Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
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
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Criminal Law
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Homicide | Usually broken up into Murder and Manslaughter. Elements: 1)unlawful, 2)killing, 3)of a human being (several types of homicide) |
| Murder | Most egregious form of killing. Mens rea required is intent, purposeful, or knowing. |
| Intentional Murder | Elements: 1)intentional, 2)killing, 3)of a human being. Person must actually die! |
| Felony Murder | Elements: 1)unintentional, 2)killing, 3) of a human being, 4)during the commission of a dangerous felony. Ex; while robbing a bank you shoot your gun to intimidate the teller and end up hitting a bystander and killing them |
| Depraved Indifference Murder | An extreme form of reckless homicide. Actor engages in conduct despite being aware that the risk of killing someone is very great and very unjustified and he causes death as a result. |
| Voluntary Manslaughter | Intentional killing. We are concerned with two types: heat of passion and extremely reckless homicide. |
| Involuntary Manslaughter | Unintentional killing. We are concerned with two types: reckless homicide and negligent homicide. |
| Reckless Homicide (Involuntary Manslaughter) | crimes that involve causing a death without the intent to kill but that are very reckless; similar to extremely reckless homicide just less severe. Elements: 1)reckless, 2)killing, 3)of a human being. |
| Negligent Homicide (Involuntary Manslaughter) | Elements: 1)Negligent , 2)Killing , 3)Of a human being. Requisite Mens Rea: Negligence. |
| Heat of Passion (Voluntary Manslaughter) | An intentional killing due to sudden understandable impulse. Moral outrage; fleeting fury. Renders the killing less blameworthy than a traditional intentional premeditated murder. Ex: walk in on spouse cheating. |
| Extremely Reckless Homicide (Voluntary Manslaughter) | Treated as equivalent to an intentional murder; commonly called depraved indifference or depraved heart murder, or extremely reckless murder. Requisite Mens Rea: Reckless. The actor knew of the danger and did it anyways. |
| Defenses Defined | Legal arguments used to challenge prosecutions claims and avoid or reduce the severity of a conviction or to negate elements of a crime and elapse criminal liability. |
| Self-defense defined | Reasonably perceived imminent threat to life or limb of an innocent person. Turns on reasonableness. Was the force reasonably necessary? Was the threat imminent? Makes killing lawful if yes! |
| Insanity Defined | Actor is incapable of appreciating the nature or wrongfulness of his conduct as a result of mental disease or defect. Voluntary intoxication does not count. Rationale for insanity is that the actor cannot understand what he did was wrong. |
| Entrapment Defined | Government induces a person to commit a crime that they were otherwise not predisposed to commit. It must be a gov official or agent who induces the crime. Ex; gov official is forcing you to buy drugs or do something illegal. |
| Heat of Passion Defined | Considers both the subjective experience of the defendant and a reasonable person standard. May lower charge from murder to manslaughter. Negates the element of malice! |
| Traditional Rape Elements | 1)sexual intercourse (actual penetration) 2)w/ another person, 3)by means of physical force or violence, 4)against the other persons will |
| Modern Rape Elements | (Forcible Rape) Elements: 1)sex (often times vaginal sex penetration but could be slew of things, look at the statute), 2)w/ another person, 3)by means of force, 4)w/o consent |
| Statutory Rape Elements | Individual is of a certain age as per the statute. Strict liability crime. |
| Involuntary Rape Elements | Sex with someone who is unconscious or incapable of consenting due to some mental disease or defect |
| Each crime is comprised of 4 main Elements which are: | 1)Actus reus, 2)mens rea, 3)causation, and 4)concurrence |
| Is failure to act a crime? | Only in certain circumstances ! Only if duty to act is bc of special relationships or in other limited circumstances |
| Actus Reus Defined | "guilty act". The illegal act the person commits. Physical act or omission. |
| Mens rea Defined | Refers to criminal intent or state of mind of a person accused of a crime. Establish the guilt of defendant by certain criteria. Used to determine what charges a person can face in court. |
| 4 Mental States: | Specific Intent, General Intent, Malice, and Strict Liability. |
| Specific Intent (Prof says don't use in practice but understand) | Defendant must have the intent or desire to engage in the conduct or cause a certain result. Usually found in statute explicitly. |
| General Intent (Prof says dont use in practice but understand) | Defendant must be aware they're acting in a certain way. |
| Malice Defined | Reckless disregard of a known risk that harm may occur. |
| Strict Liability | No mental state is required at all only the actus reus |
| Causation Defined | Causal relationship between the defendants conduct and the resulting harm or consequence. Link that connects a specific action to a specific outcome, establishing whether the defendants actions directly led to the harm in question. 2 Types. |
| Actual Causation | Factual causation or cause in fact. Asks "but for" the defendants actions would the harm have occurred or not. If harm wouldn't have happened w/o the defendants action than actual causation is established |
| Proximate Causation | Establishes a sufficient and direct link between defendants actions and resulting harm to hold them liable. Asks if harm was a as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of D's actions even if not direct or first cause. |
| Concurrence Defined | Mens rea and actus reps must be proved by the prosecutor and proved to have occurred at the same time. |
| Rule of Lenity | General rule is that if there is an ambiguity it is to be construed against the government and for the defendant. It raises questions about possible ex post facto |
| Assault Defined | Unlawful application of force to another person |
| Aggravated Assault | Assault plus some aggravating factor (defined by statute) Ex; using a deadly weapon like a gun |
| Property Crimes Defined (concerned w/ 3 Types) | Crimes against peoples property. Primarily concerned with larceny, larceny by false pretenses, and larceny by embezzlement. |
| Larceny | Elements: 1) unlawful taking and carrying away of another's property, 2)intent, 3)to deprive permantley , ie stealing ! |
| Larceny by False Pretenses | Actor obtains the owners property by defrauding them (lying to them). Victim is being deceived. Not taking unlawfully but obtaining (keeping) it unlawfully which is just as bad was larceny. |
| Larceny of Embezzlement | Lawfully taking but unlawfully keeping. Ex; store employee receives a purchase and uses the money to buy himself lunch. |
| Robbery | Elements: 1)Larceny (stealing) , 2)by force or threat of force. |
| Aggravated Robbery | Aggravating factors that the robbery even worse. Check statute of aggravating factors. For his exams he usually give you what the statute is. |
| Burglary | Elements: 1)unlawful entry into a building and 2)w/intent to commit a felony inside (does not need to actually commit a felony inside (does not need to actually commit a felony, but only intend to do so). Only requires a criminal trespass and commit crime |
| Aggravated Burglary | Some factor in the statute that makes the burglary worse. Ex; a residence, a night, etc. |
| Attempt | Trying to commit a crime. The trying is the crime. 1)intentional/purposeful (mens rea) and 2) a substantial act in furtherance of that intent |
| Impossibility of Fact | Some facts prevent the completion of the crime which was impossible to commit. Ask does your mistake of a fact negate the required mens rea. Some judges will say that your mistake must be reasonable and therefore lowered the mens rea to negligence. |
| Inherent Impossibility | Actor tried to do something that would be a crime but does so in a way by its very nature that makes the crime impossible. |
| Impossibility of Law | Marreo case- sometimes it’s a defense; if the law requires that the person know the law in order to violate it then they must know. |
| Conspiracy | Element: 1)a serious agreement to engage in some crime and 2)some overt step towards completion of the crime and must show actor was serious about the crime but not more than that |
| Accomplice | Elements: 1)a person who intends to help , 2)with the commission of the crime itself . Must be during the actual crime. |
| Accessory | Not as guilty as the primary actor. This person did something to help with the crime usually before or after the crime. |
| People v. Zackowitz | Should the prosecution have allowed the evidence that the defendant owned a lot of firearms into court? Court says that they don't exclude evidence such as the defendant owned a lot of guns unless its prejudicial. |
| Duncan v. Louisiana | Right to a jury trial imposed to fed gov through the 6th amendment and applies to the states through the 14th amendments due process clause. |
| Nix vs. Whiteside | SCOTUS uses a two prong test to decided on the issue of whether defense counsel is ineffective. 1)Did the attorney commit serious error and 2)did the error prejudice the defendant |
| Martin v. State | Must be defendants own conduct! It was not the defendants own conduct it was the police officer who forcibly brought him on the highway when he was drunk and this is considered entrapment! |
| Jones v. United States | Jones was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter bc she didn't do anything to make sure that a child was taken care of and the baby died. In general, the failure to help someone is not a crime unless there's some independent legal duty to act |
| Jewell case | Ignorance of the law is not always bliss or a defense to a crime |
| Global-Tech case | Willful blindness; 1)deliberately avoids knowledge of something or 2)fails to make reasonable inquiry when they're suspicious or away of a high probability of wrongdoing, effectively acting as if they are unaware to avoid legal repercussions |
| Giovannetti case | Ostrich instruction. Applies when defendant tries to avoid learning the truth, takes steps to ensure he doesn't know about it. |
| People v. Olsen | strict liability is generally disfavored in criminal law |
| Kahler v. Kanas | insanity defense is in place to ensure that someone who has a disability; who does not have he requisite mens rea cannot be held guilty if proven negates mens rea |
| Morissette v. US | Defendant needed to know it was government property. Needed mens rea! |
| Parilla case | What if any mens rea in regard to the element that it is a gravity knife- court says just possession, the fact that the defendant did not know it was a gravity knife does not matter. Decision of the court was wrong! |
| People v. Marrero | Court interpreted a fed corrections officer to not fall under the exemption of the statute to allow him to carry a gun. Court held it against Marrero for not knowing that he didn't fall under the class of the statute |
| Papachristou case | FL made it against the law to be a vagrant. If a criminal statute fails to provide fair notice of what conduct it prohibits or encourages arbitrary enforcement, then it's unconstitutionally vague. |
| Inchoate defined | offenses that are initiated but not completed, meaning they involve preparatory actions towards committing a crime but the crime itself hasn't even fully executed. |
| ex post facto defined | A law that retroactively criminalizes conduct that was legal when it was committed or increased the punishment for a crime already committed or changes the rules of evidence to make it easier to convict a person. "After the fact" |
| vagrancy laws defined | Generally criminalize being w/o a fixed residence or visible means of support often associated with poverty. |
| possession of weapons alone is not enough to prove mens rea for murder. | true! |
| In Re Winship case | established the standard of proof for convictions in state court as beyond a reasonable doubt. The government cannot punish someone unless they know for sure that person is guilty. |
| Dougherty case | JURY NULLIFICATION: Majority law: Never tell the jury about jury nullification, “juries know they have this power anyway” and if we tell them it will create anarchy. |
| Reasons for punishment: (4) | 1)deterrence, 2)retribution, 3)incapacitation 4)rehabitialtation |
| Rehabilitation - Reduces recidivism | True! |
| What can be punished? | Anything that presents a danger to public health, safety, and welfare, as long as it does not infringe upon fundamental rights. |
| Elonis case | Scienter requirement: criminal statutes include broadly applicable scienter requirements. The question was not about intent to transmit, but whether the defendant is at least aware that it was a threat. |
| State v. DeLawder | In order for a plaintiff’s past sexual conduct to be brought up in court, there must be a genuine reason. |
| State v. Guminga | Speeding is a strict liability crime. |
Created by:
kfott783
Popular Law sets