Multistate Bar Exam - Criminal Law

Front 1

Common Law Murder

Back 1

The killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Front 2

Malice Aforethought

Back 2

Can be established by:

1. Intent to kill

2. Intent to cause serious bodily harm

3. Depraved heart

4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony

Front 3

Depraved Heart

Back 3

Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life.

Front 4

Doctrine of Transferred Intent

Back 4

If a defendant intended injury to a person, and in trying to carry out that intent caused similar injury to another, her intent is transferred from the intended person to the one harmed. Any mitigating circumstances that the defendant could have asserted against the intended victim will also usually be transferred.

Does not apply to attempt.

Front 5

Voluntary Manslaughter

Back 5

Voluntary manslaughter is a killing with adequate provocation. The provocation must be such that would arouse sudden and intense passion in an ordinary person, and there has been insufficient time for the passions of a reasonable person to cool. The defendant must actually be provoked and have acted under that provocation (i.e., did not cool off).

Front 6

Felony Murder

Back 6

A killing committed during the course of a felony is murder. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed a felony, and that the felony is independent of the killing. The death must be a foreseeable result of the commission of that felony.

Note: in the majority of states, criminal liability for murder cannot be based on the death of a co-felon from resistance by the victim or police pursuit.

Front 7

M'Naghten Test

Back 7

A defendant is entitled to an acquittal if the proof establishes that a disease of the mind caused a defect of reason, such that at the time of his actions the defendant lacked the ability to either know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions.

Front 8

Criminal Negligence

Back 8

Whena person fails to be aware that a substantial and unjustifiable risk exists orthat a result will follow, and such a failure constitutes a substantialdeviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exerciseunder the circumstances.

Example: a parent's failure to provide medical treatment for a critically ill child.

Front 9

Accomplice / Accessory

Back 9

One who, with the intent to assist the principal and the intent that the principal commit the substantive offense, actually aids, counsels, or encourages the principal before or during the commission of the crime.

Front 10

(Obtaining Property by)

False Pretenses

Back 10

The defendant:

1. obtains title

2. to the property of another

3. by means of a false representation of a material past or existing fact

4. with the intent to defraud the victim.

Front 11

Criminal Attempt

Back 11

The defendant must have an actual specific intent to perform an act and obtain a result that, if achieved, would constitute a crime. Additionally, the defendant must have committed an act beyond mere preparation in furtherance of that intent.

Front 12

Voluntary Intoxication

Back 12

Voluntary intoxication is a defense ONLY to specific intent crimes.

Exception: if the defendant formed an intent to commit a crime and then becomes voluntarily intoxicated, he cannot rely on the defense of intoxication.

Front 13

Conspiracy

Back 13

1. An agreement between two or more people;

2. An intent to enter into an agreement;

3. And intent to achieve the objective of the agreement.

4. Most states also require an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.

Each person who takes part in the planning of a crime is criminally liable for the crime of conspiracy and for each offense committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Front 14

Withdrawal from Conspiracy

Back 14

To withdraw from a conspiracy, the actor must notify all members of the conspiracy that he has withdrawn; this must be done in time for them to have an opportunity to abandon the planned crimes.

Front 15

Duress

Back 15

The defense of duress requires the commission of an otherwise criminal act under the threat of imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm.

Exception: Duress is NOT a defense to homicide.

Front 16

Use of Force by Police Officers

Back 16

Police officers are generally entitled to use whatever force is reasonably required, including deadly force, to apprehend or prevent the escape of a felon who poses a threat of serious bodily harm to the officer or others.

Front 17

Manslaughter

Back 17

The unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought.

Front 18

Involuntary Manslaughter

Back 18

A death caused by criminal negligence.

In some states, a killing is involuntary manslaughter if it s committed during the commission of an unlawful act (not included within the felony murder rule).

Front 19

Arson

Back 19

The malicious burning of the dwelling house of another. Any charring of any part of the structure is sufficient to establish a burning.

Front 20

Malice

Back 20

Malice may be established by specific intent, or a reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that a particular harmful result will occur.

Defenses to specific intent crimes (e.g. voluntary intoxication) do not apply to malice crimes.

Front 21

Burglary

Back 21

The intentional breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the night time with the intent to commit a felony or any degree of larceny therein.

Note that entry obtained through fraud is considered a "constructive breaking."

Front 22

Dwelling

Back 22

Any structure customarily used for sleeping. May include private residences, hotels, and guest houses.

Front 23

Larceny

Back 23

The intentional taking and carrying away of the personal property in possession of another, without their consent, and with the intent to permanently deprive the other thereof.

Note that the slightest movement of the property after the property is controlled by the defendant is sufficient.

Front 24

Robbery

Back 24

The taking and carrying away of the personal property of another by force or intimidation from the other's person or presence with the intent to permanently deprive the person thereof.

Front 25

Knowing

Back 25

A person has a mental state of knowing a fact when he knows, believes, or is substantially certain that a fact exists.

A person is deemed aware of these circumstances when he is aware of a high probability that they exist and deliberately avoids learning the truth.

Front 26

The Victim Rule

Back 26

A person cannot be an accessory for violating a statute designed to protect the class of which he is a member.

Example: a child cannot be convicted as an accessory to statutory rape.

Front 27

Mistake

Back 27

If the defendant made a mistake with respect to a fact found in the definition of a specific intent crime, and because of the mistake he lacked the requisite intent, it does not matter whether the mistake was reasonable or unreasonable.

Front 28

Self Defense

Back 28

The defendant must have reasonably believed that he was under an unlawful attack and used a reasonable amount of force to defend himself.

Front 29

Receipt of Stolen Property

Back 29

The defendant must receive possession and control of stolenproperty knowing it to have been stolen by another person and with the intentto permanently deprive the owner of it.

Front 30

Assault

Back 30

There are two actions covered by the crime of assault:

1. An attempted battery, and

2. The intentional creation of a reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm in the mind of the victim.

Front 31

MPC Insanity Test

Back 31

A defendant isentitled to acquittal if he suffered from a mental disease or defect and as aresult lacked substantial capacity to either:

1. Appreciate the criminality of his conduct, or

2. Conform his conduct to the requirements of law

Front 32

Durham Test

Back 32

A defendant is entitled to acquittal if his crime was the product of mental disease or defect.

Front 33

Irresistible Impulse Test

Back 33

A defendant is entitled to acquittal if, because of mental illness, the defendant was unable to control his actions or conform his conduct to the law.

Front 34

Rape

Back 34

The unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman by a man not her husband without her effective consent.

Front 35

Larceny by Trick

Back 35

A larceny whereby the victim consents to the defendant's taking possession of the property, but such consent has been induced by misrepresentation.

Front 36

Forgery

Back 36

A making or altering of a false instrument with the intent to defraud.

The falsity must be about the instrument itself, not about the contents of the instrument.

Front 37

Embezzlement

Back 37

The fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person in lawful possession of that property.

Front 38

Factual Impossibility

Back 38

It is no defense to a charge of criminal attempt that it would have been impossible for the defendant to do all of those things that he intended to do, had the attendant circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be.

Front 39

Continuing Trespass Doctrine

Back 39

If a defendant takes property with a wrongful state of mind but without the intent to steal, and later, while still in possession of it, forms the intent to steal it, the trespass involved in the initial wrongful taking is regarded as "continuing" and the defendant is guilty of larceny.

Front 40

Use of Deadly Force by a Private Person

Back 40

A private person may use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon if the felon threatens death or serious bodily harm and deadly force is necessary to prevent her escape.

Front 41

When does the felony terminate, for purposes of determining whether a killing constitutes felony murder?

Back 41

When the defendant reaches "a place of temporary safety."

Front 42

What is the difference between first and second degree murder?

Back 42

Murder is of the second degree unless deliberation and premeditation can be shown, or the killing occurred during an enumerated felony, in which case the murder is of the first degree.

If neither can be shown, the killing will usually be second degree murder (unless the killing is downgraded to manslaughter based on adequate provocation).

Front 43

Intervening Acts

Back 43

An intervening act will shield the defendant from liability if the act is a mere coincidence or is outside the foreseeable sphere of risk created by the defendant's act.

e.g. defendant stabs victim, who is treated in the hospital. On his way home, the victim is killed in a car accident.

Front 44

Wharton Rule

Back 44

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 45

General Intent

Back 45

The defendant must be aware that he is acting in a proscribed way and that any attendant circumstances required by the crime are present.

Front 46

Recklessness

Back 46

A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would take in the situation.

Front 47

When may an initial aggressor use self-defense?

Back 47

1. If the victim of the initial aggression escalates a minor altercation into a deadly altercation

2. If he, in good faith, removes himself from the fight, and communicates to the other person his desire to remove himself

Front 48

Deadly Force in Self Defense

Back 48

A person may use deadly force in self-defense if:

1. he is without fault,

2. he is confronted with unlawful force, and

3. he reasonably believes that he is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm.

Front 49

Larceny of Your Own Property

Back 49

If another person, such as a bailee, has a superior right to possession of your property at the time, it is possible to commit larceny by taking and carrying away that property with the intent to deprive the other person of it.

Front 50

Ignorance of the Law

Back 50

Ignorance of the existence of a statute making an action criminal is no defense to subsequent criminal prosecution.

Front 51

Ignorance of the Elements of a Crime

Back 51

A mistake as to some aspect of law pertaining to the elements of a crime may negate the state of mind requirement for the crime when a culpable state of mind is specified by an offense without indicating to which element it applies.