45 terms

Criminal Law Exam 2, 5-8

justification defense
Defendants admit they were responsible for their acts, but claim what they did was right (justified) under the circumstances
excuse defense
Defendants admit what they did was wrong, but claim that, under the circumstances, they weren't responsible for what they did
affirmative defense
Defense must start by putting out some proof of their justification or excuse, the burden of production
perfect defense
Defendant's are acquitted in this defense, except sanity
imperfect defense
Evidence that doesn't amount to a perfect defense, guilty of lesser offenses
elements of self-defense
Contains these four elements: Unprovoked attack; Necessity; Proportionality; Reasonable belief
defense of consent
If legally competent adults want to be victims of crime it is not the government's right to stop them
justification defenses
Self-defense; Defense of others; Defense of home and property; Choice of evils defense; Defense of consent
four tests of insanity
Right-Wrong Test (McNaughten Rule); Substantial Capacity Test (MPC); Irresistible Impulse Test; Product of Mental Illness Test (Durham Rule)
new hampshire
Only state where the Product of Mental Illness test is used, or the Durham Rule
mcnaughten rule
2 Criteria: Defendant had mental disease or illness at the time of the crime; Disease/Ilness caused the defendant know to know either: nature and quality of actions, or what doing was wrong
diminished capacity
Attempt to prove defendant guilty of a lesser crime; Failure of Proof defense, not affirmative; rejected by most states
diminished responsibility
Defense of Excuse; Variation on defendant's argument, what I did was wrong, but under circumstances not responsible
defense of duress
Defense when you were forced to do something
elements of duress
Contains 4 Elements: The threats leading to it; Immediacy of the threats; Crime the defense applies to; Have a reasonable degree of belief regarding threat
voluntary intoxication
Defense of Intoxication, but this is not a defense, can be used as mitigating circumstances
involuntary intoxication
Defense of Intoxication, and is an excuse in every state; Has two conflicting principles: Accountability and Culpability
Affirmative defense; more in federal cases; When an official gets someone to commit a crime
subjective entrapment
Person would not have committed crime without pressure; Where did the criminal intent originate; Prior history; 4 ways to prove; Focuses on the defendant
4 ways prove subjective
Prior convictions of similar offenses; Willingness to commit similar offenses; Criminal expertise in carrying out offense; Readiness to commit the crim
objective entrapment
Actions of government induce a normally law abiding citizen to commit crime, the case should be dismissed even if predisposed to commit crime; Focuses on the government's role in the crime
excuse defenses
Insanity, Age, Duress, Intoxication, Entrapment, Syndromes (PMS, PTSD, etc)
Established when you can be criminally liable for someone else's conduct; Applies to accomplices and accessories; You're complicit, help commit the crime; Need only take some positive act in the offense
vicarious liability
Establishes when a party can be criminally liable because of a relationship; Translates the responsibility from one to another because of the relationship
Participants before and during the commission of the crime
Participants after the crime is committed
Agreement to commit some other crime
pinkerton rule
Rule that crime of conspiracy and the crime the conspirators agree to commit are separate offenses
complicity elements
1) Need to solicit or procure another commit crime
2) Aid or abet another
3) Conspire with another to commit crime
4) Cause an innocent or irresponsible person to commit crime
criminal attempt
Attempt to commit a crime; Try do something and failing
inchoate offense
Attempting to do a crime, attempting getting someone else to do a crime, attempt to agree to do a crime
elements of attempt
1) Intent or purpose is to commit a certain crime
2) An act, or acts, to carry out the intent
dangerous act rationale
Looks at how close defendant's came to completing their crime
dangerous person rationale
Concentrates on how fully defendants have developed their criminal purpose
general attempt statute
A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, with the intent to commit a specific offense, he does any overt act towards the commission of such offense; Ohio has this stature; Attach it to the specified crime
specific attempt statute
Define attempts in terms of specific crimes
proximity tests
Test focuses on dangerous conduct; Three: physical proximity, dangerous proximity, indispensable element proximity; Asks the question is defendants acts close enough to the intended crime to count as the criminal act in the attempt
indispensable element test
Asks whether defendant has reached the point where they have gained control of everything needed to commit the crime
unequivocality test
Dangerous Persons Test: Act speaks for itself; An ordinary person looking at the act without knowing intent would believe the person is determined to commit crime
probable desistance
Dangerous Persons Test: Focuses on how far defendant has gone, not what is left to complete
legal impossibility
Can't commit a crime that doesn't exist; Try to carry out criminal intent but can't commit crime; Is a defense
factual impossibility
Actor intends to commit a crime and tries, but some fact interrupts completion of the crime; A "sort of" attempt
voluntary abandonment
Affirmative defense; Was going to commit the crime, had all intentions to do so, got here and got everything together, then backed out
Type of conspiracy where each person holds a step in the process of the crime; Large scale conspiracy
Type of conspiracy where each person participates in each step of the crime; Large scale conspiracy