Criminal Law Final

Law 600 with Bluth at Capital University

About this deck

By: Andrew Campbell
Created: 2010-12-11
Size: 102 flashcards
Views: 17

About StudyBlue

STUDYBLUE makes things that make you better at school. Things like online flashcards with photos and audio. Things like personalized quizzes and friendly reminders about when (and what) to study next. Think of it as a digital backpack™: access to all of your study materials online and on your phone. STUDYBLUE exists to make studying efficient and effective for every student, for free. Join us.

“Simply amazing. The flash cards are smooth, there are many different types of studying tools, and there is a great search engine. I praise you on the awesomeness.”
Dennis

Sign up (free) to study this.

Theories of Punishment

Retribution, Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Incapacitation

Retribution

Criminal is punished for what they do

Deterrence

Punished them to deter them from committing more crimes

Doesn't work because criminals don't weight costs benefit

Rehabilitation

Punish criminals so we can rehabilitate their mind and behaviors to conform to societal standards

Problem is no one knows what makes a person become a criminal

Incapacitation

We incapacitate to remove criminals from society and stop commission of crime

Culpability

involving the commission of a fault or the breach of a duty imposed by law

Actus Reus

wrongful act or omission that comprises a physical element of a crime

Exclusions from Actus Reus

Reflexive acts, unconsciousness, hypnosis,

Actus Reus: Crimes of Omission

Occur with special relationships, legal duties, contractual duties, when one voluntarily assumed duty of care for another with no other help

Mens Rea

Guilty mind requirement of elements of a crime

4 levels of Mens Rea

Purpose, Knowingly, Recklessly, and Negligently

Purpose

when committing the act with a conscious objective to cause result

Knowingly

when you are aware that the conduct could cause the result

Recklessly

When you consciously disregard a risk which is a gross deviation from standard conduct

Negligently

creating a substantial and unjustifiable risk, where the actor should be aware of the danger. Knowledge is the difference between recklessness and negligence.

Mistake of Fact

A defense designed to negate all levels of culpability

Doesn't apply to strict liability cases

Mistake of Law

Generally not a defense unless

There is no notice or publishing of the law

The act was done out of reliance on a judicial decision that gets overturned

Or possibly the law could be interpreted differently

Vagueness in a law

Can invalidate a crime if it fails to provide notice to an ordinary person to understand what conduct it prohibits or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory police enforcement

Rape

Carnal knowledge of a woman against her will

Rape- Actus Reus

Sexual contact by another person by use of force or threat of force with lack of consent

Force as it relates to Rape

Penetration can't be enough to count, but threats can count.

Women no longer have to resist with utmost ability, just reasonable resistance as long as not leading to serious bodily harm or death, and the fear of SBI or Death has to be reasonable

Fraud in relation to rape

Fraud doesn't invalidate consent in most jurisdictions

However if victim is unaware of nature of the act then it can be considered rape.

Problem is with people consenting to intercourse even though fraud is there then it may not be rape

Mens Rea for Rape

Use Objective standard whether reasonable person would have believed that consent was given

Marital exemption to Rape

Common Law used to be that husband couldn't rape wife

Almost all states have gotten ride of this exemption

Proof of Rape

No longer require corroboration

Use Rape Shield Laws as well

Rape Shield Law

Prevents victim's prior sexual history unless

Probative evidence outweighs prejudicial effect- such as how bruising or DNA evidence could have been there

Or if she had a prior sexual history with the Defendant

The P's public behavior is admissible

Homicide

Purpose, knowingly, or reckless killing of another. Unlawful killing of another living being.

Intended Killings

1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder

1st degree Murder

Pre-meditated and deliberate ( as little as 5 minutes needed) followed by Homicide.

Deliberation for 1st degree

requires a calm mind that is capable of reflection

Premeditation for 1st degree

requires one with a calm mind actually reflected before the act of killing

Must actually prove they reflected not that they could have

2nd degree Murder

No premeditation to murder,but intent to do serious bodily harm or acting with reckless indifference to human life

elements of 2nd degree

unlawful killing of another living being with intent to kill or with a depraved heart.

Provocation with regards to 2nd degree

Use reasonable person standard

Often involves: loss of control; battery; mutual combat; adultery being sufficient provocation

Words aren't often enough unless they would make reasonable person lose control and become enraged

Unintended Killings

Involuntary Manslaughter, Voluntary Manslaughter, Heat of Passion Manslaughter, Negligent Homicide

Involuntary Manslaughter

wanton or reckless breach of duty to another causes an accidental death of another. Gross negligence is required.

Gross Negligence

More than ordinary tort negligence that's measured in light of all circumstances and the Defendant must usually be aware of the risk that he created to be liable

Voluntary Manslaughter

Intent to kill but during heat of passion, or using imperfect self-defense, or imperfect defense of others, or mercy killings.

Simply meets all elements of murder but has a mitigating circumstance to make it downgrade it.

Heat of passion manslaughter

Requires that you subjectively and objectively were provoked and couldn't calm down

Provocation with heat of passion M

Must be objectively and subjectively provoked

Calming Down

Objectively no time for reasonable person to calm down and subjectively hadn't calmed down.

Negligent Homicide

When homicide occurs but the mental state was more than tortiously negligent, but less than grossly negligent. Can include vehicular homicide

Murder v. Manslaughter

Murder may not have been intended depending on D's actions showing callous disregard for human life and consequences of actions. This shows malice that separates second-degree manslaughter from involuntary

Depraved Heart Murder

D creates an unjustified and high degree of risk of death or serious bodily harm to another or others that causes death. No need for intent

Felony-Murder Rule

Death occurs in the course of committing a felony ( rape, robbery, assault, arson, kidnapping). The felony removes Mens Rea requirement for 1st degree murder.

Limitations on FMR

Act that causes death must be inherently dangerous and likely to cause death.

For cohorts to be liable the killing must be in furtherance of the felony and a natural and probable result of the felony

Misdemeanor Murder Rule

Permits conviction of involuntary manslaughter when death occurs accident during commission of misdemeanor or other unlawful act

Merger Doctrine

Felony must be independent of the homicide otherwise must prove all elements of first degree murder

Defenses for Murder: justifications vs. excuses

Justifications mean you meant to do it because you had a right to

Excuses mean your sorry you did it but your excuse is good enough to absolve from punishment

Justifications: Protection of Life and Property

Self-Defense, Defense of 3rd person, Protection of Property, Necessity, Choice of Lesser Evils

Elements of Self Defense

Threat is unlawful and immediate

Subjectively and objective belief of imminent peril and necessity to defend

May be a duty to retreat.

Force used is reasonable

Objective Test for Self-Defense

Includes reasonable mis-perceptions of attacker's intentions

unreasonable force may mean involuntary manslaughter

Battered Woman's Syndrome

Woman kills abuser and there may not have been imminent risk of harm

Jury will consider imminent threat, but courts want to encourage women to escape rather than murder

Imminent Danger Requirements and Exceptions

No self-defense claim in hiring a person to kill because you think that person is going to kill you.

Threats don't establish imminent risk

Proof needed

Majority believes prosecutor must prove there wasn't a need for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt

Minority requires D to prove beyond preponderance of the evidence

Exception to Self-Defense

Duty to retreat: may require effort to retreat first

Provocateur can't claim self-defense unless they tried to leave the situation

Minority view won't allow self-defense if start the attack

Self-Defense and Law Enforcement

Officer has not duty to retreat if someone resists arrest

Can't use deadly force on misdemeanor

Officer can use deadly force as long as reasonably believe person is the felon they are looking for

Private person doesn't get benefit of the doubt

Defense of 3rd persons

Can use same force to defend another as you could yourself

Protection of Property

Can't use deadly force

Can't use deadly force unless life is threated in home

Can use less than deadly force mechanical device if warning is in place

Necessity

D was trying to prevent greater harm than actually committed and had no alternative and the harm is imminent. D didn't cause the situation through careless or reckless acts

Choice of Lesser Evils

Committed crime to avoid harm to others

Harm must be objectively greater than harm caused

No law defining the offense

No plain legislative intent to exclude justification

Taking Life to save lives

Preservation of own life isn't justifiable for killing of an innocent

MPC justifies as long as more lives are saved then lost no matter if those killed were innocent

Exculpaton

person committing crime is excused in certain circumstances, because of lack of criminal intent

Duress, Infancy, Intoxication, Involuntary Intoxication, Mental Disorder, Automatism, Diminished Capacity,

Duress

person acts consciously but is forced to act. Threat can be against self or other person

Infancy

Actor is too young to be accountable

Varies from state to state

Involuntary Intoxication

To prove person must be legally insane, can't be from alcoholism or other diseases. Or prove someone spiked the drink

Voluntary Intoxication

If mental state is higher than intoxication may help, but if lower than could hurt

Mental Disorder

M'Naughten Rule, MPC Test, MPC Rule on Insanity

M'Naughten Rule

D is insane if he had a mental disease which caused a defect of reason which made him unable to understand either the act's nature/quality or its wrongness. Must have occurred while offense was done.

Mental disease

includes any diagnosed condition which makes the D incapable of understanding his actions or appreciate their immorality

To prove M'Naughten, majority used

D at the time of the act was so detached from reality that he was unaware of what he was doing or wasn't aware that was he was doing was wrong.

MPC Test, minority used

person isn't liable if he is substantially unaware of the criminality of what he is doing or lacks capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law

MPC Rule on Insanity

One can be found guilty by reason of insanity if he lack substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct or can't conform to the law

Notes on Insanity

Must be insane at time of crime, but can't be insane at time of trial or execution.

Automatism

state of unconscious activity; usually excused

Diminished Capacity

When a criminal is not insane enough for insanity defense, this is used to lower penalty

May be used to negate Mens Rea

Elements of Attempting Crimes

D has Specific intent to product a proscribed result of the crime being attempted and something effects the commission of that crime.

Specific Intent

Attempt requires that someone intend the result.

recklessness or negligence is not enough.

Proscribed Result

Intent must be to produce the proscribed result.

Must intend a specific crime not intend unspecified criminal behavior

Mens Rea for Attempt

Specific intent

Generally won't extend to negligence

Attempt v. Preparation

If more preparation is needed then it isn't an attempt

Attempt needs an act of furtherance, an act effecting commission and an act which constitutes a substantial step toward

Dangerous Proximity Test

Was the D's actions sufficiently proximate to the intended crime?

- Must only consider acts so near to accomplishment of the crime that in all reasonable probability the crime would have been committed but for intervention

Dangerous proximity Test Part 2

Indispensable element approach?

- Some crimes require a specific object or type of object and once its acquired then there is enough for attempt

Dangerous proximity Test Part 3

Physical proximity approach

-So close to the crime that you have done enough.

Proximity Approach

D's conduct suffices for an attempt conviction where D is dangerously proximate to the successful commission of a substantive crime

Substantial Step Test

Under MPC any conduct which constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime and is corroborative of the D's intent may suffice

Solicitation

mere soliciting one to commit a crime doesn't constitute an attempt; must have performance of a overt act toward commission of the crime

Abandonment

Want to encourage people abandoning criminal purposes

Requires that the abandonment was complete and voluntary to be a defense

Legal Impossibility

Can be valid defense to attempt, where he did all he wanted to do, but didn't commit the crime

Factual Impossibility

Not a defense to attempt

Occurs when d intends to accomplish an offense, but can't because of some circumstances unknown to him when he engaged in the attempt

Defenses to Attempt

Most states have done away with defenses to intent

Merger and Attempt

Can't be charged with attempt and the crime

Can be charged with attempt and conspiracy though

Conspiracy

Two or more people in agreement to pursue a joint objective.

People must have the mens rea for the joint objective and may or may not need an overt act to be committed in order to show the existence of a conspiracy

Wharton's Rule

Can't bring conspiracy charges against people who participate in a crime that by its nature requires two people unless there are more participants than are logically necessary

Agreement Element

Parties need to communicate some intentions to pursue the joint objective

Even if only helping in planning stages you are party to the conspiracy

Feigned agreements

Traditional view is there is no conspiracy if there is a feigned agreement

Modern view is that there is still a conspiracy

Mens Rea for Conspiracy

The act intended needs to be criminal not just immoral

Duration of Conspiracy: Beginning?

Can begin when agreement is made or when an act in furtherance is done.

Can't be held liable if you weren't a part of the group at the time of the act or agreement

Duration: Cover-up

Covering up the conspiracy isn't an act in furtherance of the conspiracy unless the parties made an express agreement to cover up the crime

Duration: Ending?

When all partied abandon the agreement

Each individual must take an affirmative act to withdraw

Minority requires an effort to thwart the conspiracy to get out

Duration of Punishment for Conspiracy

Usually less than crime

Evidence needed

Can be inferred, but the agreement is the essential element of conspiracy

About this deck

By: Andrew Campbell
Created: 2010-12-11
Size: 102 flashcards
Views: 17

About StudyBlue

“Simply amazing. The flash cards are smooth, there are many different types of studying tools, and there is a great search engine. I praise you on the awesomeness.”
Dennis