Criminal Law

Front 1

Actus Reus:

Back 1

Actus Reus: an unlawful act is required before criminal culpability can attach. There must be a voluntary act by the defendant to engage in behavior or cause the result prohibited by the criminal offense.

Front 2

Omissions to act:

Back 2

Omissions to act can form the basis to criminal culpability and meet actus reus element.

Front 3

Criminal liability can be imposed on a defendant for an omission to act where the following exist:

Back 3

(1) -There is a legal duty to act;
(2) -Defendant can physically and reasonably perform the act;
(3) -By contract
(4) -Pre-existing dependencies (by certain relationships)
(5) -Voluntary assumption of care (can qualify as a contract)
(6) -Creation of peril

Front 4

By statute: In most situations, a defendant's failure to act:

Back 4

will not result in criminal culpability e.g. failure to put out a fire unless one has a legal duty to act (fireman).

Front 5

Failure to save a life:

Back 5

will not result in criminal liability for homicide.

Front 6

Involuntary acts:

Back 6

Involuntary acts – acts committed while the actor was unconscious, during an epileptic event, or other medical event can not suffice actus reus element.

Front 7

However, if a person has prior knowledge of potential unconscious event:

Back 7

-then acts reus may attach.

Front 8

Acts performed while the actor was physically forced by another to do something:

Back 8

- can also negate actus reus

Front 9

“Big 5” Prima Facie elements of crimes:

Back 9

• Mens Rea = guilty mind, intent
• Actus Reus = voluntary acts
• Concurrence = simultaneous of guilty mind and voluntary acts
• Causation
• Harm

Front 10

“But For” cause:

Back 10

“But For” cause = cause in fact:
But for the defendant's conduct, victim would not have been harmed.

Front 11

Criminal Proximate Cause:

Back 11

–the defendant may not be held liable unless it can be proven that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the result.

Front 12

General Rule to Proximate Cause:

Back 12

–the actor will be held to be the proximate cause of all the natural and probable consequences that flow from the defendant's actions.

Front 13

Victim weaknesses:

Back 13

–a defendant takes the victim as he finds him. An intervening actor who renders aid as a good Samaritan and victim dies may or may not break causal chain.

Front 14

If intervener acted in simple negligence:

Back 14

–then there is no break in causation. If intervener acted with gross negligence, e.g. frolic and detour by medics, then there is a break in causation. Test to apply is the Reasonable Prudent Person standing in the shoes of the intervener.

Front 15

Mens Rea:

Back 15

–proved through circumstantial and direct evidence. Both types of evidence are afforded the same weight.

Front 16

Eye witness testimony:

Back 16

–challenged by experts for being fallible, not considered direct evidence but circumstantial.

Front 17

Later formed intent:

Back 17

Later formed intent = intent to permanently deprive later after breaking can be a lesser crime of larceny.

Front 18

If the mental state is in the definition of a crime:

Back 18

–it's a specific intent crime.

Front 19

Thoughts alone:

Back 19

–person can not be punished by thoughts alone.

Front 20

Concurrence:

Back 20

–presence of mens rea and actus reus occurring at the same time

Front 21

Concurrence: presence of mens rea and actus reus occurring at the same time. Example:

Back 21

Example: Burglary requires the specific intent to commit a felony therein at the time of breaking into a dwelling of another

Front 22

Concurrence is proved:

Back 22

-through circumstantial evidence in the absence of a confession or video footage.

Front 23

Murder:

Back 23

Murder is the intentional and unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought

Front 24

Transferred Intent:

Back 24

If a defendant acted with the intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm to a person, but accidentally killed another person, the intent to kill is transferred to the person inadvertently killed.

Front 25

Transferred Intent defendant is culpable:

Back 25

-for attempted murder to the intended victim and murder for the actual person killed.

Front 26

Malice Aforethought:

Back 26

– doesn't require ill-will towards the victim nor any premeditation for any amount of time.

Front 27

Malice Aforethought 4 theories:

Back 27

2 express:
(1) -I2K
(2) -I2CSBI
2 implied:
(1) -ERMTIVHL
(2) -FMR

Front 28

Malice Aforethought 2 express theories:

Back 28

1. I2K = Intent to kill can be explicit by the use of words or implied by the use of a deadly weapon
2. I2CSBI = Intent to cause serious bodily injury can be inferred by the use of a weapon. Defense

Front 29

Malice Aforethought 2 implied theories:

Back 29

1. ERMTIVHL = extreme recklessness manifesting a total indifference to the value of human life. (Depraved and wicked heart killing.)
Defense would be gross negligence, criminal negligence, simple negligence or recklessness – involuntary manslaughter.
1. FMR = Felony Murder Rule: An unintended or accidental death occurring during the attempt, commission, or flight from an enumerated felony:
BARRKs –
Burglary,
Arson,
Rape,
Robbery,
Kidnapping, or
any inherently dangerous felony.
Limitations of FMR. Winship, a missing requisite element of the defined crime.

Front 30

I2K:

Back 30

-Intent to kill can be explicit by the use of words or implied by the use of a deadly weapon

Front 31

I2CSBI:

Back 31

–Intent to cause serious bodily injury can be inferred by the use of a weapon.

Front 32

ERMTIVHL:

Back 32

extreme recklessness manifesting a total indifference to the value of human life. (Depraved and wicked heart killing.)

Front 33

ERMTIVHL Defense would be:

Back 33

–gross negligence, criminal negligence, simple negligence or recklessness – involuntary manslaughter.

Front 34

FMR = Felony Murder Rule:

Back 34

An unintended or accidental death occurring during the attempt, commission, or flight from an enumerated felony

Front 35

Felony Murder Rule -BARRKs

Back 35

Burglary,
Arson,
Rape,
Robbery,
Kidnapping, or
any inherently dangerous felony.

Front 36

Limitations of FMR:

Back 36

(1) –Defendant must be guilty of attempt, commission, or flight.

(2) –Winship, a missing requisite element of the defined crime.

Front 37

Independent Felony Rule:

Back 37

Felony must be distinct from the killing –otherwise, the prosecution would be Bootstrapping FMR. Death must have been a foreseeable result of the felony.

Front 38

FMR does not apply when:

Back 38

–a co-felon is justifiably killed by a police officer or victim.

Front 39

Inherently dangerous felony:

Back 39

–any dangerous crime committed that can cause death to a human being.

Front 40

Imperfect Self-Defense: ISP

Back 40

– erroneous belief of acting within the law. Not completely justified but still culpable to a lesser extent:
ie: murder to voluntary manslaughter.

Front 41

ISP:

Back 41

Imperfect Self-Defense

Front 42

Attempt:

Back 42

Attempt
(1) -A substantial step beyond mere preparation
(2) -Towards the commission of a crime
(3) -with the Specific Intent required for the target crime
(4) -Merges with the target crime once the target crime is committed

Front 43

Solicitation:

Back 43

– urging,
– advising,
– commanding,
– counseling,
– enticing
of another person to commit a crime with intent that the person solicited commit the crime.

It's not required for the person to respond in the affirmative or commit a crime.

Recipient need not hear communicated solicitation.

Front 44

Conspiracy:

Back 44

1. An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime
2. An intent to agree
3. An intent to achieve the target objective of the crime.
4. An overt act that is mere preparation – majority holding

Front 45

Merger of Solicitation:

Back 45

- merges into target crime once target crime is committed.

Front 46

Mere preparation policy:

Back 46

Mere preparation policy. Because of the dangerousness posed to society by conspiracies, courts have lowered the threshold of attaching liability to mere preparation.

Front 47

Conspiracy Common Law:

Back 47

– no overt act required.

Front 48

Common Law Conspiracy was complete:

Back 48

– at the point of agreement between 2 or more persons.

Front 49

Conspiracy Two-Prong Mental State of mens rea:

Back 49

– specific intent to agree and intent to achieve the objective of the conspiracy.

Front 50

Conspiracy is a specific intent crime:

Back 50

Specific Intent – like all inchoate crimes, conspiracy is a specific intent crime.

As such, intoxication can negate the requisite mens rea to form the intent to agree.

Front 51

Conspiracy Hearsay Exception:

Back 51

– 3rd party witnessing co-conspirators' statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy can be used in court against any conspirators

Front 52

Conspiracy Statute of Limitations:

Back 52

– does not start until conspiracy ends

Front 53

Conspiracy Joint Trials:

Back 53

– prosecutor has the choice of venue when conspiracy covers other jurisdictions

Front 54

Conspiracy Merger Exception:

Back 54

– conspiracy is the only inchoate crime that doesn't merge with the target offense.

A defendant can be charged for both the crime of conspiracy and the target crime.

E.g. conspiracy to commit murder and murder.

Front 55

Conspiracy Notice:

Back 55

– prior knowledge of a co-conspirator's foreseeable conduct: should have known that a co-conspirator would have acted in the proscribed act.

Front 56

Conspiracy Choice of Venue:

Back 56

– prosecutor has choice of venue to prosecute conspirators when the crimes cover other jurisdictions.

Front 57

Conspiracy Liability for Misc Crimes:

Back 57

– Look for nexus between target crime and misc. crimes.

A conspirator may be held liable by crimes committed by other conspirator.

Front 58

Unilateral Conspiracy:

Back 58

– minority jurisdictions
e.g.: an agreement between a guilty minded person and an undercover police officer: Solicitation Model

Penal Code: a defendant can be convicted of conspiracy regardless of all co-conspirators are acquitted or were feigning agreement.

Front 59

Always label charge of conspiracy completely:

Back 59

e.g. conspiracy to commit murder

Front 60

For Conspiracy Always state:

Back 60

– “Defendant was not the actual killer of the victim, however…”.

Front 61

Felony Murder Conspiracy:

Back 61

Applies since there's no statute of limitations on murder.

Front 62

Withdrawal from a conspiracy is not a defense to conspiracy because:

Back 62

-the conspiracy is completed as soon as the agreement is made and an act in furtherance is performed.

Front 63

Withdrawal from a conspiracy:
However, withdrawal may be a defense to crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy including the substantive crimes of the conspiracy:

Back 63

-assuming that the withdrawal is effective.

Front 64

Withdrawal from a conspiracy: A conspirator must perform an:

Back 64

-affirmative act that notifies all members of the conspiracy of his withdrawal.

Front 65

Withdrawal from a conspiracy:
Notice must be given in time for the other members to abandon their plans.

Back 65

Notice must be given in time for the other members to abandon their plans.

Front 66

Withdrawal from a conspiracy:
If he has also provided assistance as an accomplice:

Back 66

-that same party must try to neutralize or diminish the assistance.

Front 67

Withdrawal from a conspiracy:
There must be a genuine and reasonable effort:

Back 67

-in light of the circumstances.

Under MPC, needs specific details to thwart the crime.

Front 68

Wharton's Rule:

Back 68

– there are some crimes that by definition require two or more people:
duality,
adultery,
bribery.

As such, defendant cannot charged with conspiracy.

Exception if there are three or more parties.

Front 69

Withdrawal from a conspiracy:
Protected Classes:

Back 69

– if members of a conspiracy agree to commit a crime designed to protect persons within a protected class, persons in that class can not be convicted of that crime or conspiracy to that crime:
e.g.: statutory rape

Front 70

Acquittal of Conspiracy:

Back 70

–all persons with whom a defendant is alleged to have conspired with precludes conviction of any remaining defendants.

Front 71

Acquittal of Conspiracy:
Under traditional view:

Back 71

-in some jurisdictions, a conviction for conspiracy against a defendant is allowed to stand when alleged co-conspirators are acquitted in a separate trial.

Front 72

Agreement = plurality:

Back 72

–agreement of two guilty minds, communication of implied agreement is sufficient.

Front 73

Agreement = plurality:
Agreement need not be expressed:

Back 73

–may be inferred by joint activity of totality of circumstances or through their conduct.

Front 74

Agreement = plurality:
Parties must agree to:

Back 74

–accomplish the same objective by mutual action.

Front 75

Pinkerton Rule:

Back 75

Acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy committed by any conspirator are attributable to all bad actors if they are:
1. Committed in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy and;
2. It was reasonably foreseeable.

Front 76

Reasonably foreseeable crimes depend on:

Back 76

–the objective crime of the conspiracy.

Front 77

Facts and nature of the target offense:

Back 77

–if it's within the scope of the conspiracy using common sense.

Front 78

Accomplice Liability

Back 78

C/L Accessory before the fact

Front 79

C/L
Accessory -before the fact
A-BTF:

Back 79

one who intentionally helps or encourages P1 principal in the first degree to commit crime beforehand and is not present at or near the crime scene. P2 principal in the second degree helps or encourages P and is at or near the crime scene.

Front 80

Accessory -after the fact
A-ATF:

Back 80

one who is not part of the planning or commission of the crime but renders P1 or P2 aid after the crime. C/L husbands and wives could not be A-ATF