[cerrabeth] crim law
Order by
80 terms
Terms | Definitions |
|---|---|
 General Criminal Law Requirements | Actus Reus (voluntary act or omission) Mens Rea (guilty mind) --> link btwn act and mind Causation (D caused crime) |
| Strict Liability General Requirements | Actus Reus Causation (no mens rea needed) |
| Actus Reus | a physical and voluntary act (not sleeping walking / unconscious / on mind-altering substance) OR omission |
| Omissions | not fulfilling a LEGAL DUTY to ACT |
| Legal Duties to Act arise under... | - Contract (life guard) - Special Relationship - Imposed by statute - Voluntary Undertaking turns detrimental - D caused V's peril even if no intent (i hit you by accient and you fall into the pool) 1. MUST HAVE KNOWLEDGE of FACTS giving rise to duty to act / 2. must be REASONABLY POSSIBLE to act (3. failure to act) |
| Mens Rea (generally) | guilty mind // AT THE SAME TIME as Actus Reus |
| Mens Rea For Specific Intent Crimes | SPECIFIC desire, objective, or knowledge to ACCOMPLISH a prohibited RESULT |
| The Specific Intent Crimes | FIAT - First degree murder - Inchoate offenses (attempt, solicitation, conspiracy) - Assault with intent to commit battery; - Theft offenses (larceny, larceny by trick, false pretense, embezzlement, forgery, burglary, robbery) |
| Mens Rea for Malice Crimes | a reckless disregard of a substantial/high risk of harm // NOT a specific intent crime // ie, CL murder, arson |
| The Malice Crimes | - Common Law Murder (and more) - Arson |
| strict liability crime & mens rea | - no mens rea needed for these. statutory crimes: selling bad food / statutory rape - NOTE RE: CORPS: in CL, corps can't form intent. so on MBE, corp can only be liable if there is a statutory basis for that liability |
| ((MPC - Mens Rea not stated | established if the defendant acted purposely,knowingly, or recklessly |
| ((Mens Rea: Strict Liability Crimes | DOES NOT require a MENS REA Public Welfare Offenses are Strict Liability |
| ((Public Welfare Offense | conduct subject to stringent public regulation which is inherently dangerous or could seriously threaten public health or safety |
| ((Degree of Penalty and Strict Liability | Severe penalties usually require intent. Strict Liability may be inferred from unclear small penalty crimes. |
| ((Vicarious Liability | Requires Mens Rea, but not Actus Reus by D Regulatory crimes, fines only |
| ((Corporate Criminal Liability | AGENT of the corporation, acting within the SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT or acts performed by CORPORATE EXECUTIVES representing corporate POLICY |
| Causation | the criminal act must occur as a result of the intent |
| Types of Mistake as a Defense | Mistake of Fact Mistake of Law |
| Mistake of Fact: Strict Liability | NEVER a defense |
| Mistake of Fact: Specific Intent | look to see if the mistake negates the D's required mens rea. does NOT need to be reasonable mistake. ex: taking blue laptop by mistake instead of pink. not mens rea for theft. |
| Mistake of Law | NOT A DEFENSE Exceptions: - reliance on an interpretation later deemed wrong - statute defining a malum prohibitum crim without reasonable notice - an honestly held mistake of law negates the INTENT (belief of ownership) |
| HOMICIDE defn | the killing of another human being --> on MBE will usually have to choose among various types of homicide (ie, what is the most this D can be charged w/) |
| homicide raises issues of: | causation: D must be but-for & proximate cause of death |
| homicide & causation: | need both: 1. ACTUAL CAUSATION. V would not have died but-for the D's act. 2. PROXIMATE. death must have been a foreseeable result of the D's conduct. // pre-existing condition does not break the chain of causation (ie, condition that makes D bleed profusely and die. still liable) |
| homicide offenses (MBE) | 1. murder 2. voluntary manslauger 3. involuntary manslaughter |
| 4 mental states qualify as MURDER on MBE | 1. intent to kill (ie, using deadly weapon) 2. intent to inflict serious bodily harm (i hit you w/ brass knuckles intending to send you to hospital; die; guilty of murder) 3. depraved heart killing / callous disregard (drop bowling ball from overpass) 4. felony murder (BARRK): if while commiting or attempting to commit BAARK, and someone dies, felony murder |
| BARRK | Burlary / Arson / Robber / Rape / Kidnapping |
| VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER defn | - a homicide committed in response to adequate provocation (HOP). |
| what is "adequate provocation"? | must have one of these + no cooling period: 1. D facing threat of serious battery 2. D responding to deadly force 3. D's discovery of spouse in act of adultery (words not enough) |
| murder --> involuntary manslaughter | -- imperfect self-D: A D who cannot claim self D b/c he made an honest but unreasonable mistake OR b/c he was the initial aggressor can mitigate murder --> involuntary manslaughter -- someone commits crime falling short of depraved heart. ie, drunk driving |
| THEFT CRIMES | 1. larceny 2. embezzlement & 3. false pretenses |
| LARCENY elements | 1. trespassory taking (no consent on owner) (larceny by trick = if prop obtained by lying) 2. carrying away (of prop) --> slightest movement suffices (if put it back, still was larceny when took it) 3. of the personal prop (not real prop / not failure to pay for services) 4. of another (not abandoned) 5. with the INTENT to permanently deprive that person of hte prop (intent must be at time of taking) |
| EMBEZZLEMENT elements | 1. fraudulent 2. conversion (sig interference w/ interest w/ owner's rights. damaging / taking...) (Note: no need to carry away) 3. of the property 4. of another 5. by a person who is already in lawful possession of the property (v larceny -- not already in lawful possession) |
| FALSE PRETENSES elements | 1. obtaining title to prop (not just possession) 2. of another person 3. through reliance of that person 4. on a known false representation of a material past or present fact (NOT re: future) 5. where representation is made w/ intent to defraud (ie, lying about the degas that is worth millions) |
| false pretense v. larceny by trick | false pretense: D obtains title by lying larceny by trick: D obtains possession by lying *on mbe, false pretense usually wrong answer b/c title does not usually pass |
| THEFT OFFENSES | 1. robbery 2. burglary 3. receipt of stolen property |
| ROBBERY - elements | 1. larceny (all elements) 2. force or intimidation 3. taking of prop must be from the person or in presence of V (ie, taking wallet when V not looking --> larceny not robbery) (ie, taking wallet, V sees, and you kick V --> robbery) |
| BURGLARY - elements | 1. a breaking (opening window; NOT going through open door; NO consent; if consent; not breaking) 2. and entering (go in to where item is) 3. of the dwelling (where someone lives) 4. of another 5. at night 6. w/ specific intent to commit a felony therein (MUST have this intent WHEN D enters; not later) |
| burglary and merger? | NOTE: D can be charged with burglary and w/ the felon y that is ultimately committed. they do not merge (ie, burglarly, then once inside, larceny. can be charged w/ both) |
| RECEIPT OF STOLEN PROPERTY - elements | 1. D must receive stolen property 2. w/ knowledge that the prop is stole (must know AT TIME he receives it) & 3. w/ intent to permanently deprive owner |
| BATTERY - elements | 1. unlawful 2. application of force 3. to another person 4. that causes bodily harm to that person OR constitutes an offensive touching (doesn't take much -- any touching w/ intent or subs risk) |
| ASSAULT - elements | 1. attempt of a battery or 2. intentionally placing another in apprehension of imminent bodily harm NOTE: requires INTENT (to batter or app); recklessness not enough |
| RAPE - elements | 1. unlawful 2. sexual intercourse 3. w a female who is not one's wife 4. against her will by force or threat --> modern Js: do not require force; need lack of consent |
| KIDNAPPING - elements | 1. unlawful 2. confinement of a person 3. against that person's will 4. coupled w/ either the (movement) or (hiding) of that person --> movement must be MORE than change of location that is incidental to another crime |
| FALSE IMPRISONMENT - elements | 1. unlawful 2. confinement of a person 3. without consent NOTE: diff btwn this and kidnapping is that kidnapping requires person to move or secreted (hidden) |
| ARSON - elements | 1. malicious 2. burnding 3. of the dwelling 4. of another -- no need for specific intent: if D creates a subs risk of burning, that's enough -- on mbe, be on lookout for burning non-dwelling (right answer may be arson even though didn't say that defn expanded by statute) |
| INCHOATE crimes | - means: crime does not need to be completed for D to be guilty of crime - solicitation / conspiracy / attempt |
| SOLICITATION - elements | 1. enticing, encouraging, or advising of another person 2. to commit a crime 3. w/ intent that other person commits the crime - irrelevant if the person does not commit crime (ie, i will give you a brownie if you throw her trombone in the lake) - at CL, renunciation by D is no defense (ie, don't do that!) - if group protected by statute, can't be guilty of solicitation. ie, 12 yo asks you to have sex with them. you are 21. 12 yo not guilty of solicitation) |
| CONSPIRACY - CL elements | 1. agreement 2. between 2 or more persons (not unilateral agrmt) -- on mbe look for person who lacks capacity to consent (that is unilateral agrmt, not conspiracy) // also, if 2 charged w/ agrmt and one acquitted, other must also be acquitted b/c can't have conspiracy by yourself 3. to accomplish an unlawful purpose 4. w intent to accomplish that purpose (NO need for overt act in furtherance of agrmt) |
| CONSPIRACY - MPC elements | 1. UNILATERAL AGRMT OKAY. /// D can be charged w/ conspiracy as long as the D agrees with other person REGARDLESS of whether the other person is feigning agrmt as undercover agent or lacks capacity to consent (ie, unilater agrmt enough) // MBE should tell you whether MPC or CL approach |
| CONSPIRACY - majority Js require | 1. an OVERT ACT: some actin furtherance of the conspiracty. -- on mbe, examiner needs to say that majority approach being followed otherwise there is no overt act requirement |
| conspiracy & affirmative defense? | - at CL, withdrawal was not a defense - NY: yes if subst effort to prevent |
| scope of conspiracy? conspiracy and unplanned crimes: | on mbe, conspirators are liable for addl unplanned crimes if they: 1. are in futherance of the conspiracy and 2. are reasonably foreseeable (raping someone on a bank robbery, not foreseeable. shooting someone is) |
| ATTEMPT - elements | 1. D with specific intent (to commit the crime) -->note: attempt is a specific intent crime, so need to have the specific intent to commit the crime even if the crime itself does not need specific intent 2. D who engaged in a subst step towards the commission of the crime (needs to be an overt act; not just talking) |
| defense of LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY. | - if the D attempts what he thinks is a crime, but it is not in fact a crime, there is no criminal liability - ex: i try to burn down my own house. i fail. not attempted arson b/c CL arson -- can't burn down your own house. i'm guilty of nothing |
| defense of FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY | - if the D fails to commit a rime b/c it was factually impossible, he can still be criminally liable for attempt - ex: sally thinks harry has a peanut allergy that can kill him. she bakes a peanut cake hoping will kill him. harry is in fact not allergic to peanuts. she can still be prosecuted for attempted murder |
| prosecuting for attempt | - if not completed crime, can only be charged with attempted X - if complete, then prosecute for EITHER attempt or completed crime (not both!) |
| rule of MERGER | if a crime is completed and D charged with underlying offense, --> cannot also charge w/ soliciation or attempt. --> CAN be charged w/ separate crimes of a. conspiracy & b. what the conspiracy was to do (underlying crime of the conspiracy) |
| following people can be charged w/ underlying substantive crime (even w/out conspiracy) | 1. principal: the person's whose acts or omissions form the actus reus of the crime: AND 2. accomplice: one who assists or encourages (act) the crime AND provides the assistance w/ the intent of aiding or encouraging the crime (mens rea). |
| what would accomplice be charged w/ | the accomplice would be charged with the UNDERLYING crime. if principal acquitted, accomplice must also be acquitted |
| note re: aiding and abetting | though selling someone a product ultimately used in a crime not enough to be aider/abettor; selling someone at a grossly inflated priced then used in a crime can infer intent that this person is an aider/abettor |
| accomplice defense: withdrawal | to withdraw & avoid liability for the substantive crime, the accomplice must: 1. repudiate the prior aid (refused to be assoc w/) 2. do all that is possible to counter that prior assistance (stop it from happening) 3. do so before chain of events set in motion |
| accomplice withdraw v. conspiracy withdrawal | - conspiracy: no withdrawal - accomplice liability: withdrawal possible |
| OBSTRUCTION | - if help is provide AFTER the crime has occurred, and individ cannot be liable for that crime but may be charged w/ obstruction (a separate offense) |
| excuse of INSANITY | affirmative defense; 4 tests: 1. m'naghten test 2. irresistible impulse test 3. durham rule 4. MPC test |
| (insanity) M'NAGHTEN TEST | (right from wrong test): because of 1. the defect of reason due to mental disease 2. the D either did know a) the nature and quality of the act (ie, i think i am cutting a tree, but really, a person) OR b) the wrongfulness of the act |
| (insanity) IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TEST | 1. mental disease or defect 2. prevented D from being able to conform his conduct to the law |
| (insanity) DURHAM RULE | (but-for test) unlawful act was product of 1. mental disease or defect and 2. act would not have been committed but-for mental disease/defect (if not, D will not be guilty) |
| (insanity) MPC TEST | 1. as a result of mental disease/defect 2. D did not have subt capacity a) to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act OR b) to conform conduct to the law |
| excuse of INTOXICATION (voluntary) | voluntary intoxication --> MAY be a defesne to a specific intent crime where it prevents D from forming the relevant intent --> NOT a defense to general intent crimes that require malice, recklessness, or negligence |
| excuse of INTOXICATION (INvoluntary) | involuntary intoxication is a defense to ANY crime where the intoxication serves to negate an element of the crime. must show that intoxication occurred either 1. w/out the knowledge of the intoxicating nature of the substance (thought it was water / vodka b/c no taste buds) OR 2. under duress (someone threatens to kill you unless you take this) |
| excuse of INFANCY | - under 7: can't be convicted of a crime - 7 - under14: rebuttable presumption incapable of committing crime - 14+: tried as an adult |
| DEFENSES | include: self-d, defense of prop, duress, necessity, entrapment |
| SELF-DEFENSE - elements | 1. D must be resisiting immediate or imminent unlawful harm to himself 2. force must be reasonable (no more than nec to repel the attack) 3. D cannot be the initial aggressor (looking for physical aggression, not larceny) 4. no duty to retreat at CL 5. IF DEADLY FORCE (force intended to cause death / serious bodily injury), can only use if it is a) reasonably nec to prevent death or serious injury or b) to prevent the commission of a serious felony |
| DEFENSE OF PROPERTY | - can use non-deadly force |
| defense of DURESS - elements | if D performs a crime b/c of 1. third party's unlawful threat against D which causes 2. a D to reasonably believe that the only way to avoid 3. death or serious bodily injury to himself or another 4. is to violate the law and causes the D to do so (then can claim defense of duress) - HOWEVER, never a defense to an intentional murder |
| defense of NECESSITY | if forces of nature (eg, storm, fire) cause the D to commit what would otherwise be a crime, the D may be justified in doing so based upon necessity |
| necessity v. duress | - duress: results from human action - necessity: result of natural forces |
| defense of ENTRAPMENT | - defn: when law enforcement induces someone to commit a crime. action induced by a private citizen does NOT raise the issue of entrapment - MAJORITY RULE: D must show that 1. crime was induced by a govt official or agent and 2. the D was no pre-disposed to commit the crime |
First Time Here?
Welcome to Quizlet, a fun, free place to study. Try these flashcards, find others to study, or make your own.