Crim Law.txt

Card Set Information

Author:
twiggy924
ID:
26904
Filename:
Crim Law.txt
Updated:
2014-12-23 16:42:42
Tags:
Twiggy924 Crim Law ALL Hawaii
Folders:

Description:
Crim Law
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user twiggy924 on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. 4 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A CRIME
    • Physical act
    • Mental state
    • Causation (actual and proximate)
    • Concurrence (of physical act with mental state)
  2. DEFENSES

    6 most common
    • Insanity
    • Intoxication
    • Infancy
    • Self-defense
    • Duress
    • Entrapment
  3. JURISDICTION

    In what states may a crime be prosecuted?
    • Any state where an ACT TOOK PLACE that was part of the crime, OR
    • Any state where the RESULT of those acts took place
  4. BURDEN OF PROOF

    1) Who must prove the elements of a crime?
    2) What standard applies?
    • PROSECUTION must prove EACH ELEMENT
    • BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
  5. BURDEN OF PROOF

    Who bears the burden of proof as to DEFENSES to a crime

    1) Under the common law?
    2) Under NY law?
    1) COMMON LAW

    • PROSECUTION must DISPROVE each element of a defense once raised
    • BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (except where INSANITY is raised as defense—then must disprove by PREPONDERANCE of evidence)

    2) NEW YORK LAW

    • DEFENSES: PROSECUTION must DISPROVE each element of defense by beyond a reasonable doubt
    • AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES: ∆ must PROVE each element of defense by preponderance of evidence
  6. CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMES

    1) Felony?
    2) Misdemeanor?
    1) PUNISHABLE by more than 1 YEAR

    2) MAXIMUM punishment cannot exceed 1 YEAR in prison
  7. ACT REQUIREMENT

    1) Rule?
    2) Definition?
    1) NO CRIME without a PHYSICAL ACT (as a general rule)

    2) ACT = VOLUNTARY bodily movement ("voluntary" includes acts under coercion or duress)
  8. OMISSIONS RULE

    1) Rule?
    2) Elements (3 of them)
    1) FAILURE TO ACT can be basis for criminal liability (in limited situations)

    2) ELEMENTS (need all 3)

    • LEGAL DUTY to act (e.g., statute, contract, status (i.e., parent-child, spouse-spouse), voluntary assumption of care, ∆ creates peril)
    • KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS giving rise to the legal duty; AND
    • ABILITY TO HELP (minimal ability, e.g., crying-out for help)
  9. COMMON LAW MENTAL STATES:

    SPECIFIC INTENT

    1) Definition?
    2) 11 Specific Intent Crimes?
    1) DESIRE to do the ACT and the desire to ACHIEVE A RESULT

    2) 11 SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES

    • Assault
    • Murder-1
    • Larceny
    • Embezzlement
    • False Pretenses
    • Robbery
    • Forgery
    • Burglary
    • Solicitation
    • Conspiracy
    • Attempted crime
  10. COMMON LAW MENTAL STATES:

    MALICE

    1) Definition?
    2) Common law malice crime?
    1) ACTING INTENTIONALLY or with RECKLESS DISREGARD as to an obvious or known risk.

    2) COMMON LAW MALICE CRIMES

    • Murder
    • Arson
  11. COMMON LAW MENTAL STATES:

    GENERAL INTENT

    1) Definition?
    2) Examples of general intent crimes?
    1) GENERAL AWARENESS of the factors constituting a crime—desire to achieve a specific result not necessary. Note: Jury may infer GI simply from the doing of the act

    • 2) EXAMPLES
    • Battery
    • False imprisonment
    • Kidnapping
    • Forceable rape
  12. COMMON LAW MENTAL STATES:

    STRICT LIABILITY

    1) Definition?
    2) Examples
    1) SIMPLY DOING THE ACT results in a crime—no mental state needed!

    • 2) TWO TYPES of strict liability crimes
    • Public welfare (e.g., selling alcohol to minor, selling contaminated food, corrupting the morals of a minor)
    • Statutory rape
  13. COMMON LAW MISTAKE

    When will mistake of FACT be a defense for the following mental states

    1) Specific intent?
    2) General intent?
    3) Strict liability?
    1) ANY MISTAKE of fact, even an unreasonable one, is a defense

    2) only a REASONABLE MISTAKE of fact is a defense

    3) NEVER A DEFENSE
  14. COMMON LAW MISTAKE

    Is a mistake of LAW a valid defense?
    1) GENERAL RULE. Mistake of law is NOT A DEFENSE

    2) EXCEPTIONS (mistake of law IS a defense)

    • Statute expressly requires KNOWLEDGE of the law as an element of the crime
    • Statute was NOT PUBLISHED
    • ∆ REASONABLY RELIED on a statute or judicial decision that was DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL or OVERRULED; OR
    • ∆ REASONABLY RELIED on an official interpretation or advice from someone charged with ENFORCEMENT, administration, or interpretation of the law***

    ***erroneous advice from a private attorney is not a defense
  15. NEW YORK MENTAL STATES

    "Intentionally"
    When it is the ∆'s CONSCIOUS OBJECT to accomplish a PARTICULAR RESULT—i.e., the ∆ MEANT to do reach the result
  16. NEW YORK MENTAL STATES

    "Knowingly"
    When ∆ is AWARE of what he is doing
  17. NEW YORK MENTAL STATES

    "Recklessly"
    When ∆ is AWARE of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and CONSCIOUSLY DISREGARDS that risk

    ***requires showing of ∆'s subjective knowledge
  18. NEW YORK MENTAL STATES

    "Negligently"
    When ∆ SHOULD HAVE KNOWN about a substantial and unjustifiable risk

    ***Objective standard. ∆'s subjective knowledge is irrelevant
  19. NEW YORK MENTAL STATES

    "Strict Liability"
    No mental state required (similar to common law)
  20. NEW YORK MISTAKE DOCTRINE

    As to MISTAKE OF FACT

    1) What is the rule?
    2) How is it applied?
    1) MISTAKE OF FACT is a DEFENSE IF the mistake NEGATES the required mental state

    2) APPLICATION—for crimes of

    • PURPOSE, KNOWLEDGE, or RECKLESSNESS—a mistake of fact (EVEN AN UNREASONABLE one) is a defense
    • NEGLIGENCE—only a REASONABLE mistake is a defense
    • STRICT LIABILITY—never a defense
  21. NEW YORK MISTAKE DOCTRINE

    When is a MISTKE OF LAW a defense?
    NEVER—no exceptions (still a crime, even if ∆ doesn't know about the law)
  22. ACTUAL CAUSATION
    BUT-FOR TEST

    • ∆ is an "actual cause" if the bad result would not have a happened BUT-FOR the ∆'s conduct
    • NOTE: an ACCELERATING CAUSE is an actual cause
  23. PROXIMATE CAUSATION

    1) Rule?
    2) Key concepts?
    3) Thin-skulled victims?
    4) Intervening causes?
    1) PROXIMATE CAUSE if the bad result is a NATURAL AND PROBABLE consequence of the ∆'s conduct

    • 2) KEY CONCEPTS
    • Foreseeability
    • Fairness

    3) THIN-SKULLED VICTIMS—∆ will be proximate cause even if victim's PRE-EXISTING WEAKNESS contributed to bad result

    4) INTERVENING CAUSES—∆ will NOT be proximate cause if an UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING EVENT causes the bad result
  24. D shoots V, but the wound is not fatal. V is taken to the hospital, where a surgeon operates to remove the bullet. During the operation, the surgeon accidentally severs a major artery, and V bleeds to death. Is D the PROXIMATE CAUSE of V's death?
    YES—surgeon's negligence was foreseeable result, even if it was an intervening cause
  25. CONCURRENCE

    1) Rule?
    2) Arises in what crimes?
    1) ∆ must have MENTAL STATE at the time he engages in the ACT

    • 2) Concurrence issues most frequently arise as to the crimes of-
    • Larceny
    • Burglary
  26. COMMON LAW BATTERY

    1) Elements?
    2) Mental state?
    1) ELEMENTS

    • The UNLAWFUL
    • application of FORCE to another
    • resulting in either BODILY INJURY, or OFFENSIVE TOUCHING

    2) GENERAL INTENT
  27. COMMON LAW ASSAULT

    1) Elements?
    2) Mental state?
    1) ATTEMPTED BATTERY, or

    • 2) the INTENTIONAL creation
    • OTHER than MERE WORDS
    • of a REASONABLE APPREHENSION in the mind of the victim
    • of IMMINENT BODILY HARM

    Mental state: SPECIFIC INTENT (to bring about desired result)
  28. COMMON LAW

    AGGRAVATED ASSAULT & BATTERY
    An assault or battery will be more serious if one of the following is added

    • a WEAPON is used
    • the victim is a CHILD, elderly, handicapped, or otherwise VULNERABLE, or
    • the intent is to commit a ROBBERY or RAPE
  29. NEW YORK

    ASSAULT-2
    • INTENT
    • to cause SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY
    • to ANOTHER PERSON

    ***memorize ASSAULT-2. Can make into A1 or A3 by adding or subtracting aggravating or mitigating factors
  30. NEW YORK

    ASSAULT-1
    Assault-2, plus use of a WEAPON
  31. NEW YORK

    ASSAULT-3
    Intentionally causing PHYSICAL INJURY to another person
  32. NEW YORK

    MENACING
    An "attempted" assault in NY. Merely creating a "reasonable apprehension" WITHOUT an intent to actually injure
  33. COMMON LAW CONFINEMENT

    FALSE IMPRISONMENT

    1) Elements
    2) Required mental state
    1) ELEMENTS

    • the UNLAWFUL
    • CONFINEMENT of a person
    • without CONSENT

    2) GENERAL INTENT
  34. COMMON LAW CONFINEMENT

    KIDNAPPING

    1) Elements
    2) Required mental state
    3) Aggravated kidnapping
    1) ELEMENTS

    • False imprisonment
    • that involves MOVING the victim or CONCEALING the victim in a secret place

    2) GENERAL INTENT

    3) AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING—add one of the following

    • purpose is to collect RANSOM
    • purpose is to commit ROBBERY or RAPE
    • victim is a CHILD
  35. NEW YORK CONFINEMENT OFFENSES

    UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT

    1) Second degree
    2) First degree
    1) ELEMENTS OF 2ND DEGREE

    • UNLAWFULLY
    • RESTRAINING someone
    • without their CONSENT, and
    • with KNOWLEDGE that the restriction is UNLAWFUL (i.e., mistake of law IS a defense)

    2) ELEMENTS OF 1ST DEGREE

    • Second degree unlawful imprisonment, PLUS
    • risk of SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY
  36. NEW YORK CONFINEMENT OFFENSES

    KIDNAPPING

    1) Second degree
    2) First degree
    1) 2ND DEGREE ELEMENTS—Abducting someone

    2) 1ST DEGREE ELEMENTS—2nd degree, PLUS one of the following

    • RANSOM
    • RESTRAINT of victim for > 12 HOURS with intent to RAPE, injure, or ROB the victim
    • DEATH of the victim
  37. SEX OFFENSES

    FORCIBLE RAPE

    1) Elements
    2) Required mental state
    • 1) ELEMENTS
    • SEX
    • without the victim's CONSENT
    • accomplished by FORCE, THREAT of force, or when the victim is UNCONSCIOUS

    2) GENERAL INTENT
  38. SEX OFFENSES

    STATUTORY RAPE

    1) Elements
    2) Required mental state
    3) Age of consent?
    1) SEX with someone UNDER AGE OF CONSENT

    • 2) REQUIRED MENTAL STATE
    • Majority Rule: Strict liability (no mental state required)
    • MPC/Minority: REASONABLE mistake of age IS a defense

    3) NY AGE OF CONSENT = 17
  39. ACCOMPLICE

    1) Who is an accomplice?
    2) Requisite mental state?
    1) DEFINED—person HELPS THE PRINCIPAL commit the crime by AIDING or ENCOURAGING the principal

    2) REQUIRED MENTAL STATE

    • MBE: INTENT that the CRIME be committed
    • NYBE: INTENT to AID PRINCIPAL'S conduct
  40. ACCOMPLICE

    1) What is an accomplice guilty of?
    2) What happens if the principal is not prosecuted (or has a defense)?
    • 1) GUILTY OF
    • All crimes that he AIDED or ENCOURAGED, and
    • All other FORESEEABLE crimes committed along with the aided crime

    2) STILL GUILTY as an accomplice
  41. ACCOMPLICE

    Who is NOT an accomplice?
    • MERE PRESENCE
    • MERE KNOWLEDGE of crime†
    • MEMBERS OF THE PROTECTED CLASS (e.g., victims)

    †though knowledge in NY can make someone guilty of "CRIMINAL FACILITATION"
  42. ACCOMPLICE

    If an accomplice changes his/her mind, what must be done to avoid liability?

    1) for the MBE?
    2) for NY?
    1) WITHDRAW

    • DISCOURAGE crime, if he/she only ENCOURAGED the principal, but must
    • NEUTRALIZE assistance OR PREVENT the crime from happening, if he/she AIDED the principal

    • 2) RENOUNCE
    • make SUBSTANTIAL EFFORT to prevent principal from committing the crime
    • AFFIRMATIVE defense (i.e., ∆ must prove by preponderance of evidence)
  43. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT

    1) Common law requirements?
    2) What is it known as in NY?
    1) ELEMENTS—∆ must

    • ASSIST principal who has committed a FELONY
    • with KNOWLEDGE that felony has been committed, and
    • with the SPECIFIC INTENT to help principal AVOID arrest or conviction

    2) "HINDERING PROSECUTION"
  44. INCHOATE OFFENSES

    SOLICITATION

    1) Defined
    2) Required mental state
    3) Completion requried?
    1) ASKING someone to commit a crime, with the INTENT that the crime be committed

    2) SPECIFIC INTENT (desire that other person commit the crime requested)

    3) COMPLETION UNNECESSARY—Crime is in the ASKING (Person asked need not actually complete the requested crime or even agree for ∆ to be guilty)
  45. INCHOATE OFFENSES

    CONSPIRACY

    1) Defined
    2) Required mental state
    3) Completion required?
    1) ELEMENTS

    • ILLEGAL AGREEMENT between 2+ people to commit a crime, plus an
    • OVERT ACT in furtherance of that crime (even if minimal)

    2) SPECIFIC INTENT to accomplish conspiracy's objective

    3) COMPLETION UNNECESSARY—Crime is in the illegal agreement and overt act
  46. INCHOATE OFFENSES

    CONSPIRACY

    1) Possible to have a one-person conspiracy?
    2) Liability for crimes committed by co-conspirators?
    1) ONE-PERSON CONSPIRACY?

    • COMMON LAW: No. Must have at least 2 guilty minds
    • NY/MPC: Yes. ∆ may be guilty, even if other parties are acquitted or just pretending to agree

    2) VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR CRIMES OF CO-CONSPIRATORS?

    • COMMON LAW: YES, if crimes (i) FURTHERED conspiracy, and (ii) were FORESEEABLE
    • NY RULE: NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY
  47. INCHOATE OFFENSES

    ATTEMPTED CRIME

    1) Majority definition?
    2) NY definition?
    3) Required mental state?
    1) MAJORITY DEFINITION

    • Conduct that is a SUBSTANTIAL STEPS towards the crime, and
    • STRONGLY CORROBORATIVE of a criminal purpose

    2) NY DEFINITION—Conduct that gets DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to commission of the crime

    3) SPECIFIC INTENT to commit the attempted crime (Note–can't be guilty of unintentional crimes (e.g., recklessness, negligence, felony murder))
  48. INCHOATE OFFENSES

    ATTEMPTED CRIMES

    1) is factual impossibility a defense?
    2) is legal impossibility a defense?
    • 1) NOT A DEFENSE TO ATTEMPTED CRIME
    • A claim that it was impossible to complete the crime because of outside forces is NOT A DEFENSE to an attempted crime
    • ∆ isn't innocent, merely because things didn't go his/her way—still specifically intended to commit a crime

    2) YES (defense to attempted crime)

    • Impossible to commit crime if acts aren't illegal
    • ∆'s sincere belief that acts are illegal doesn't transmute them into a crime
  49. INCHOATE OFFENSES

    Is WITHDRAWAL, RENUNCIATION, or ABANDONMENT a defense to an inchoate crime under

    1) Common law?
    2) NY/MPC?
    1) NOT A DEFENSE (except that ∆ is no longer vicariously liable, once he leaves a conspiracy)

    2) CAN BE A DEFENSE, but only if

    • ∆ VOLUNTARILY and COMPLETELY renounces the crime, AND
    • renunciation is based on a genuine CHANGE OF HEART (i.e., new found morality)
  50. MERGER of crimes

    1) Rule for lesser offenses, included in a greater offense
    2) Rule for inchoate offenses
    1) LESSER OFFENSE MERGES with the greater offense (i.e., charged only with greater offense)

    2) MERGER OF INCHOATE OFFENSES depends on the offense

    • ATTEMPT: lesser offense MERGES with completed offense
    • CONSPIRACY: NO MERGER (i.e., can be charged with conspiracy AND other crimes)
    • SOLICITATION: Lesser offense MERGES with greater offense under COMMON LAW, but NO MERGER under NY LAW
  51. INCHOATE OFFENSES

    SOLICITATION

    1) Defined
    2) Required mental state
    3) Completion requried?
    1) ASKING someone to commit a crime, with the INTENT that the crime be committed

    2) SPECIFIC INTENT (desire that other person commit the crime requested)

    3) COMPLETION UNNECESSARY—Crime is in the ASKING (Person asked need not actually complete the requested crime or even agree for ∆ to be guilty)
  52. INCHOATE OFFENSES

    CONSPIRACY

    1) Defined
    2) Required mental state
    3) Completion required?
    1) ELEMENTS

    • ILLEGAL AGREEMENT between 2+ people to commit a crime, plus an
    • OVERT ACT in furtherance of that crime (even if minimal)

    2) SPECIFIC INTENT to accomplish conspiracy's objective

    3) COMPLETION UNNECESSARY—Crime is in the illegal agreement and overt act
  53. INCHOATE OFFENSES

    CONSPIRACY

    1) Possible to have a one-person conspiracy?
    2) Liability for crimes committed by co-conspirators?
    1) ONE-PERSON CONSPIRACY?

    • COMMON LAW: No. Must have at least 2 guilty minds
    • NY/MPC: Yes. ∆ may be guilty, even if other parties are acquitted or just pretending to agree

    2) VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR CRIMES OF CO-CONSPIRATORS?

    • COMMON LAW: YES, if crimes (i) FURTHERED conspiracy, and (ii) were FORESEEABLE
    • NY RULE: NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY
  54. INCHOATE OFFENSES

    ATTEMPTED CRIME

    1) Majority definition?
    2) NY definition?
    3) Required mental state?
    1) MAJORITY DEFINITION

    • Conduct that is a SUBSTANTIAL STEPS towards the crime, and
    • STRONGLY CORROBORATIVE of a criminal purpose

    2) NY DEFINITION—Conduct that gets DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to commission of the crime

    3) SPECIFIC INTENT to commit the attempted crime (Note–can't be guilty of unintentional crimes (e.g., recklessness, negligence, felony murder))
  55. INCHOATE OFFENSES

    ATTEMPTED CRIMES

    1) is factual impossibility a defense?
    2) is legal impossibility a defense?
    • 1) NOT A DEFENSE TO ATTEMPTED CRIME
    • A claim that it was impossible to complete the crime because of outside forces is NOT A DEFENSE to an attempted crime
    • ∆ isn't innocent, merely because things didn't go his/her way—still specifically intended to commit a crime

    2) YES (defense to attempted crime)

    • Impossible to commit crime if acts aren't illegal
    • ∆'s sincere belief that acts are illegal doesn't transmute them into a crime
  56. INCHOATE OFFENSES

    Is WITHDRAWAL, RENUNCIATION, or ABANDONMENT a defense to an inchoate crime under

    1) Common law?
    2) NY/MPC?
    1) NOT A DEFENSE (except that ∆ is no longer vicariously liable, once he leaves a conspiracy)

    2) CAN BE A DEFENSE, but only if

    • ∆ VOLUNTARILY and COMPLETELY renounces the crime, AND
    • renunciation is based on a genuine CHANGE OF HEART (i.e., new found morality)
  57. MERGER of crimes

    1) Rule for lesser offenses, included in a greater offense
    2) Rule for inchoate offenses
    1) LESSER OFFENSE MERGES with the greater offense (i.e., charged only with greater offense)

    2) MERGER OF INCHOATE OFFENSES depends on the offense

    • ATTEMPT: lesser offense MERGES with completed offense
    • CONSPIRACY: NO MERGER (i.e., can be charged with conspiracy AND other crimes)
    • SOLICITATION: Lesser offense MERGES with greater offense under COMMON LAW, but NO MERGER under NY LAW

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview