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;
145 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
2.01(1)
|
A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liab is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable
|
|
|
2.01(2)-list of involuntary acts
|
Following are not voluntary acts:
(a) reflex/convulsion (b) bodily mvmt during unconsciousness or sleep (c) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion (d) bodily mvmt that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual |
|
|
2.01(3)-When can liability be based on an omission?
|
Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless:
(a)the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense or(b)a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law |
|
|
2.01(4)-When does possession constitute a voluntary act?
|
Possession is an act within meaning of this section, if possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period of time to have been able to terminate his possession
|
|
|
2.02(3)-When law does not proscribe a mental state for an element of the crime, what mental states suffice?
|
When culpability sufficient to estbl mat element of offense not prescribed by law, such element is estbl if person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto
|
|
|
2.02(4)-What if law only lists one kind of culpability but does not distinguish for which elements it applies?
|
When law defining an offense prescribes kind of culpability that’s sufficient for commission of an offense w/o distinguishing among mat elements thereof, such provision shall apply to all material elements of offense unless a contrary purpose plainly appears
|
|
|
2.02(6)-Can purpose be conditional?
|
When purpose is an element of an offense, it’s estbl’d although such purpose is conditional, unless the condition negatives the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense
|
|
|
2.02(7)-When can it be said that an actor has knowledge of a particular fact that is an element of the offense?
|
When knowledge of existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, it’s estbl’d if a person is aware of a high prob of its existence, unless he actually believes that it doesn’t exist
|
|
|
2.02(8)-What satisfies the common law concept of "willfulness"?
|
Reqmt of willfulness satisfied by acting knowingly
|
|
|
2.03(1)-How to establish causation for a result.
|
Conduct is the cause of a result when(a)it’s an antecedent but for which result in question wouldn’t have occurred and
(b) relationship between conduct and result satisfies any addtl causal reqmts imposed by the code or law defining the offense |
|
|
2.03(3)-When is a result within MR of actor acting recklessly or negligently?
|
When recklessly or negligently causing a particular result is an element of an offense, elmt is not estbl if actual result is not within risk of which the actor is aware or in case of negl of which he should be aware unless:
(a)transferred intent std (b)not too remote accdtl std |
|
|
2.03(4)
|
When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law, element is not established unless actual result is a probable consequence of actor’s conduct
|
|
|
2.04(1)
|
Ignorance or mistake as to matter of fact or law is defense if(a) ig/mistk negatives PKRN req’d to estbl material element of offense
(b) law provides that state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense |
|
|
2.04(2)
|
Although ignorance or mistake would otherwise afford a defense… defense not available if he would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed. (reduce the grade and degree to what he’d be guilty of if as supposed)
|
|
|
2.04(3)
|
A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based on such conduct when:(a) statute or other enactmt defining offense not known to actor and not been published or otherwise reasonably made available before the conduct alleged
(b) he acts in reasonable reliance on official stmt of law afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous contained in (i) statute or other enactment, (ii) a judicial decision, opinion or judgment, (iii) administrative order or grant of permission, (iv) an official interpretation of the public offier or body charged by law with respon. for interp., admin., or enforcement of the law defining the offense. |
|
|
2.04(4)
|
Def must prove a defense arising under (3) of this section by preponderance of the evidence
|
|
|
2.06(1)
|
A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable or both
|
|
|
2.06(2)-When is a personal legally accountable for another person's conduct?
|
A person is legally accountable for another persons conduct when:
(a)Acting w/ culp sufficient for commission of offense, he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct or (b)He is made accountable for the conduct of such other person by the code or by the law defining the offense or (c)He is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the offense |
|
|
2.06(3)-When is a person an accomplice?
|
A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if:
(a)With purpose of promoting or facilitating commission of offense he Solicits such other person to commit it; or aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, he fails to make proper effort to do so. (b) his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity Ex: Riley v. State- 2 ppl shot wildly can't tell which bullet hurt someone- Theaccomplice's guilt must be judged separately than the others. If you prove the actus reus and culpablemental state of mind then they are guilty- Riley and Portalla shot wildly andfacilitated each other |
|
|
2.06(4)-What is required Mens Rea for accomplice?
|
When causing a particular result is an elmt of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense, if he acts with the kind of culpability, if any, with respect to that result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense.
|
|
|
2.06(5)
|
A person who is legally incapable of committing a particular offense himself may be guilty thereof if it is committed by the conduct of another person for which he is legally acctbl unless such liability is inconsistent with the purpose of the provision establishing his incapacity (e.g. husband can't legally rape his own wife, but can be accomplice to rape if he makes X rape his wife)
|
|
|
2.06(6)-Exceptions to accompliceship
|
Unless otherwise provided, a person is not an accomplice in an offense committed by another person if:
(a)He is victim of that offense (b)Offense so defined that his conduct is inevitably incident to its commission (c)He terminates his complicity before commission and wholly deprives it of effectiveness in commission of offense or gives timely warning to law enforcement authorities or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent commission |
|
|
2.06(7)
|
An accomplice may be convicted on proof of the commission of the offense and of his complicity therein, though the person claimed to have committed the offense has not been prosecuted or convicted or has been convicted of a diff offense or degree of offense or has an immunity to prosecution or conviction or has been acquitted
|
|
|
2.08(1)-Can intoxication be a defense?
|
Except as provided in Subsection 4, intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense
|
|
|
2.08(2)-When is intoxication not a defense?
|
When recklessness estbl an element of the offense, if the actor, due to self induced intoxication, is unaware of a risk which he would have been aware had he been sober, such unawareness is inmaterial
|
|
|
2.08(3)-Is intoxication a mental disease?
|
Intoxication does not, in itself, constitute mental disease within the meaning of Section 4.01
|
|
|
2.08(4)-Excused Intoxications
|
Intoxication which is (a) not self induced or (b) is pathological is an affirmative defense if by reason of such intoxication the actor at the time of his conduct lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate its criminality (wrongfulness) or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law
|
|
|
2.08(5)-Definitions for Intoxication: Intoxication, Self-Induced Intoxication, Pathalogical Intoxication
|
Definitions:
(a)Intoxication: disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from introduction of substances in body (b)Self Induced Intoxication: intoxication caused by substances which the actor knowingly introduces into his body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication he knows or ought to know, unless he introduces them pursuant to medial advice or under such circumstances as would afford a defense to a charge of crime (c)Pathalogical intoxication: intoxication grossly excessive in degree, given the amt of intoxicant, to which actor doesn’t know he’s susceptible. |
|
|
2.09(1)-Duress defined.
|
Affirm defense that actor engaged in conduct charged to constitute an offense b/c he was coerced to do so by use of, or threat to use, unlawful force against his person or the person of another, which a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist
|
|
|
2.09(2)-When Duress is unavailable as an affirmative defense.
|
Defense is unavailable if actor recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to duress. Defense is also unavailable if he was negligent in placing himself in such a situation, whenever negligence suffices to establish culpability for offense charged.
|
|
|
2.09(3)-Can a woman use duress as an excuse if commanded by her husband?
|
It isn’t a defense that a woman acted on the command of her husband, unless she acted under such coercion as would estbl a defense under this section (Presumption that woman, acting in presence of her husband, is coerced is abolished).
|
|
|
2.09(4)
|
When the conduct of the actor would otherwise be justifiable under 3.02, this section doesn’t preclude such defense
|
|
|
3.01(1)-Justification as an affirmative defense.
|
In any prosecution based on conduct which is justifiable under this article, justification is an affirmative defense
|
|
|
3.01(2)-Can justification limit civil liability?
|
Even if justifiable, still may be able to recover against him in civil actn
|
|
|
3.02(1)-When is justification generally justified?
|
Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable, provided that:
(a)The harm or evil sought to be avoided is greater than that sought to be prevented by law defining offense charged (b)Neither code or other law defining offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with specific situation involved (c)Legit purpose to exclude justctn doesn’t appear |
|
|
3.02(2)-When does a justification excuse fail?
|
When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation requiring a choice of harms or evils or in appraising the necessity for his conduct, the justification afforded by this section is unavailbe in a prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or negligece, as the case may be, suffices to estbl culpability
|
|
|
3.04(1)-When is use of force in self-protection allowed as an affirmative defense?
|
Subject to this and 3.09, the use of force upon or toward another is justiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion
|
|
|
3.04(2)-Limitations on Justifying Necessity for Use of Force
|
Limitations on Justifying Necessity for Use of Force
(a)Use of force under this section is not justifiable: i.to resist an arrest when actor knows its made by peace officer even if it’s unlawful ii.to resist force used by occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where actor knows that the person using force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limit shall not apply if: actor is public officer; actor has been unlawfully dispossessed and making reentry; actor believes such force is necessary to protect himself against serious bodily harm (b)Use of deadly force is not justifiable unless: believes necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor justifiable if i. actor with purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm provoked the use of force against himself in same encounter ii. actor knows he can avoid necessity of using force by retreating or surrendering possession of a thing But not obliged to retreat from dwelling/place of work unless he was initial aggressor or is assailed in work by another person whose place of work actor knows it to be |
|
|
3.04(3)-When can confinement used as a self-protective force?
|
Use of Confinement as Protective force
* Actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on charge of a crime |
|
|
3.05(1)-3 situations when actor can use justifiable force to protect a 3rd party
|
3 situations when actor can use justifiable force to protect a 3rd party
(a)would be justified under 3.05 to protect himself against the injury he believes is threatened on person he seeks to protect (b)under circumstances as actor believes them to be the person he’s protecting would be justified in using such protective force (c)actor believes his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person |
|
|
3.05(2)-Rules of retreat when protecting third party.
|
(a) actor doesn’t have to retreat unless he knows he can thereby secure complete safety of such other person
(b) actor is obliged to try to cause him to retreat before using force in his protection if actor knows he can obtain complete safety in that way (c) neither actor nor person whom he seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the other’s dwelling or place of work to any greater extent than his own |
|
|
3.06(1)-Use of force is justifiable when actor believes it’s immediately necessary in which situations?
|
Use of force is justifiable when actor believes it’s immediately necessary:
(a)to prevent or terminate unlawful entry or trespass upon land or trespass against or unlawful carrying away of tangible, movable property, provided that such land is believed by actor to be in his possession or in possession of another for whose protection he acts (b)To retake land/property as long as in fresh pursuit, or believes needed urgency |
|
|
3.04(2)(b)-When is deadly force justified in self protection?
|
(b) Use of deadly force is not justifiable unless: believes necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor justifiable if
i. actor with purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm provoked the use of force against himself in same encounter ii. actor knows he can avoid necessity of using force by retreating or surrendering possession of a thing But not obliged to retreat from dwelling/place of work unless he was initial aggressor or is assailed in work by another person whose place of work actor knows it to be |
|
|
5.01(1)-Three types of Attempt Crimes
|
Definition of Attempt
•Complete Attempt Conduct Crime: purposely engages in conduct which would constitute crime if attndt circumstances were as he believes them to be; or •Complete Attempt Result Crime: when causing a particular result is an element of the crime, does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result w/o further conduct on his part; or •Incomplete Attempt: purposely does or omits to do anything which, under circumstances as he believes them to be is an act/omission constituting substl step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime |
|
|
5.01(2)-Conduct which may be held Substantial step under subsection 1c
|
Conduct which may be held Substantial step under subsection 1c: conduct shall not be held to constitute substl step unless it is strongly corroborative of actor’s crim purpose. Without negativing the sufficiency of other conduct, the following, if strongly corroborative of actor’s criminal purpose, shall not be held sufficient as a matter of law:
(a)lying in wait, searching for/following contemplated victim (b)enticing/seeking to entice contemplated victim of crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission (c)reconnoitering the place contemplated for commission of crime (d)unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed; (e)possession of materials to be employed in commission of the crime, which are specifically designed for such unlawful use or serve no lawful purpose of actor under circumstances (f)possession/collection/fabrication of materials to be employed in commission of crime, at or near place contemplated for its commission, where such possession, collection or fabrication serves no lawful purpose of actor under the circumstances (g)soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime |
|
|
5.01(3)-Can an accomplice be charged with attempted crime when crime is not committed or even attempted by Primary actor?
|
Conduct designed to aid another in commission of a crime:
A person who engages in conduct designed to aid another to commit a crime which would estbl his complicity under section 2.06 if the crime were committed by such other person, is guilty of an attempt to commit the crime, although the crime is not committed or attempted by such other person |
|
|
5.01(4)-How can an actor escape liability for attempted criminal conduct?
|
Renunciation of Criminal Purpose
|
|
|
5.02(1)-Defining Criminal Solicitation
|
If with purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission.
|
|
|
5.02(2)-Does solicitation have to be communicated for actor to liable for solicitation?
|
Uncommunicated Solicitation: Doesn’t matter if actor fails to communicate with person he solicits to commit a crime if his conduct was designed to effect such communication
Ex: State v. Cotton- tried to get kid to not talk through step mother- uncommunicated is not a offense |
|
|
5.02(3)-How can an actor escape liability for solicitation?
|
Renunciation of Criminal Purpose: affirmative defense if after soliciting another person he persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented the commission of the crime, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.
|
|
|
5.03(1)-What is criminal conspiracy?
|
with PURPOSE (MR) of promoting/facilitating its commission he:
(a)AGREES (AR) with such other person(s) that they or 1+ of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (b)agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime |
|
|
5.03(2)-What is the scope of a conspiratorial relationship?
|
if he KNOWS (MR) a person with whom he conspires has conspired with someone else to commit same crime he is guilty of conspiring with such other person or persons, whether or not he knows their identity, to commit such crime
|
|
|
5.03(3)-What if conspiracy has multiple criminal offense objectives?
|
If conspires to commit number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as each multiple crime are object of same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship
|
|
|
5.03(5)-What is usually required to prove a conspiracy?
|
Overt Act
•Other than a felony of the first or second degree, no one can be convicted of a conspiracy unless an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired (The Actus Reus for 1st/2nd Degree felonies is an "agreement"; the Mens Rea is "purposely to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime", see 5.03(1)) |
|
|
5.03(6)-Ways to escape liability for conspiracy.
|
Renunciation of Criminal Purpose
* Affirmative defense: thwarting success under circumstances manifesting complete and voluntary renunciation of crim purpose Ex: People v. Sconce- ∆ called off a murder plan- Withdrawal from a conspiracy requires an affirmative and bona fide rejection or repudiation of the conspiracy, communicated to the co-conspirators. |
|
|
5.03(7)-When can it be said that a conspiracy is abandoned?
|
Duration of Conspiracy: continuing course of conduct terminates when crimes are committed or agreement that be committed is abandoned by def fellow conspirators; and such abandonment is presumed if neither def nor anyone does any overt act in pursuance of conspiracy during applicable period of limitation; and if an individual abandons the agreement, the conspiracy is terminable as to him only if and when he advises those with whom he conspired of his abandonment or he informs the law enforcement authorities of existence of conspiracy and his participation therein.
|
|
|
5.05(1)-How to grade charges of Attempt/Solicitation/Conspiracy
|
Grading:
* Same as most serious crime involved; but A/S/C to commit cap crime/felony of first degree is felony of 2nd deg |
|
|
210.0(1)-Human Being Defined
|
Human Being: has been born and is alive
|
|
|
210.0(2)-Bodily Injured Defined
|
Bodily injury: physical pain, illness, impairment of physical condition
|
|
|
210.0(3)-Serious Bodily Injury Defined
|
Serious Bodily Injury: bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ;
|
|
|
210.0(4)-Deadly Weapon Defined
|
Deadly Weapon: any firearm, or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury
|
|
|
210.1(1)-When is an actor guilty of criminal homicide?
|
Guilty of Criminal Homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes death of another human being
|
|
|
210.1(2)-Grades of Criminal Homicide
|
Crim homicide is murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide
|
|
|
210.2(1)-When does is criminal homicide found to be murder?
|
Crim Homicide constitutes murder when:
(a)Committed P or K (b)Committed R under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference: Presumed if actor is engaged in or accomplice in commission of or attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape, deviate sexual intercourse by threat or force, arson, burglary, kidnapping, felonious escape |
|
|
210.2(2)-Sentencing for murder
|
Murder felony of first degree
•Min sentence 1-10 years •Max sentence: death/life in prison |
|
|
210.3(1)-When is criminal homicide found to be manslaughter?
|
Crim Homicide is manslaughter when:
(a) committed R (b) otherwise is murder but committed under influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse |
|
|
210.3(2)-Sentencing for manslaughter
|
Manslaughter is felony of 2nd degree:
•Min sentence: 1-3 yrs in prison •Max sentence 10 yrs prison |
|
|
210.4(1)-When is criminal homicide found to be negligent homicide?
|
Crim homicide constitutes neg hom when committed negligently
|
|
|
210.4(2)-Sentencing for negligent homicide
|
Felony in third degree
•Min sentence 1-2 yrs •Max sentence 5 yrs |
|
|
4.01 (1)- Mental Diseases or Defect Excluding Responsibility- Defense |
A person is not resp for a crime if at the time if conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law |
|
|
4.01(2)-Mental Diseases or Defect Excluding Responsibility-Terms |
terms mental disease and defect do not include abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct |
|
|
Utilitarianism |
Consequentialist- Deterrence; malum in se- act is a crime in itself; Connecting the harm the actor does to the harm to society Ex: People v Du- The judge was questioned for discretion because she used more utilitarianism in her judgement. Du given probation instead of jail time for murder; based on her lack of crim history and threats by gangs |
|
|
Retributionism |
Non-consequentalism- Moral; punishment under any circumstances has to occur; eye for an eye; malum prohibitum- only a crime if a statute prohibits it; doesn't matter re: external factors like in Du Ex: Queen v. Dudley-retributionism and charged to murder for killing and eating someone out of necessity and utilitarianism- when the queen pardoned them |
|
|
Principle of Legality |
Not within the statute, conduct cannot be punished- must define punishment or reasonably foreseeable by defendant or it violates due process - must have notice of their conduct Ex: Descertain v. City of LA-problems with statutes are overbreadth- too broad that legal behavior becomes a due process problem. Issue of vagueness- look at legislature intent and not the constitutionality. Unconstitutionality applies if the avg man cannot comprehend the terms of the statute |
|
|
Principle of Lenity |
If a statute is ambiguous then it should be interpreted to be read favorably towards the ∆. They are given benefit of the doubt. If criminal law, courts cannot interpret the statute; the crime must be explicitly stated within it Ex: Keeler v. Superior Court- Is a baby a human being? if the court refers to precedent and it is reasonably foreseeable to consider that conduct a crime, then the court can rule that way. If the courts have not ruled in that way previously, then it is not reasonably foreseeable- don't rule--> let keeler go, CA changed homicide law |
|
|
Statutory Clarity |
Criminal statute must be sufficiently defined to give notice of the conduct to avoid penalties More Explicit, person knows conduct is a violation= better idea on punishing those with mens rea Ex: In Re Banks- Peeping Tom- "secretly" peep vague- Court says that it is not overbreadth / Descertain |
|
|
Actus Reus |
Physical or External part of the crime- Comprehensive notion of act (harm) and its connecting link (causation) |
|
|
Voluntary Act |
Crime committed voluntarily- must be read in statute to avoid involuntary crimes/ mere thoughts Coercion from a threat is a question of involuntary decision not involuntary act Ex: holding a stick and wind moves it and kills someone; Martin v. State- drunk and then taken on highway by cops and gets arrested for being drunk on a highway- reversed; State v. Utter- he made himself drunk (voluntary) and he may not have committed the act if he wasn't drunk- willful that he became unconscious |
|
|
Omissions (Negative Acts) |
Failure to perform a duty owed to another - Inaction is the crime Ex: People v. Beardsley- wasn't married/legal guardian to mistress had no duty, having her in the home does not establish duty |
|
|
Failure to act constitute breach of a legal duty
|
1) statute imposes it- taxes/sex offender registry
2) Status relationship- familial 3) assumed contractual duty- caretaker/nurses 4) voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid (epileptic and someone comes to help- must wait until help arrives) |
|
|
Failure to Act- Good Samaritan
|
Create harm or risk to another can be criminally liable
Ex: Good Samaritan Law- misdemeanor if you don't help when you could |
|
|
Social Harms- Results Crime |
Punishable because of their unwanted outcomes (murder/robbery) social harms occur- Malum in se |
|
|
Social Harms- Conducts Crime |
Punishable because of the POTENTIAL harm that can stem from this particular conduct- social harm is implied even if intangible |
|
|
Attendant Circumstances |
Modifies Actus Reus- not a conduct element Circumstances attached to the conduct element without which the act would not constitute a crime Ex: Driving while drunk is a crime- driving or being drunk are not crimes but together it is - being drunk is attendant- not illegal but required for this crime |
|
|
Mens Rea |
Guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; criminal intent An act does not simply make the actor guilty unless the mind is also guilty Intent leads to criminality |
|
|
2.02 Mens Rea |
1) Purposely- actor's "conscious object" to achieve that result- intentionally- Attendant Circ: actual awareness/ belief/hope 2) Knowingly- actor is "practically certain" result will occur (different between knowingly/purposely: with knowingly there is no requirement that the individual desire will result) Attendant Circ: Aware of attendant circ 3) Recklessly- actor actually aware of a high unjustifiable risk that the result will occur and disregards this risk. Attendant Circ: Aware of element a) proof of awareness of risk b) proof substantial risk 3) proof that risk under the situation was unjustifiable 4) Negligently- Objective- should have realized - actor acts negligently causing risk when reasonable person should have realized and heeded the risk in the same situation. Attendant Circ: Aware of element |
|
|
Purposely and Knowingly |
Same in statutes - defining it is a legal question/ proving it is a factual one Ex: Regina v. Cunningham- stole neighbors gas and left it on and killed neighbor-"malicious" implies moral wrong, but what is legal wrong? malicious is foreseeability of risk/acting regardless of it- unlike the judge's use of "wicked" |
|
|
Proving Culpability- Intent |
Juries decide based on placing themselves as the ∆ to decipher purpose of the act and whether actor foresaw the consequence of his act DP violated if you assume intent to begin with. Ex: People v Conley- hit guy over and misses and hits another with a bottle- Mens rea demonstrated by his actions- intention can be inferred from the circumstances- Results crime |
|
|
Specific Intent |
mental state expressly set out the definitionof the crime Used to denote an offense that contains in its def the mens rea element of "intent or knowledge" Ex: intentional sale of porn to someone under 18 - Proofof actor's awareness of attendant circumstances |
|
|
General Intent |
noparticular mental state is set out in the definition of the crime, just need toprove the social harm and was performed with a blameworthy mind such as recklessness/ negligence/ knowledge "Knowingly" intent required but act "recklessly"- not guilty Ex: State v. Nations - knowledge of attendant circumstances (willful blindness)-plausible deniability- cause for knowledge if ∆ has high probability that a fact exists and took action to ignore it |
|
|
Motive Intent |
harming someone due to race, religion, gender,sexual orientation, disability
|
|
|
Strict Liability |
No Mens Rea required- only prove the act. Without mens rea you can still charge recklessness by proving knowledge of risk To read mens rea look at legis history Ex: Figueroa v. US- false id of known person- if statute is quieter on mens rea , look at legis intent and read mens rea in unless it is expressed that it isn't meant to have one Ex: Staples v. US- found modified guns and didn't register- claims mistake because he didn't know it was modified- congress did not intend to penalize gun owners ignorant of gun capability- expect mens rea if the penalty is high |
|
|
Moralculpability and fairness is an issue for strict liability issues
|
Using subjective elements or facts of the crime and excludes moral culpability
Retributive hates strict liability- moral culpability needed in punishment Utilitarian uses this to deter conduct but how do you deter if the person had no knowledge? |
|
|
Public Welfare Offenses- Ease for Prosecutor |
Used as a matter of policy and does not specify intent as a necessary element- ease path to conviction |
|
|
Mistake |
Mistake is only relevant or permissible if there is a mens rea requirement in the statute. If it is strict liability, it is irrelevant. Used as a way to negate mens rea- Mistake of Fact |
|
|
Mistake of Fact |
Defense against specific intent crime - negates mens rea and NOT general intent- Protect against huge crimes v. the pettier version; ∆ has burden of proving mistake/prosecutor burden to prove the mens rea Ex: People v. Navarro- Specific: Didn't know wooden beams belonged to someone else-negates mens rea; Be about good faith regardless of reasonable. General: must be reasonable mistake as opposed to an unreasonable mistake even if you believed it was reasonable Ex: you accidentally steal the real mona lisa- you are charged with pettier crime and attempt to steal the real one |
|
|
Mistake of Law |
Ignorance of law is not a defense because it should encourage people to find out the law- Should not be ignorant - Policy argument Ex: People v. Marrero- Mistake of law when knowledge of the law is stated within the statute. - burden on ∆ to persuade jury |
|
|
Moral Wrong Doctrine |
General intent, if reasonable, is a defense for Mistake of fact. The reasonableness of a mistake negates culpability required for the crime.
To apply this doctrine, court looks at ∆'s conduct through a victim's eyes. Assumption of risk on ∆'s part can be detrimental- assuming a girl is 18 when she's 14. The conduct is immoral then strict liability may apply. He was morally wrong because he did not have permission. He still knew he was doing something wrong |
|
|
Legal Wrong Doctrine |
If ∆'s act based on the facts that he believes constitutes a crime not just immoral then he may be convicted for something more serious.
Ex: You think you are stealing a mona lisa- but it was a fake. The social harm really caused was $5. Legal wrong will punish for the original intended crime, you don’t get the benefit of the pettier crime because you didn’t succeed. Responsible for crime that happened regardless of what the result was. |
|
|
Exception to Mistake of Law non-defense |
1) knowledge of law is element of the crime 2) lack of notice - published is notice Ex: Cheek v. US- believed taxes were illegal |
|
|
Actual Cause- But for |
Result would not have occurred but for conduct And use substantial factor test- 2 independent actors commit diff crimes and both sufficient for the result- both culpable Foreseeability is lynchpin to superseding causation |
|
|
Proximate Cause- Direct natural result of ∆'s act |
Is there an intervening cause which would cause the link between ∆'s action and victim's injury? a) is this a substantial factor that contributed to result? b) is there a reason why other mitigating factors would break chain of causation? Ex: People v. Rideout- drunk drives hits car and 2nd car is in middle lane. Decedent goes to his car and gets hit. Need but for and proximate cause- victim heading to his car is intervening |
|
|
ApparentSafety Doctrine
|
Ingeneral, a ∆ is not the proximate cause of a result if a free,deliberate, and informed act of another human being intervenes
|
|
|
IntendedConsequences Doctrine
|
∆ is the proximate cause of a result, even if there is an interveningcause, if the ∆ intended the result that occurred. A person may wantsomeone dead in a particular manner, this doctrine only appliesif the result occurs in the desired manner.
|
|
|
Contributorynegligence
|
failureof an injured plaintiff to act prudently, considered to be a contributoryfactor in the injury suffered
|
|
|
Coincidentalintervening cause
|
isa force that does not occur in response to the initial wrongdoer's conduct. Theonly relationship between the ∆'s conduct and the intervening cause isthat the ∆ placed the victim in a situation where the intervening causecould independently act upon him.
The common law rule is that a coincidentalintervening cause relieves the original wrongdoer of criminal responsibility,unless the intervention was foreseeable |
|
|
responsiveintervening cause
|
Isan act that occurs as a result of the ∆'s prior wrongful conduct.Generally, a responsive intervening cause does not relieve the initialwrongdoer of criminal responsibility, unless the response was highly abnormalor bizarre.
|
|
|
The Deliberation- Premeditation Formula |
Murder in 1º consists of an intentional, deliberate and premeditated killing which means that the killing is done after a period of time for prior consideration. Duration of period is not arbitrarily fixed. Any time between intent to kill and execution is sufficient for 1º |
|
|
Consideration in Determining whether a killing was with premeditation/ deliberation |
1) want of provocation on the part of victim 2) conduct and statements of ∆ before/after killing 3) threats and declarations of ∆ before and during the course of the occurrence giving rise to the death of the deceased 4) Ill will or prev. difficulty between parties 5) dealing with lethal blows after the deceased has been rendered helpless 6) evidence that the killing was done brutally Ex: State v. Guthrie- Stabbed guy in neck- State to prove premeditation and deliberation by showing that the intention to kill was in existence only at time of the killing eliminates the distinction between the two degrees of murder. There must be some period between the formation of the intent to kill and the actual killing which indicates the killing is by prior design. Ex: Midgett v. State-Child abuse- ∆ intended to further abuse but no intent to kill Ex: State v. Forrest- ∆ shot dad at hospital-Premeditation est |
|
|
Common Law- Murder |
Unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought |
|
|
Express Malice |
Manifested deliberate intention to take away the life |
|
|
Implied Malice |
no provocation occurs or when circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned/malignant heart 1) Requires ∆ awareness of risk of death 2) Malice is implied when killing is prox cause by an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life |
|
|
What is Malice Aforethought? |
Intent to kill- awareness that the death of another would occur from your act Intent to commit grievous bodily harm Depraved heart intent to commit felony- felony murder rule |
|
|
Depraved heart- 2º Murder |
Unintentional homicide under circumstances evincing a depraved mind/ malignant heart 1) extreme recklessness re possible death 2) conduct exhibits wanton/ willful disregard for any unreasonable human risk |
|
|
What is diff between murder and manslaughter? |
Manslaughter consisted of homicide without malice aforethought/ no justification-excuse |
|
|
Heat of Passion killing-Voluntary Manslaughter |
Intentional homicide, done upon a sudden quarrel/ heat of passion/ caused by adequate provocation, before there has been a reasonable opportunity to cool down- can last a long time |
|
|
Rule of Provocation |
Circumstances surrounding homicide causing provocation 1) adequate provocation 2) killing must have been in heat of passion 3) must have been sudden heat of passion/ killing must have followed provocation before there had been chance to cool 4) causal connection between provocation=passion=act |
|
|
Adequate provocation |
calculated to inflame passion in reasonable man and cause him to act for passion and not reason like assault- words count only if following act shows intent to harm Ex: Girourd v. State- killed wife over words- Not provocation to change murder to manslaughter |
|
|
Extreme Emotional Disturbance- Affirmative Defense-reduce from murder to manslaughter |
Show his reaction was reasonable MPC Subjective: ∆ acted under influence of EEDMPC Objective: reasonable explanation/excuse for EED, reasonableness is determined from the viewpoint of a person in ∆'s situation under the circumstances as ∆ believed them to be Test: Whether in the circumstances the jury could understand how a person may have his reason Ex: People v. Casassa-rejected and kills gf- reasonableness of extreme emotional disturbance must be determined from the point of view of a reasonable person in the ∆'s situation under the circumstances as the ∆ believed them to be. |
|
|
Involuntary Manslaughter |
Commission of unlawful act not amounting to a felony or in the commission on an unlawful manner, or without due action, of a lawful act causing death Ex: People v. Knoller- Crazy dogs rip woman apart- implied malice required for a conviction of 2nd º- not implied then manslaughter |
|
|
Felony Murder Rule |
Felony+ Killing= Murder MPC: Depraved indifference for recklessness One is guilty of murder if a death results from conduct during commission/attempted commission of any felony Liability is imposed based on culpability required for the underlying felony without separate proof of any culpability with regard to death Strict liability offense deter felonies leading to accidental/negligent killings Ex: People v. Fuller- FM Rule applies in high speed chase following a burglary |
|
|
Limitations of Felony Murder Rule |
Inherently dangerous felony- ∆ convicted of felony-murder if the killing occurred during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony to human life Killing in preparation/furtherance of Felony- Agency Approach- Rule doesn't apply if it was caused by non felon- primary parties are imputed to an accomplice on the basis of the agency doctrine Proximate Causation Approach- A felony may be held responsible under this doctrine for the fatal act committed by non-felon if the felon set in motion acts leading to death- act by one felon is the prox cause of the homicidal conduct by the non-felon, murder is permitted Ex: State v. Sophophone- during burglary co-felon shot by cop- aren't liable for murder done by non-felon. Agency Approach used and prox cause cut the tie |
|
|
Attempt |
Mens Rea: intent to perform conduct that constitutes the attempt/ intent to cause the completed offense Actus Reus: Mere preparation is not sufficient for an attempt even if you formed the intent to perform the act; progress that it will be consummated without interruption by will of attempter Ex: People v. Gentry- Sets gf on fire-Thecrime of attempt requires intent to do an act constituting a substantial steptoward committing a crime and a specific intent to commit the crime attempted. Ex: Bruce v. State-Attempted FM- FM there is no specific intent so no attempt |
|
|
Physical Proximity Doctrine |
Theovert act required for an attempt must be proximate to the completed crime ordirectly tending toward the completion of the crime, or must amount to thecommencement of the consummation Ex: US v. Mandujano - mere preparation alone is not sufficient as attempt- must go beyond that Ex: Commonwealth v. Peaslee- brings bomb backs out- preparation not enough Ex: People v. Rizzo- Attempt to rob a bank-Police interruption-lacked opportunity so not an attempt |
|
|
Attempt- Incomplete |
Intended to bring the crime; sets the motion the course of events leading to crime, unless interrupted |
|
|
Attempt- Complete |
Act to bring crime and would bring it but for mistake of judgement on matter of estimate or experience Shoot and miss |
|
|
Probable Desistance Test |
Exam probability of the likely stopping to determine culpability |
|
|
MPC- Preparation Attempt Test |
emphasis on whats been done already and how close to completion don't need to find out if they would have desisted easier for prosecutor compared to res ipsa |
|
|
Attempt- Defenses- Impossibility |
Pure Legal Impossibility- Criminal law does not prohibit ∆'s conduct or the result she intended to achieve Factual Impossibility- NOT defense- ∆ intended to end is a crime but could not have happened due to factual circumstance/ beyond control- shot someone and gun was unloaded- still tried to kill Hybrid-NOT Defense- ∆ goal was illegal, offense was impossible due to mistake by her regarding the law related to conduct Ex: People v Thousand- talks to cop online and thought was a kid-element of the crime, existence of child victim missing |
|
|
Attempt- Affirmative Defense |
Abandonment- leave efforts to commit crime/ prevent it- Complete and Voluntary renunciation Negates the thought that accused continues to be dangerous Ex: Commonwealth v. McClosky- attempt to leave prison and abandons plan, never leaves premises |
|
|
Dangerous Proximity Doctrine |
The greater the probability of the offense and the nearer the act to the crime, the stronger the case for calling act an attempt- J. Holmes
|
|
|
Entrapment- limited defense |
∆ has burden to prove that: law enforcement approached ∆ and introduced idea of committing a crime ∆ not ready/ willing to commit the crime enforcement did more than just provide opportunity- coerced ∆ |
|
|
Conspiracy Test |
Twofold Specific Intent: Combine with others/ accomplish illegal obj Intent can be inferred from knowledge Doesn't have to merge with completed crime- can get charged with just conspiracy Act of one is act of all |
|
|
Conspiracy Test- Supplier of goods put to unlawful use |
Element of knowledge of the illegal use/ intent to further use- participating in criminal conspiracy illegal use is the main business 1) direct evident that he intended to participate 2) inference he wants to participate 3) special interests 4) aggravated nature of crime Ex: People v. Lauria- knew of crime had no intent to continue- hookers and phones |
|
|
Chain Conspiracy |
successive communication- one member's success is dependent on another |
|
|
Wheel Conspiracy |
Hub/corporate- don't know everyone involved- protective in that its harder to take down. one is not dependent on another |
|
|
Pinkertondoctrine for conspiracy
|
guy's friend kills someone while ∆ was in jail- conspirator may be held liable for criminal offenses committed by a co-conspirator that are within the scope of the conspiracy, are in-furtherance of it, and are reasonably foreseeable as a necessary or natural consequence of the conspiracy. Pinkerton exists in federal prosecution- most conspiracy prosecutions used more in fed than state MPC- rejects this rule- Slippery slope can grab anyone |
|
|
Unilateral v. Bilateral |
Conspiracy require actual agreement with 2 or single party enough? MPC- Unilateral conspiracy is sufficient |
|
|
Circumstances indicative of conspiracy? |
Commonwealth v. Cook- 2 guys rape girl, 1∆ eggs another one on- not indicative of a agreement so no conspiracy |
|
|
Accomplice |
guilty of substantive offense committed by the perpetrator because accomplice liability is the crime Complicity- one(accomplice) is liable to another(principle actor) Accomplice-derivative-incurred by virtue of a violation of law by the principal to which the accomplice helped- liability dependent on principal violator Relationship≠liability- its your act as an accomplice that makes you blameworthy Ex: State v. Hoselton- ∆ did not know friends stole something and "kinda" like a look out-Must have intent to associate himself to act Ex:State v. VT- watched friends steal- presence is not enough |
|
|
MensRea in accomplice
|
Dualintent- must intend to aid the primary party and intend that such help willresult in the commission of the crime- doesn’t work for accessory after thefact because the crime is already committed
|
|
|
ActusRea in accomplice
|
takesthe form of solicitation, active assistance in the commission, encouragement ofthe offense, failure to prevent commission of the crime if the 2nd part had thelegal duty to make that effort
|
|
|
Knowledge of a criminal activity enough for accomplice? |
Purpose and knowledge need to be together
Knowing may not be enough to charge her for the activity But may look to facilitation- you drive the person home from a robbery even though she did not have the purpose to commit the crime Knowledge does not create duty- the best you may go is facilitation |
|
|
Justification |
∆ argues that his behavior is not wrong so therefore it is not punishable. Negates social harm of offense |
|
|
Excuse |
∆ admits that his conduct was wrong but he should not have been held responsible. Negates moral blameworthiness |
