

The elements of attempt are:

(two requirements for criminal attempt)

Back 18

(1) the specific intent to perform an act and obtain a result, that, if achieved, would constitute a crime; and
(2) an overt act in furtherance of the crime.

In other words, more than just the requisite intent is required.

Front 19

The intent necessary for the criminal attempt is:

Back 19

The intent to perform an act and obtain a result that, if achieved, would constitute a crime

Front 20

If at least two parties are required to commit a substantive crime, but the relevant statute punished only one of the of the conspirators, then:

Back 20

All may be convicted of conspiracy to commit the crime.

explanation: If two or more people are necessary for the commission of the substantive offense (e.g., adultery, dueling, sale of contraband), the “Wharton rule” states that there is no crime of conspiracy unless more parties participate in the agreement than are necessary for the crime. However, if the criminal statute covering the substantive offense punishes only one of the conspirators, the Wharton rule does not apply, and all may be convicted of conspiracy.

Front 21

As to a charge of solicitation, the general rule is that withdrawal or renunciation _______; and the Model Penal Code ______ the defense of withdrawal or renunciation from a solicitation.

Back 21

Is not a defense to the charge; does recognize (provided that the defendant prevents the commission of the substantive crime)

Front 22

The following are elements of common law arson:

Back 22

burning,
of a dwelling,
malice

Front 23

__________ determine(s) whether a dwelling is “of another.”

Back 23

occupancy

Front 24

Burglary is a _____ intent crime.

Back 24

specific

Front 25

Common law arson is:

Back 25

the malicious burning of the dwelling of another

Front 26

In order to be guilty of common law burglary, one must break and enter a dwelling with:

Back 26

the specific intent to commit a felony therein

Front 27

would "hiding in the dwelling, then breaking the lock of the door to exit" constitute common law burglary?

Back 27

no

Front 28

elements of embezzlement are:

Back 28

1) POSSESSION of property under trust arrangement;
2) CONVERSION of that property;
3) with intent to DEFRAUD

Front 29

Does intent to return or replace converted property show lack of intent to defraud in embezzlement?

Back 29

no

Front 30

Under the Model Penal Code test for the insanity defense, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if:

Back 30

∆ lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or the wrongfulness of his conduce or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

Front 31

A defendant is unfit to stand trial if he:

Back 31

cannot understand the nature of the proceedings against him.

Front 32

The mistake of fact defense is available for:

Back 32

both general and specific intent crimes, but the mistake must be reasonable to serve as a defense for a general intent crime

Front 33

the following are examples which are NOT defenses to felony murder:

Back 33

he expiration of the statute of limitations for the underlying crime, the fact that the underlying felony was not completed,
the felon’s lack of an intent to kill

Front 34

A defendant is fit to stand trial if he can:

Back 34

1) Understand the nature of the proceedings against him and
2) assist his lawyer in the preparation of his defense

Front 35

Elements of Larceny:

Back 35

1) taking (exercise of control) or
2) asportation (some movement) of the
3) personal property of another
4) wrongfully--either w/out permission or w/ permission by trick, and
5) with intent to permanently deprive

Front 36

When does jeopardy attach in a bench trial?

Back 36

when 1st WITNESS is sworn

Front 37

When does jeopardy attach in a jury trial?

Back 37

when 1st JURROR is impaneled

Front 38

Can ∆ be tried for the same crime in federal court and state court?

Back 38

Yes, under the Separate Sovereigns Doctrine.

note: a state ct and a municipal ct are NOT separate sovereigns.

Front 39

If the case is dismissed on a technicality, can the ∆ be tried again for the same offense?

Back 39

Yes.
-for double jeopardy purposes the first trial must have reached a JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS

Front 40

If prosecution and ∆ enter a plea bargain and later the prosecution doesnt hold up to the agreement is this grounds to vacate the judgement?

Back 40

YES,

∆ should have been allowed to withdraw the plea.

-Plea Bargain is like a contract

Front 41

When can a judge accept the guilty plea of a ∆ who says "I'm pleading guilty, but I'm innocent"?

Back 41

when there is independent evidence of ∆'s guilt.

Rule: absent independent evidence of ∆'s guilt, judge cannot accept the guilty plea if ∆ pleads guilty but says he is not.

Front 42

When does the 6th Amend right to counsel attach?

Back 42

after formal charges are brought.

i.e., indictment or information filled

Front 43

if the evidence was discovered without a warrant or warrant exception is it still admissible at trial?

Back 43

NO

Front 44

Do the exclusionary rules of evidence apply to grand jury proceedings?

Back 44

NO

*grand jury can consider any evidence, even if the evidence would be excluded (inadmissible) at trial.

Front 45

the purpose of a grand jury is to determine __ __.

Back 45

probable cause

Front 46

The key thing to look for when dealing w/ the crime of receipt of stolen property is:

Back 46

whether the property had "stolen status"

Front 47

once the police recover stolen property, does the property still have stolen status?

Back 47

NO

*once cops have stolen property, it is no longer considered stolen, so if ∆ then buys the property from the cops all he can be charged with is attempted receipt of stolen property.

Front 48

Does transferred intent apply to criminal attempt?

Back 48

NO

-Transferred intent does not apply to attempt

Front 49

Which two c/law crimes are "malice" crimes?

Back 49

-Arson
-Depraved Heart Murder

Front 50

What are the "specific" intent crimes?

Back 50

-all theft crimes
-all inchoate crimes
-criminal Assault
-1st Degree Murder

Front 51

voluntary intoxication is only a defense if ∆ was drunk __ he decided to commit a specific intent crime.

Back 51

before

Front 52

∆ decides he is going to kill his neighbor, before he does so, he gets really drunk and then kills neighbor. Can ∆ use voluntary into as a defense?

Back 52

NO,

-must be voluntarily intoxicated before the specific intent arises.

Front 53

there must be NO __ off period for voluntary manslaughter.

Back 53

cooling