Criminal Law Exam

Front 1

What does every crime require

Back 1

Every crime requires two elements
a Actus Reas and a Mens Reas

Front 2

What is Actus Reas

Back 2

Its a act or failure to act if you have a duty too, that cuases a social harm

Front 3

What type of Omissions or failures to act fall under the Actus Reas

Back 3

Criminal liability can only be imposed for failure to act in
1. Special Relationships (husband wife, mother child)
2. contract requires him to act
3. statutory duty
4. defendant creates the risk of harm to the victim
5. defendant voluntarily assumes care of the person

Front 4

What is a Mens Rae

Back 4

mens rea is a culpable state of mind.
The intent requirement or knowledge, without mistakes that would negate the mens rea

Front 5

what does intent, with regards to mens rae mean
COMMON LAW

Back 5

One acts with the requisite intent if it is his or her conscious object or purpose to cause a certain result or to engage in certain prohibited conduct

Or, One intends a particular harm if one knows to a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY that ones actions will cause THAT social harm

Front 6

What is intent under the MPC

Back 6

a person may not be convicted of an offense unless he acted PURPOSELY, KNOWINGLY, RECKLESSLY, OR NEGLIGENTLY, as the law may require, with respect to EACH material element of the offense

Front 7

MPC PURPOSELY State of Mind

Back 7

if it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result

is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist

Front 8

MPC KNOWINGLY State of Mind

Back 8

He is aware that his conduct is of a certain kind of that certain circumstances exists

He is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause

Front 9

MPC RECKLESSLY State of Mind

Back 9

Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material element exists or will result form his conduct

Risk is substantial and unjustifiable, if its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a LAW-ABIDING PERSON would observe in the actor situation

A reckless defendant consciously disregards that risk

Front 10

MPC NEGLIGENTLY State of Mind

Back 10

Be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.

Risk is substantial and unjustifiable if its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a REASONABLE PERSON would observe in the actors situation

Whereas the negligent defendant's risk-taking is inadvertent

Front 11

What is Transferred intent

Back 11

when you try and kill one person miss, and kill another the intent is transferred to the other person

Must be the same social harm, you cant try to kill a dog, and accidentally killed a human

Front 12

What is General Intent

Back 12

when the definition of a crime consist of only the description of a particular act, WITHOUT REFERENCE OF INTENT to do a further act of achieve a further consequence.

When the required mental state entails only an intent to do the act that causes the harm

Defendant desired to commit the act which served as the actus reus

Front 13

What is Specific Intent

Back 13

When the definition REFERS TO DEFENDANT'S INTENT to do some further act or achieve some additional consequences

When the required mental state entails an intent to cause the resulting harm

Defendant, in addition to desiring to bring about the actus reus, must have desired to do something further

Front 14

What is Willful blindness

Back 14

wheres a defendant has a suspicion that something is the case, but in order to be able to deny knowledge has purposely refrained from making inquires which would have led to the knowledge in question

Front 15

What is Mistake of Fact for Common Law

Back 15

1. Look at the statue
2. is the crime General or Specific intent?

Specific Intent Crime: if the mistake is based on a good faith belief even if unreasonable, usually requires purpose or knowledge, not negligence as someone who does not know what they are doing cannot have purpose

General Intent: if the mistake is based on a good faith belief that is reasonable can be negligent

Front 16

Mistake of Fact for MPC

Back 16

mistake of act is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any element of the offense

EXCEPTIONS: not available if the defendant would be guilty of another offense had the circumstances been as he supposed, the Code only permits PUNISHMENT AT THE LEVEL OF THE LESSER OFFENSE

Front 17

What is the general rule for Mistake of Law for Common Law and MPC

Back 17

ignorance of the law is no excuse, Mistake of the law is no DEFENSE

Front 18

What are the 3 expect ions to Mistake of Law

Back 18

1. a person who reasonably relies on an official interoperation of the law that turns out to be erroneous can not be exonerated
2. ignorance of the law can be a defense to a crime if knowledge that the prohibited conduct is unlawful is an element of the crime
3. under limited circumstances, the prosecution of a person who lacks fair notice of a legal duty imposed by law can violate due process

Front 19

What is Causation, and how is it used in Criminal Law

Back 19

Causation is mainly required for RESULT CRIMES (MURDER)

Actual (But For) : BUT for D's voluntary act would the social harm have occurred when it did

Proximate: Whether it would be fair, and just to hold D criminal liable, was it Foreseeable

Front 20

what is the Intervening Cause Analysis - Dependent Intervening Cause

Back 20

one that is dependent upon or responsive to the defendants voluntary act.

If dependent - the general rule is that the D is the proximate cause unless the intervening cause is extremely unusual or bizarre

Front 21

What is the Intervening Cause Analysis - Independent Intervening Cause

Back 21

General Rule is D is generally relieve of criminal liability (unless its foreseeable)

Front 22

What is Murder - Common law

Back 22

unlawful killing of a human being by another human being WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT

Front 23

What is Manslaughter- Common law

Back 23

unlawful killing of a human being by another human being WITH OUT MALICE AFORETHOUGHT

Front 24

What is the MPC for Criminal Homicide

Back 24

A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being.

Criminal Homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide

Front 25

What is the Malice Aforethought for Murder

Back 25

Its the Mens Rea Element

1. An intent to Kill (express malice) - Normall a First Degree Murder
2. An intent to commit serious bodily injury (implied malice)
3. An abandoned and malignant heart also known as depraved heart (implied malice)
4. The Felony Murder Rule (implied malice)

Front 26

What is the MPC elements to Murder

Back 26

Expect under manslaughter provision, criminal homicide constitutes murder when:
1. it is committed purposely or knowing; or
2. it is committed recklessly UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES MANIFESTING EXTREME INDIFFERENCE TO THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE.

Front 27

What is a Common Law First Degree Murder

Back 27

1) the murder invalid premeditation and deliberation
2) was committed using a means specified in the first degree murder statue, such as lying in wait, poison, or torture
3) Murder occurred during the commission or attempted commission of an enumerated felony (BARRK)

Front 28

What is the premeditation element of 1st Degree Murder

Back 28

Killer must have reflected upon and thought about the killing in advanced.

Must have some period of reflection
No automatic time frame is needed
process of thinking about a proposed killing before engaging in it
can be an instantaneous moment
Is a Cold Blooded Killing

Front 29

What is the Deliberation element of 1st degree murder

Back 29

refers to the quality of the accused thought processes (in general is one then with a cool head) Some period of reflection when mind is clear from excitement or passion

Front 30

What is Second Degree Murder

Back 30

This is the default charge when dealing with murder. Has no premeditation or deliberation, Normally is a hot-blooded murder that occurs without adequate provocation, where a person acts instantaneously with no time to think about it, Or a depraved heart murder where the D is extremely reckless in that he is aware of a substantial risk but takes it anyway

Front 31

What is Common Law Voluntary Manslaughter

Back 31

Intentional killing that would normally qualify as second degree murder, but which is reduced to this lesser crime though the application of a partial defense (provocation, imperfect self defense, diminished capacity) Done Hot Blooded

Front 32

What is Common Law Involuntary Manslaughter

Back 32

If D brought about the death of another human being through CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE - Gross negligence reckless

Front 33

What is the MPC Manslaughter

Back 33

1) When it is committed recklessly but without manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life
2) when a homicide that would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or exucse

Front 34

What is the Doctrine of Legally Adequate provocation

Back 34

one who kills in response to legally adequate provocation is treated as having acted without malice aforethought.

Heat of Passion defense
provocation mitigates the defendants culpability
concession of human weakness

Front 35

What is the test that is used to find Legally Adequate Provocation?

Back 35

The reasonable person test is used, where you look to see if a reasonable person faced with the same circumstances would have thus acted. You also look at the passage of time to see if there was enough time for the persons passion to cool.

NOTE: words alone are never enough to constitute adequate provocation under order to mitigate down from murder from Manslaughter

There also must be a causal connection between the provocation and the passion and killing

Front 36

What is the MPC extreme and mental or emotional disturbance defense

Back 36

Considered from the point of view from Actors shoes. You have to look at all their circumstances, appears more subjective than the common law approach. Its not an insanity approach. The provocation does not have to come from the victim. MPC does not take cooling off into account

Front 37

What is the Common Law Depraved Heart Murder

Back 37

the killing of a human being committed unintentionally but recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of life

Front 38

What are the two ways to get a Common Law involuntary manslaughter conviction

Back 38

1. the prosecutor can prove that the defendant had the requisite mens tea for involuntary manslaughter: criminal negligence, gross negligence, recklessness
2. Through the application of the misdemeanor manslaughter rule

To determine whether it should be a 2nd degree murder or involuntary manslaughter look at the level of recklessness

Front 39

What is the Common Law Felony Murder Rule

Back 39

a person who kills during the commission or attempted commission of a felony has committed murder

Front 40

What are the rules that limit the Felony Murder Rule

Back 40

1. Inherently Dangerous Felony Limitation: A homicide that is a direct result of the commission of a felony that is inherently dangerous to Humans
2) The Res Gestae Requirement: the felony and the homicide must be close in time and distance, must be temporal and geographical proximity. There also must be a causal connection between the felony and the homicide
3) The Merger Doctrine: This is the absorption of a lesser offense when a person is charged with both crimes, so the person is not subject to double jeopardy. Example: being charged with Battery and Murder of the same person, Battery is an element of murder thus they merge into a solo charge

Front 41

What are the rules that limit the Felony Murder Rule

Back 41

1. Inherently Dangerous Felony Limitation: A homicide that is a direct result of the commission of a felony that is inherently dangerous to Humans
2) The Res Gestae Requirement: the felony and the homicide must be close in time and distance, must be temporal and geographical proximity. There also must be a causal connection between the felony and the homicide
3) The Merger Doctrine: This is the absorption of a lesser offense when a person is charged with both crimes, so the person is not subject to double jeopardy. Example: being charged with Battery and Murder of the same person, Battery is an element of murder thus they merge into a solo charge

Front 42

What is the Agency Rule, and Third Party Killings?

Back 42

the doctrine of felony murder does not extend to a killing although growing out of the commission of the felony, if directly attributable to the act of one other than the defendant or those associated with him in the unlawful enterprise

Front 43

What is a Case in Chief Defense

Back 43

one in which the defendant attacks the prosecutions case in chief by arguing that the prosecutor has failed its burden of proof on at least one essential element

all the D has to do is rise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of one element

Front 44

What is an Affirmative Defense

Back 44

One in which the defendants attorney admits that the government has mets its burden of proof regarding the case in chief but argues the the nonetheless should be acquitted for some other reason.

D must convoke the jury by a preponderance of the evidence that the necessary elements of the affirmative defense exists

Characterized as either justification or excuse defense

Front 45

What is a justification defense

Back 45

one in which the D claims he did the right thing or took the most appropriate action under the circumstances.
Example: Self Defense
You look to the correctness or justness of D's Actions
Only applies to any the Defendant

Front 46

What is an Excuse defense

Back 46

The D's act is presumed to have been wrongful, but the defendant ask us to excuse him for some other reason.
Example: Insanity, Mistake, or ignorance
Personal only to the Actor

Front 47

What is Common Law Self-Defense

Back 47

the triggering condition for a self-defense claim is the D's honest and reasonable belief that he is threatened with an imminent threat or unlawful force. The D does not have to be correct in this belief that the force was necessary in order to defend against an imminent threat of unlawful force.
NIP
1. Necessity
2. Imminence
3. Proportionality

Front 48

What is Battered Woman Syndrome

Back 48

when the use of expert testimony about symptoms and results of abuse, but not the D specifically. The treat is still imminent even in a time of no aggression at the current moment. It can be used to argue the reasonable use in the woman's perception.

Elements:
Abuse
Systematic pattern of domination and control that the batterer exerts over his victim
Hinding, denying, and minimizing the abuse

Front 49

What is Defense of Others Doctrine - Common Law

Back 49

used when a person uses force again another person to defend a third person he thinks is in imminent danger of unlawful attack

Elements:
triggering event - a third person under imminent unlawful attack
2. Necessity requirement
3. proportionality
4. D honestly and reasonably believes the force he used was necessary to protect a third person

Front 50

What is Defense of Others under the MPC

Back 50

Defense of others is justifiable when,
1. actor would be justified under self defense to protect himself against injury he believes to be threatened to person whom he seeks to protect and,
under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in such protective force,
actor believes intervention is necessary

Front 51

What is Defense of Habitation

Back 51

the occupant of a dwelling may use deadly force against an intruder only if he reasonable believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent unlawful entry and that intruder intends to commit a forcible felon or kill or cause grievous bodily injury to the occupant or another of the dwelling

ELEMENTS
1. Unlawful forcible entry into home
2. intruder not a family member
3. residential owner used force with in the home
4. owner had knowledge of entry

Front 52

What is Defense of Propery

Back 52

a person is justified in using reasonable non-deadly force to protect his property from theft, destruction, or trespass if the D reasonable believes the property is in immediate danger and does not use deadly force.

KEEP IN MIND PROPERTY IS NEVER WORTH THE SAME AS HUMAN LIFE, ONLY USE DEADLY FORCE WHEN THERE IS A THREAT OF DEADLY FORCE BACK AT YOU

Front 53

What is the common law Necessity Requirement

Back 53

1) the harm the D was seeking to avoid was greater than the harm the defendant would likely cause by breaking the law
2) legislature has not determine the matter in a way that foes against the defendant
3) cause connection between the Ds illegal act and the harm the defendant was seeking to avoid
4. no effective legal alternative was available to the defendant
5. the D was see kings to avoid a clear and imminent danger AND
6. the D was not at fault for creating the dangerous situation

THIS IS NEVER A DEFENSE FOR MURDER

Front 54

MPC Necessity

Back 54

Conduct the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil himself or other is justifiable provided that
1. the hair or evil south to be avoided by such conduct is great than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged
2)Neither the code not other law defining the offense provides excepts or defenses dealing with the specific situation invalid
3) A legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear

Front 55

What is the Common Law Duress

Back 55

Coercion in which the defendant claims she/he was threatened by another person with physical force either to him/her self or to a third person unless he/she committed a specific crime

Elements:
1. defendant acted in response to an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm
2.defendant had well grounded fear that the threat would be carried out unless she committed a specified crime
3. defendant had no opportunity to escape the threatened harm

NOTE: NEVER A DEFENSE TO MURDER

Front 56

Is Voluntary Intoxication a Defense?

Back 56

where D voluntarily intoxicated himself, to the point where he is no longer aware of his actions. It is not a justification or an excuse and is only available for specific intent crimes

Front 57

Is involuntary intoxication a defense?

Back 57

this is a defense for both specific and general intent, and temporarily insanity. Must prove he was so intoxicated such that he did not know the nature and quality of the act or the difference between right and wrong

Front 58

What is the Insanity Defense?

Back 58

This is an excuse not a justification. If the Defendant is found guilty but mental ill he will be sent to a mental hospital. It is measured at the time of the crime, and not before after or at trial

Front 59

What are the 2 Tests for Insanity

Back 59

1. Common Law - M'Naghten Test: the defendant did not know by reason of mental disease the nature and quality of the act or if he did know that he did not know the act was wrong
MPC TESt: the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness o his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law

Front 60

What is infancy as a defense?

Back 60

the court looks at whether the child defendant at the time of the act knew the difference between right and wrong,
1. 0-7 cannot be put on trial
2. 7-14 presumption of incapacity, unless evidence that supports otherwise
3. 14+ the child is per se competent

Front 61

What is Larceny?

Back 61

The rescissory Taking and carrying away of property from the possession of another with the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of it

Front 62

What is larceny by Trick

Back 62

Where the owner gives consent to a temporary possession or possession for a limited purpose the expiration of that qualification creates constructive revestment of the possession in the true owner
1. Received possession through deceit
2. Constructive possession - when a principle delivers property to an agent to use keep make delivery for the principle

Front 63

What is the asportation with Theft/Larceny

Back 63

the assertion of control over and some movement of the item contrary to the possession of the true owner no matter how slight

Front 64

What is embezzlement

Back 64

1. the intentional conversion
2. of property of another
3. by someone who is already in lawful possession of it

Front 65

What is False pretense / larceny

Back 65

1. false statements of fact that
2. causes the victim
3. to pass title to the defendant
4. the defendant must know that the statement is false
5. and thereby intent end to defraud the victim

Front 66

What is Burglary

Back 66

a person is guilty of burglary if he entered or unrepititiously remains in a structure knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, with the intent to commit a rime there in

Elements:
1. entry
2. of a structure
3. with knowledge that eh entry is not licensed
4. with the intent to commit a crime within the structure - intent at the time of entry

Front 67

What is a Robbery

Back 67

Also know was a larceny + an assault

trespassory taking and caring away the
property of another
by force or by threat of force
in the owners presence
with the intent to permanently deprive

Front 68

What is the Common Law on Attempt Crimes

Back 68

There is no single test for determining whether and when a D's acts go beyond mere preparation and become sufficient for the crime of attempt.

Look at what remains still to be done.

Front 69

What is the MPC on Attempt Crimes

Back 69

Requires a substantial step towards the culmination of the commission of the targeted offense

Focuses on what D has already done

Front 70

What is the Actus Reas, and Mens Rae for the an Attempt Crime

Back 70

Actus Reas: Mere preparation is never enough, must have made substantial step in furtherance of the crime.

Mens Rae: must have intended to do the acts which if they had been carried out would have resulted in commission of that crime

Front 71

What is accomplice liability, and Complicity - Common Law

Back 71

Accomplice must intentionally assist principle. Need actual participation of the crime, offer assistance

Front 72

What is Common Law Crime for Conspiracy?

Back 72

An agreement between two or more persons to commit either ne or more criminal acts or one or more acts that are non-criminal but are corrupt, dishonest, fraudulent, immoral and in that sense illegal.

If you conspire you are libel for all the crimes that spawn off of it.

Front 73

What is the Pinkerton Rule

Back 73

applies agency law to conspiracy - criminal punishment of you for crimes committed by coconspirators that were foreseeable

NOTE: minor participant with no actual knowledge will not be held liable

Front 74

What is Forcible Rape

Back 74

2 Elements are requires
1. Force
2. Lack of consent

Front 75

What is Statutory Rape

Back 75

A crime in law to protect children, Minors who are too young to have consensual sex. The victims is of an age where the law does not recognize the consent of sex.

YOU WILL BE ENCOUNTER THE CONCEPT OF STRICT LIABILITY

Front 76

What is the absolute defense to Rape?

Back 76

Consent is a complete defense to rape, unless it was given under duress

Front 77

What are the Crimes i should know

Back 77

Homicide - Murder, and Manslaughter
Theft - Larceny, False pretense, Robbery, Burglary Embezzlement
Rape- Forcible, Statutory
Attempt
Complicity
Conspiracy

Front 78

What the defenses that can be used for crimes

Back 78

Self Defense, of others property, and habituation
Necessity
Duress
Insanity
Infancy
Diminished Capacity
Intoxication