Juris Final

Card Set Information

Juris Final
2011-05-03 17:35:28

Juris Criminal Law
Show Answers:

  1. State v. Ochoa
    • New Mexico three defendants did they aid the shooter and share criminal purpose
    • no distinction between principal and abettor
  2. Wilson
    • aided burglar with intent to trap him
    • did not share felonious intent/criminal purpose
    • no mens rea to committ burglary
  3. Etzweiler
    • convicted of accomplice to negligent homicide
    • he gave keys to drunk friend
    • court found accomplice can't intend to something the principal isn't aware of
    • (negligence is unawareness of risks when one should otherwise be aware
  4. Strawman State v. Moore
    • facilitation:
    • buyers/sellers lie with intent for someone to illegally possess a firearm
    • mother in case pawned boombox with knowledge that funds would be used to purchase
    • neighbor "grandpa" purchased gun
    • used to kill a cop, mother was found to be an accomplice to "making a false statement"
  5. Christy Pontiac
    • Respondeat Superior
    • Dealer responsible for salesman's acts when they were
    • "acting in the capacity/scope of their employment"
  6. Hilton Hotels
    • HH found liable for employees violation of Sherman Antitrust Act despite company policy
    • against behavior
    • Enterprise stood to gain from the boycott, did not "try hard enough" policy wasn't backed up
    • by meaningful enforcement
  7. Francis v. Franklin
    • malice murder, prisoner escapes therefrom
    • points gun at door, gun accidentally goes off
    • jury instructions "person is presumed to intend..." violated due process
    • state must prove intent as an element of second degree murder
  8. Watson
    • premeditation, Watson killed a cop in a split second
    • time elapsed sufficient to allow inference of premeditation
    • jury could disbelieve d.'s claim he shot in a panic
  9. Walker
    • slit belligerent drunk's throat after he attaced first
    • even though the deceased was knocked out, occured in the heat of the fight
    • "furor brevis"
    • therefore voluntary manslaughter not 2nd d. murder
  10. Rowland
    • killed his wife and her "paramour" while they were committing act of adultery
    • (paramour was fleeing the house in his pajamas)
    • manslaughter b/c committed in heat of passion
  11. Wu
    • convicted of 2nd degree murder killing her son
    • cultural norms lead to emotional disturbance
    • experts claimed she was in a fugue state with no conscious thought
    • court ruled culture could be used to support theory of mental state
  12. Welansky
    • owner of nightclub, convicted of wanton/reckless conduct when club burned down
    • was not present night of fire, but knew about blocked exits, inadequate exits
    • knowingly increased the risk of harm
  13. Williams
    • native american couple failed to seek medical attention for sick infant who subsequently died
    • convicted of manslaughter (negligence)
    • application of standard of ordinary caution by a man of "ordinary prudence"
    • cultural/social context not relevant
  14. Mayes
    • threw beer at wife, hit oil lamp, she was severely burned and died one week later
    • Mayes convicted of murder
    • malice could be inferred from circumstance, e.g. act was unprovoked and unlawful
    • he showed an abandoned and malignant heart
  15. Hickman
    • felony murder rule
    • one cop shot another cop while Hickman was escaping from a burglary
    • foreseeable and reasonable that burglary could turn violent
    • criminal is responsible for innocent's death even if they themselves don't commit the act
  16. Brown
    • rape element of resistance
    • farmhand rapes teenage girl crossing field
    • covers her mouth, she screams and tries to get away
    • court finds that she did not try hard enough
  17. Dorsey
    • D. traps victim in elevator by hitting button
    • threat did not have to be explicit, requirement of utmost resistance done away with
    • common sense supports victim's assertion that she had no choice
    • act of stopping elevator constitutes force
  18. Barnes
    • met up for weed deal, wouldn't let victim leave
    • victim's belief could be found to be reasonable based on his actions of rearing up
    • and his statements that she would "make him angry"
    • again an implicit threat
  19. Interest of MTS
    • New Jersey 1992
    • juvenile convicted of sexual assault
    • consent must be freely givn and affirmative i.e. the absence of non-consent is not consent
    • penetrated her while she was asleep
    • force in the statute consists of the act of penetration in and of itself without consent
  20. Moorman
    • North Carolina 1987
    • victim asleep in dorm room, he claimed she appeared to consent, he thought she was someonelse,
    • conviction upheld, force and nonconsent satisfied elements of sexual assault
  21. Boro
    • california 1985
    • Def. pretended to be Dr. and claimed victim would die if she didn't have sex with him
    • as long as victim understood nature of act, was not rape
    • rape by fraud only if in factum
  22. Liberta
    • PA Lafayette dorm room, claimed he believed he had consent due to previous encounter/ it was reasonable for
    • him to believe he had it
    • Wiliams established reasonable belief is not a defense to rape
    • element is actual lack of consent, not state of mind of defendant
  23. Mitchneck
    • PA 1938
    • owneer of mine withheld wages from employees to pay third party, did not pay
    • M.owed money to third party, not employees
    • court held not fraudulent conversion b/c statute not intended to cover civil
  24. Carrier who broke bulk
    • star chamber 1473
    • carrier broke apart bale of woad (dye)
    • larceny required the taking to be trespassory, or without owners consent
    • only when he broke bulk did trespass occur, since he did not have permission to do so
    • thus, if he had sold the entire bail it would not have constituted a felony
  25. Rex v. Chisser
    • even though shop owner gave chisser the tie, they were not out of her possession
    • possession continues until the perfection of the contract
    • thus, by taking the tie without her permission committed larceny felleo animo (he fled)
  26. King v. Pear
    • because contract for the rental of the horse was entered into under false pretenses,
    • i.e. he intended all along to steal the horse, it was felony
    • if he had decided afterward to sell the horse, it would not have been
  27. Sattlekau
    • New York 1907
    • told victim he wanted to marry her, needed 1000 to buy hotel
    • falsely claimed ownership of hotel (hotel does not exist)
    • convicted of grand larceny
    • i. made false assertions about current facts
    • ii. victim believed and relied upon those assertions in parting with her money
  28. Rybicki
    • theft of honest services
    • two lawyers in New YOrk deprived insurance companies of the honest services of their employees
    • (adjusters) by bribing them for expedited processing of claims
    • materially ommitted information (existence of the bribes)
  29. McCormick
    • can public officials be convicted of 'extortion under color of official right'
    • M. recieved money from foreign doctors/ induced payment to support registration allowing them to
    • practice without passing licensing exams
    • court held that, to prove extortion under color of official right, state must demonstrate quid pro quo
  30. Dudley and Stevens
    • necessity, starving at sea, ate the cabin boy
    • d's argued wasn't murder to kill an innocent to save own life
    • court rejected notion, self defense only against an agressor, not an innocent
    • quoted Milton "with necessity, The tyrant's plea..." feared changing definition of murder
    • appealed to Christian duty to self sacrifice
  31. Unger
    • charged with crime of escape, jury had been instructed that necessity was not a defense
    • Unger claimed he escaped to avoid being sexually assaulted
    • validity of necessity claim can be decided by jury
  32. Warshow
    • demonstrators against power plants argued necessity (charge of unlawful trespass)
    • necessity is not a defense when the emergency is not imminent and immediate
    • defendants can't circumvent policy choices already made by legislature
  33. La Voie
    • defendant was accosted by thugs who rammed his car, stopped and defendant got out
    • one of the thugs was moving toward him in a menacing way, La Voie shot and killed him
    • Court affirmed judge directed verdict of not guilty
  34. Gleghorn
    • Gleghorn entered victim's abode (loft in a barn) with announced purpose to kill him
    • sets fire to him, gets shot with arrow, then kills victim
    • claims self defense, but court rejects because victim was justified
    • or because Gleghorn continued to beat victim after he was incapacitated
  35. Leidholm
    • L killed her abusive spouse
    • raised battered wife syndrome as part of her belief that killing was justified
    • self defense if belief reasonable, manslaughter if belief unreasonable/reckless, 2nd degree
    • murder or negligent homicide if belief held negligently
  36. Goetz
    • subway case
    • youths surrounded him on subway, said give me five dollars, no weapon displayed
    • Goetz shot and paralyzed one of the boys
    • race played a role, Goetz had been mugged before- he stated he wanted to punish them, make them suffer
    • appellate court quashed grand jury indictment
    • held that use of reasonable man standard introduced objective standard
    • court held appellate ruling in error, reasonableness is objective, remanded for trial
  37. Garner
    • police officer shot suspect in the back while he was fleeing
    • SCOTUS held force used by law enforcement subject to reasonable search and seizures 4a
    • totality of the circumstances did not justify, i.e. suspect was unarmed and not a threat
  38. Serravo
    • insanity
    • stabbed his wife because god told him so
    • incapable of distinguishing right from wrong includes a person who believes their conduct is
    • morally right even if they know it is criminal
    • m'naghten rule still punishable if def. knows act is criminal even if acting under a delusion
    • deific decree exception, if the delusion destroys defendant's ability to discern morality
    • if the delusion merely relates to a state of affairs but the defendant can still appreciate the
    • moral wrongness of his actions he can be found guilty
  39. Smith
    • private on military base diagnosed with schizophrenia shot and seriously injured officer
    • charge with shooting with intent to kill wound or maim
    • court found sufficient evidence that because he was at times able to act rationally towards his
    • goal and conform to the law he was legally sane when he shot officer, even though he was acting under
    • a delusion and his goals were not reasonable