Busy. Please wait.
Log in with Clever

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
Sign up using Clever

Username is available taken
show password

Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
Your email address is only used to allow you to reset your password. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.
Didn't know it?
click below
Knew it?
click below
Don't know
Remaining cards (0)
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

Criminal Law

Criminal Law (fab5)

Principles of Punishment 1. Retribution 2. Utilitarian - General deterrence -Specific deterrence -incapacitation
Retribution People who choose to do wrong deserve to be punished
Utilitarian general punishment will deter the public from committing crimes
Incapacitation incapacitates people who would likely commit a further offense if they were free
General deterrence aim is to deter general public from committing a crime by making them fear the punishment
Specific deterrence aim is to deter a specific person from committing another crime
Rehabilitation rehabilitate offender in an attempt to take away offenders desire to commit crime
Limits on Courts 1. Legality Principle 2. Void for Vagueness 3. Strict Construction (lenity)
Legality Principle before individuals can be convicted of a crime, the conduct must be prohibited by legislature
Void for vagueness statues must be clear enough that a person of average intelligence can determine what conduct is prohibited
Strict construction (Rule of lenity) when a statute is vague or ambiguous the statue must be read in the light most favorable to the defendant
Vague statue does not adequately define prohibited conduct, person of ordinary intelligence is obliged to guess as to what conduct is prohibited
Ambiguous statue defines the prohibited conduct with some specificity yet is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations
Actus Reas A guilty act. Consists of a voluntary act or omission that causes social harm
Social harm (material elements of Actus Reas) MPC Consists of 1.Conduct- physical behavior of defendant 2.result-consequence or outcome of defendants conduct 3.attendant circumstance- objective fact or condition that exists in the real world at the time of the defendants conduct
Actus Reas exceptions involuntary acts: relfex, convulsion, movements during sleep, involuntary intoxication, unconscious movements MPC- movements under hypnosis * unconsciousness due to medical illness must be due to unknown or unexpected illness
Mens Rea MPC Purposely, Knowingly, Recklessly, Negligently
Mens Rea CL (1) Intent (2) Knowledge (3) recklessness
Mens Rea CL Intent Specific - crime requires defendant to want his conduct to bring about a specific result General- crime only requires commission of an unlawful act
Willfull blindness intentionally keeping oneself unaware of the facts of a crime to avoid liability
Transferred Intent When a victim other than the one intended is injured the defendants intent transfers to the new victim
Strict Liability Crime that requires no mens rea. - Statutory rape -Bigamy -Regulations *defenses that would negate state of mind are not available *Under MPC only fines no imprisonment
Mistake of Fact When D misunderstands some fact that negates an element of the crime (Pick-pocketing someone with empty pockets)
Mistake of Law D misunderstands the law as it existed at the time (D thought he was smuggling cocaine over the border but it was powdered sugar)
Mistake as defense Specific intent crime- MOF is defense if M is reasonable or unreasonable, MOL is defense if mistake if reasonable or unreasonable General intent crime- MOF is a defense if M is reasonable but cannot be a legal or moral wrong MOL is not a defense
Moral wrong Doctrine The moral wrong doctrine holds that even when there is no mens rea for the actus reus, there is still culpability if the person's act is a violation of a MORAL teaching.
Legal wrong doctrine f the D knows from he is engaged in a criminal act, he may be convicted of the more serious crime of which he is a factually guilty.
Causation CL 1) Cause in Fact- but for the defendants conduct the harm would not have occurred 2) Proximate Cause- Doctrine used to determine whether D should be held criminally responsible for causing the harm
Proximate Cause CL 1) Foreseeability Test: must determine whether the actor was the dirct cause of the harm - dependent intervening cause -independent intervening cause
Dependent intervening cause intended or foreseeable by the defendant, sufficiently related, fact that another causal agent contributed to the result will not relieve D of liability
Independent intervening cause Caused harm in unexpected manner, not intended or foreseeable, breaks chain of events, relieves defendant of liability from original conduct
Actual cause MPC "but for"- harm would not have occurred but for D's conduct
Acceleration cause (cl) victim died sooner than they would have without D's conduct
Concurrent causes (cl) two D's injure P at same time but either conduct was sufficient to cause P's harm
Multiple causes (cl) when two potential defendants are the actual cause of plaintiffs harm
Proximate cause MPC Not established purp/know- causation not established if the harm would have occurred without D's conduct Reck/Neg- Causation not established if result not within the risk the actor was or should have been aware of
Direct cause when the defendant's conduct was the direct cause of the plaintiffs harm
Homicide CL Unjustified and unexcused killing of a human being
Homicide MPC Purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently causes the death of another human being
Murder CL Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought
malice aforethought 1. intent to kill; 2. intent to inflict great bodily harm; 3. an extreme and recklessness disregard for human life; or 4. intent to commit an inherently dangerous felony
First-degree murder CL Unlawful premeditated and deliberate killing
Second-degree murder CL intentionally killing without premeditation and deliberation - depraved heart killing -death occurring during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony (felony murder)
Depraved heart killing extreme reckless murder- unintentional killing resulting from conduct involving wanton indifference to human life and a conscious disregard or an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury
Aggravation Doctirnes move some unintentional homicides (manslaughter) to murder - depraved hear -abandoned and malignant heat -Felony Murder
Mitigation Doctirnes moves some intentional homicides (murder) to manslaughter - heat of passion -extreme emotional disturbance -diminished capacity
Murder MPC 1. Purposely or knowlingly kills another human being 2. Recklessly kills another human being by manifesting extreme indifference to human life
Voluntary Manslaughter CL homicide without malice aforethought upon sudden heat of passion due to reasonable provocation - provocation caused by victim -no "cooling off" time between provocation and death -mere words insufficient for provocation
Involuntary manslaughter CL 1. death caused by criminal negligence 2. death caused by an unlawful act 3. misdemeanor manslaughter - treats unintended killing during a misdemeanor as manslaughter
Manslaughter MPC -recklessly causes death of another human being -committed under extreme mental disturbance with reasonable explanation
Negligent Homicide MPC Negligently causes death of another human being
Self-defense person has reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm may use amount of force necessary to prevent such harm *may use DF if confronted with DF
Self- defense Retreat MPC No duty to retreat
Self-Defense Retreat CL No retreat is necessary: 1. unless it can be made in complete safety 2. where attack happens in ones home 3. while victim is making lawful arrest 4. where assailant is robbing the victim
Right of Aggressor in self-defense an agressor who in good faith attempts to remove herself from fight and communicates attempt to other person regains their right to use of force in self-defense
Imperfect self-defense when person claiming self defense unjustifiably kills the attacker. Defendant honestly but unreasonable believes deadly force is required. Moves murder down to manslaughter
Battered women syndrome mental disorder that develops in victims of long-term domestic abuse. Leads to learned helplessness leading battered women to stay in abusive relationships
Defense of Others person has right to defend others under the same circumstances that self-defense would be acceptable
Defense of property reasonable, NON-DEADLY force is justified in defending ones property from theft, destruction, or trespass where defendant has reasonable belief that property is in immediate danger
Defense of Habitation (use of deadly force) Early- to prevent entry Middle-to prevent entry to commit felony or injure occupant Narrow- to prevent entry to commit serious felony and serious death or injury to occupants
Necessity Criminal conduct justifiable if as a result of pressure from natural forces D reasonably believed their conduct was necessary to avoid harm to self or society *no less harmful alternative available *not a defense to murder can't trade life for life
Duress A third-party's unlawfull threat causes D to reasonably believe that the only way to avoid death or serious bodily injury is to violate the law. No escape opp. D fear of harm needs to be actual and reasonable *no defense to intentional murder
Insanity Tests 1) M'Naughton 2) Irresistible impulse 3) Durham 4) Federal Test 5) MPC test
M'Naughton Test Defect of reason caused D to not know the nature or quality of the act he was doing or he did not know that what he was doing was wrong
Irresistible Impulse D lacked the capacity for self-control and free choice because of mental disease or defect
Durham D's act was the product of the mental disease or defect and would not have been committed but for the disease or defect
MPC insanity test at the time of the conduct as a result of the mental disease or defect D did not have a substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to conform to the conduct of the law
Federal insanity Test the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.
Voluntary intoxication -Not a defense to a general intent crime -defense to specific intent crime if intoxication prevents defendant from formulating requisite intent
Involuntary intoxication defense to both specific and general intent crimes
Attempt CL Tests What remains to be done? 1. Proximity Test 2. Unequivocally Test 3. Last Act 4. Equivocally Test
Proximity test conduct must be physically proximate to the intended crime - physically close to the victim - set in motion chain of events that created high probability that the crime would be completed
Unequivocally test an act amounts to attempt only if if firmly shows D's intent to commit the crime
Last Act test favorable to D, must have taken very last step within his power to commit the target offense. Only after the actor has taken the last step and events were out of his control could be be convicted
Equivocally test Prosecutor can't use any other evidence such as confession, diary, or other statements to prove the actor was implementing a criminal act
Attempt MPC Overt act with a specific intent to commit a crime coupled with a substantial step beyond mere preparation (what has been done?)
Attempt Defenses Legal Impossibility- Complete defense Factual impossibility- No defense Abandonment- Not CL defense Renunciation- MPC defense if it was voluntary and complete
Conspiracy Agreement between two or more people to accomplish and unlawful purpose with the intent to accomplish that purpose
Conspiracy CL Agreement is enough under CL to be convicted of conspiracy *can be convicted of conspiracy of target offense and of target offense
Pinkerton Test (CL) conspirator may be held liable for criminal offenses committed by a co-conspirator that are within the scope of the conspiracy, are in furtherance of it, and are reasonably foreseeable as a necessary or natural consequence of the conspiracy.
Unilateral Conspiracy (MPC) vs. Bilateral Conspiracy (CL) Unilateral- needs one person with mens rea to be convicted of conspiracy Bilateral- Need TRUE agreement between two or more people
Wharton's Rule if crime requires two or more participants there is no conspiracy unless more parties than are necessary to complete the crime agree to commit the crime
Conspiracy merger if one is convicted of a misdemeanor and a felony the misdemeanor merges into the felony and the person can only be convicted of the felony
Legislative Exemption rule conspiracy when purpose of criminal statute is to protect a type of person there is no conspiracy between protected party and the targeted defendant *underage girl cannot be convicted of conspiracy for statutory rape
Conspiracy MPC Overt act necessary for conviction. Overt act can be carried out by any co-conspirator and may be lawful or unlawful
Conspiracy Defense Withdrawal- Not CL defense Renunciation to thwart conspiracy - MPC defense if done between agreement and overt act, notice is communicated between co-conspirators, or the police are noticed in a timely manner
Accomplice Liability Broad doctrine that imposes criminal responsibility on individuals for a crime committed by someone else
Accomplice Liability CL Intentional/ Purposeful Conduct required 1st- perpetrator of the crime 2nd- incites or abets and is present at the time of the crime ABTF- incites or abets but is not present at time of crime AATF- intentionally assists 1st after the crime
Accomplice Liability MPC Purposeful Conduct Required 1st- acts with requisite mens rea actually engages in the act (himself or through innocent agent) or commission that that causes the crime accomplice- incites or abets w/ requisite intent before or during commission of the
Accomplice Objective elements CL vs. MPC CL- Aid, assist encourage MPC- Aid or agree or attempt to aid
Accomplice Liability Defense Withdrawal before P commits offense and: Cl- inform P not to commit and do everything possible to render aid already given ineffective MPC- Completely deprive aid of effectiveness, give timely warning to police, or make effort to prevent crime
Created by: hockley2
Popular Law sets




Use these flashcards to help memorize information. Look at the large card and try to recall what is on the other side. Then click the card to flip it. If you knew the answer, click the green Know box. Otherwise, click the red Don't know box.

When you've placed seven or more cards in the Don't know box, click "retry" to try those cards again.

If you've accidentally put the card in the wrong box, just click on the card to take it out of the box.

You can also use your keyboard to move the cards as follows:

If you are logged in to your account, this website will remember which cards you know and don't know so that they are in the same box the next time you log in.

When you need a break, try one of the other activities listed below the flashcards like Matching, Snowman, or Hungry Bug. Although it may feel like you're playing a game, your brain is still making more connections with the information to help you out.

To see how well you know the information, try the Quiz or Test activity.

Pass complete!
"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
restart all cards