express malice murderinvolves the commission of the crime, such as murder, with the deliberate intention to ring about the victims death - ex: shooting someoneimplied malice murderinvolves the D's inifference to a particular result brought about by a level of carelessness or inattention so severe that it demonstrated the D's malice ex: killing someone in an accidentacting purposely- level of mens rea - a ~conscious objective~ to engage in conduct of a certain nature or to cause such a result - specific intent crimespecific intent- intent to commit the act and intent to commit the result - ex: 1st degree murder an burglarygeneral intent- all you have to do is prove they intended the act but not prove they intended the result - ex: involuntary manslaughter, batteryacting knowingly- was it performed with the purpose and was it performed with knowledge? - D is aware that it is ~practically certain~ his conduct will cause such a result - can be general or specific intentrecklessness- involves the D's awareness of the possibility that his behavior will cause a prohibited result - Ex: involuntary manslaughter - the D consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risknegligence- also involves taking of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, but the D may be completely unaware of it - D should have been aware of the riskstrict liability crimes- dispense of mental states entirely - D is responsible for committing an action regardless of their state of mind - ALWAYS: (1) designed to protect human health and safety (public welfare offenses) (2) they are easy laws to comply with by just using reasonable care (3) these laws have small penalties attached to themmistakes- mistakes of law and mistakes of fact - it is relevant if it negates a required mental element of the offense - they arent affrimative defenses but rather a way to prove there is no mens reamistakes of fact- MPC: is a defense only if it negates the required mental element of the offense: purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence Strict Liability: not a defense b/c the statute requires no mens rea - Specific Intent crimes: judges ask whether the mistake negates a required mental element of the offense - General Intent crimes: courts usually require that the mistake be reasonable before allowing a defensemistakes of law- legal mistakes might be relevant if knowledge or awareness of the law is a material element of the offense - Strict Liability: never a defense b/c no mens rea requirement - Specific Intent crimes: will not absolve someone unless knowledge or awareness of the law is a material element of the crime (has to have a willfully component) - General Intent crimes: will not absolve a D with 3 exceptions: (1) there is an error in the law itself; (2) D reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law & that interpretation was invalid; (3) cases where the law is secret or not publishedcausation- material elements of an offense often require a particular result - first, establish whether there is any causal connection (but-for cause, actual cause, cause in fact) - Second, ask whether the causal connection is sufficiently close to hold the D responsible for the resulting harm (proximate cause)cause in fact- test: courts ask whether the result would have occurred "but-for" the D's actions - accelaration test - substantial factor testacceleration test- asks whether the D's actions accelerated or hastened the result - if it did, but-for causation is satisfiedsubstantial factor test- asks where the D's actions were a substantial factor in producing the result - if it did, but-for causation is satisfiedoffenses against the person1. Battery 2. Assault 4. Homicide 5. False Imprisonment 6. Kidnappingbattery3 elements: - purposely, knowingly, recklessly (mens rea) - engage in an unlawful application of physical force (actus reus) - results in a physical injury or offensive touching (causation)assault2 major avenues: - attempted battery: the act and mental state requirement are same as battery, but the result is absent - victim in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm (immediate harm) - no requirement of physical injurykidnapping- unlawful confinement of the victim or restriction of the victim's movement - confining or carrying away the victim - forcibly or by threat or fear or deception - for a nefarious purpose - length of movement is importanthomicideactus reus typically the same and the difference arises from the mental stateExpress Malice Murder- CL: murder requires the killing of another human with "malice aforethought" - express: intentional killing - implied: reckless killings that demonstrate a depraved indifference to human lifefirst degree murder- willfull, deliberate, and premeditated - intent to killvoluntary manslaughter- CL: adequate provocation, killing in the heat of passion, performed suddenly before reasonable opportunity to cool own, causal connection between provocation, passion, and killing - measured objectivelyadequate provovation- element of voluntary manslaughter - the action must be committed in the heat of passionheat of passion- element of voluntary manslaughter - provocation must fall into one of these categories: extreme assault on the D, mutual combat, illegal arrest of thr D, injury or serious of close relative, suden discovery of aulteryextreme emotional disturbancedowngrades manslaughter killing when "committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse"involuntary manslaughter- an unintentional killing based on the D's unjustified risk-taking behavior - required mens rea is recklessly (sometimes negligently) - state has to show D engaged in reckless disregard for a substantial and unjustifiable risk - D must be aware of the risk - ex: texting and driving; hot someone and kill themimplied malice murder (depraved heart murder)- under the same category as 2nd degree murder, but shows D acted with extreme indifference to the life of another - D must be aware of the risk (more risk than involuntary manslaughter) - ex: driving down a crowded sidewalk to avoid traffic, dropping rocks off the top of a building in NYC - Phillips Testmisdemeanor manslaughter rule- permits a conviction for involuntary manslaughter if the D commits an underlying misdemeanor that results in deathfelony murder- allows a court to convict a D who commits a felony that results in someones death - ex: arson, burglary, rap, robberynegligent homicide- ordinary: assess whether an individual's deviation from the standard of care is sufficiently negligent to generate a conviction for negligent homicide - gross: heightened standard; the D;s behavior must represent a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under the circumstancesrape - approaches over time- traditional (pre-1960s): rape is a property crime; focus = resistance - reform (1960s-80s): rape as sexual battery; focus = Force - emerging (1990s on): rape as a violation of bodily integrity/autonomy; focus = consenttheftan unlawful taking, private property of another, intent to depriveattempt- a criminal need not complete a crime in order to be convicted - 2 requirements: (1) the D has the specific intent pr purpose to bring about the crime; (2) he takes sufficient steps toward commiting the crime to satisfy the jurisdictions actus reus test. - 2 defenses: (1) the crime is impossible to complete; (2) the D abandoned the effortattempts - actus reusidea, decision, plan, preparation, perpetrationdistinguishing attempts from mere preparation: tests- the slight acts test: actor commits even "slight acts" in forbearance of the design - the physical proximity test: the D must be close in time and space to the final act - dangerous proximity test: asks whether the D was dangerously close to consummating the offenses - unequivocality test: asks whether the D's conduct demonstrated the D's intent to commit the crime - probable distance test: requires the D would have resulted in a completed crime if not interrupted by a 3rd party - MPC substantial step test: requires the D engage in a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crimeimpossibility- defense but rarely works - factual impossibility - legal impossibilityfactual impossibility- occurs when the objective of the D is proscribed by the criminal law but a circumstance unknown to the actor prevents him from bringing about the objective - usually not a defense b/c it simply involves a factual element that prevented the D from completing the crimelegal impossibility- sometimes a defense, sometimes not - "pure" and "hybrid" typesabandonment defense- applies if the perp "voluntarily and completely" renounced his criminal purpose - it must be truly voluntary as opposed to a result of resistance from the victim or fear of apprehensionconspiracy- an agreement between 2 or more people to commit an unlawful act - elements: (1) agreement (actus reus); (2) specific intent or purpose to achieve the goal or object of it (mens rea); (3) overt act in furtherance of the conspiracyhube-and-spoke/wheel conspiracy- there is a hub (leader) in the middle with the spokes carrying out the conspiracy - ex: terrorist organizationchain conspiracy- people are serving multiple roles toward one end ex: drug operationgeneral categories of defensesjustifications and excusesexcuses defenses- if raised succesfully - there is crime but no punishment - you did something bad but youre not going to be punished for it b/c its excusable ex: insanityintoxication excuse- voluntary intoxication - involuntary intoxicationvoluntary intoxication- a D who willingly injests an intoxicating substanceinvoluntarily intoxication- a D who s drugged without their knowledge or takes medication and has a bad reaction to itself defense- occurs when someone responds to a threat of imminent force with force - a justification (not charged with a crime)imminent threat - self defense- It is not enough to merely believe someone poses a threat to you. - it is not enough for someone to actually pose a threat to you. - The threat has to be imminent - the timing requirement, you have to react in the moment. - MPC and CL approachCL: imminent threat- the relevant legal term is imminent. - You don't have to wait for someone to start shooting at you or attacking you to fight back, BUT the attack must have been very very closeMPC - imminent threat- replaces the word imminence with "immediately necessary". It changes the focus from the time the threat materializes to the time needed for the D to protect themselves. - Allows self-defense to be used earlier than CL.duty to retreat - self defense- you have an obligation to leave the scene if you can do so safely - 3 exceptions: (1) you are subject to a sudden violent attack; (2) you dont have a duty to retreat if you are in your own home (castle doctrine); (3) you dont have a duty to retreat if youre outside your home (stand your ground laws)reasonable belief - self defense- To have a valid claim of SD, the person who acted in SD, must have subjectively (actually) believed they were faced with an imminent threat - Varies by jurisdiction: reasonableness requirement: Some look at it wholly subjectively - would a reasonable person feel threat; Majority of jurisdictions makes the reasonableness threat objectiveimperfect self defense- when someone uses self defense when the threat was not imminent enough - or when someone uses the wrong type of self defenseinsanity- cognitive test - irresistible impulse test - MPC substantial capacity testthe cognitive test - insanity- most common - M'Naghten Test - always requires finding that: (1) the D suffered from a mental disease and (2) a defect that caused a cognitive impairment - 2 prongs: (1) the D believes he is committing one act but is actually committing another; (2) the D correctly perceives the action but is unaware that its wrongfulirresistible impulse test - insanity- expanded M'Naghten test to include a volitional component - D will be legally insane if he meets M'Naghten standard OR if he suffers from a volitional defect that prevents him from complying with the demands of the law - only a few states retain this testMPC Substantial Capacity Test - insanity- cognition and volitional prong - "a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. - The first prong (appreciate) tracks the cognitive test; while the 2nd prong (conform) tracks the volitional testobjective wrongfulnessasks whether the actor was able to understand that his actions violated society's view of moralitysubjective wronfulnessasks whether the actor was able to understand that his actions violated his own personal moral codenecessity- a justification - says its okay to commit a crime if you really need to get out of something bad happening - constrained very tightly - not a defense to murderduress- an excuse - you committed a crime but only b/c you were under extreme pressure by someone else to do so - 4 elements: (1) imminent threat to you or your family; (2) threat from the individual is sufficiently severe; (3) resulting crime is not a murder; (4) the D was not reckless or culpable in creating the situation

Crim Law Final - 2021

Other sets by this creator

Other Quizlet sets