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
Helix: Criminal Law
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Elements of a crime | Prima Facie Case: Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Concurrence + Causation |
| Actus rea | voluntary affirmative act or a failure to act when a legal duty exists. |
| legal duty exists | statute or law requires, relationship between the defendant and the victim, contract obligate, defendant voluntarily assumes a duty and excludes others from helping; or (5) The defendant created the risk of harm, whether or not the defendant was at fau |
| Mens rea | required mental state of mind. |
| MR:CL | General Intent: Crimes that require the intent to commit the actus reus, but not the result. o Specific Intent: Crimes that require a specific state of mind related to the resulting crime |
| MR:MPC | Purposely:. o Knowledge: o Willful Blindness: o Recklessness: o Negligence: |
| MRR:MPC: Purposefully | The defendant’s conscious or primary objective was to cause the relevant harm |
| MR:MPC: Knowledge | defendant was practically certain that the harm would result. |
| MR:MPC: Willful Blindness | mental state for knowledge is satisfied if the defendant was reckless and took deliberate steps to avoid learning the truth. |
| MR:MPC: Recklessness | defendant was aware of a substantial and unjustified risk that the harm would occur; the risk must be significant and not warranted under the circumstances. |
| MR:MPC: Negligence | defendant’s failure to perceive a substantial and unjustified risk that the harm would occur was a substantial deviation from the standard of care. |
| Transfered intent | CL and the MPC, a defendant’s intentional mens rea can transfer to an unintended victim if the defendant’s actus reus resulted in the same or similar crime as the intended crime; transferred intent only applies to completed crimes, not attempted crime |
| Strict Liability | Crimes that require no mens rea. |
| Vicarious Liability | efendant can be responsible for the actions of another under the theories of conspiracy liability, accomplice liability, and felony murder. |
| Concurrence | e defendant must have the required mens rea at the time the defendant acts |
| causation | or completed crimes, the defendant’s act must be the actual and proximate cause of the victim’s harm; this is not required for inchoate offenses. |
| Actual cause | he defendant’s act must be the but-for cause of the harm or be a substantial factor in producing the harm. |
| Proximate Cause | e harm was the direct and natural result of the defendant’s actus reus |
| Intervening events | If an event occurs between the defendant’s act and the eventual harm, the event becomes a superseding cause that breaks the causal chain if the event was not foreseeable |
| Homicide | |
| Common Law Murder | nlawful killing of another human- satisfied if the defendant has one of the four mental states: (1) intent to kill, (2) intent to inflict serious bodily harm, (3) extreme recklessness (depraved heart murder), or (4) felony murder. |
| intent to kill | Requires the defendant (1) to have the conscious objective or purpose to cause death or (2) be substantially certain the death would result. |
| Extreame Recklessness | Requires the defendant to (1) be consciously aware of a substantial and unjustified risk that the death will result from the defendant’s actions, and (2) engage in behavior that exhibits a complete lack of care for human life. |
| Felony Murder | Applies if five requirements are met: |
| FM: | Five requriments - during, mens rea for underlying felony, inherently dangerous, independta, forseeable- agency or proximate cause |
| first degree | 1) An intentional killing with premeditation and deliberation, or (2) a killing that occurs during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony. |
| Second-degree | (1) An intentional killing without premeditation or deliberation, (2) an unintentional killing in which the defendant had intended to inflict serious or great bodily harm, or (3) depraved heart murder. |
| voluntary manslaughter | A killing (1) done in the heat of passion or (2) resulting from an imperfect use of self-defense. heat of passion |
| VM: imperfect self-defense | Occurs when either (1) the defendant feared imminent harm, but that fear was not reasonable; or (2) the defendant’s use of deadly force to prevent the harm was disproportionate |
| Involuntary Manslaugther | An unintentional killing that occurs (1) when the defendant recklessly or negligently causes the death or (2) during the commission of an unlawful act that does not qualify as an inherently dangerous felony recklessness- actually aware v. negligent-sh |
| MPC | |
| Murder | ncludes (1) all intentional killings, regardless of whether they were committed with premeditation and deliberation; and (2) killings done with extreme indifference, which include unintentional killings that occur during the commission of a felo |
| Manslaughter | es (1) killings done with recklessness and (2) killings under extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable justification or excuse. |
| Negligent omicide | killing done with criminal negligence |
| Larceny | (1) trespassory (i.e., unlawful) (2) taking and carrying away (3) of the personal property of another (4) with the intent to steal |
| L: Taking and carrying away | Requires some movement of the property away from its origin; applies if the defendant designates an agent to pick up the property. |
| L: Continuing trespass doctrine | a defendant’s initial conduct constitutes a trespassory taking and carrying away of property without the intent to steal it, but the defendant thereafter forms the requisite intent, the defendant will still be guilty of larceny |
| Larcey by trick | Includes the four elements of larceny but also requires an additional element: (5) the theft must be accomplished by the defendant’s fraud |
| Robbery | ncludes all four of the requirements of larceny and (5) the theft must be accomplished by use of actual physical force or the threat of force, and (6) the taking must be from the victim or the victim’s presence |
| False pretenses | 1) The defendant makes a fraudulent statement that (2) results in the victim passing title in the property to the defendant. |
| embezzlement | (1) The defendant is in lawful possession of another’s property (i.e., tangible or intangible) and (2) the defendant fraudulently converts the property to the defendant’s own use (3) with the intent to permanently deprive |
| receipt of stolen property | 1) The defendant knowingly received possession of, or retained possession of, property that (2) the defendant knows or believes was very likely obtained through a theft offense (3) with the intent to steal |
| Burglary | Under CL, requires (1) unlawfully breaking and entering (2) the dwelling house of another (3) with the intent to commit a felony therein (4) at nighttime Bkreaing and entering, dwelling, intent, nighttime |
| Kidnapping | 1) Unlawfully restraining and transporting a person (2) through force or the threat of force with at least recklessness or criminal negligence |
| K: Restraint and transportation | Physically moving the victim a substantial distance or actively concealing the victim, even if the victim is not moved from one location to another. |
| K: Force | Mere moral compulsion does not suffice; this requirement is not always required if the victim is vulnerable |
| Assualt | (1) Putting another in reasonable apprehension of imminent unlawful harm (acting with at least recklessness or criminal negligence), or (2) committing an attempted battery. |
| Battery | Causing another person an unlawful harmful or offensive contact (acting with at least recklessness or criminal negligence). |
| Rape | person commits rape when the person engages in (1) sexual intercourse (2) by force or the threat of force (3) without consent. (4) The state of mind required is recklessness or criminal negligence with respect to the victim’s consent |
| R: Sexual intercourse | At CL, this meant only vaginal intercourse; today, it means any kind of penetration (i.e., vaginal, oral, or anal). |
| R: Force or threat of force | At CL, considerable force was required; today, most jurisdictions only require a small amount of force. |
| R: Alternatives to force | force not required if the victim is intoxicated or unconscious; some include psychological or extreme emotional coercion; and a few jurisdictions have eliminated the force requirement and focus solely on consen |
| R: Without Consent | Consent can be conveyed verbally or through actions. A victim may be legally incapable of giving consent due to a mental deficiency or intoxication. The more force used, the stronger the inference is that the victim did not consent |
| R:fRAUD | If the defendant engaged in fraud in the factum then consent is not effective; but consent is effective if there was fraud in the inducement |
| Statutory Rape | erson commits statutory rape when the person has (1) sexual intercourse with (2) another person under the age of consent. In many jurisdictions, statutory rape is a strict liability crime, so it does not matter whether the defendant was aware of the age |
| Arson | 1) Maliciously (2) burning (3) the dwelling house of another; modern law expands house to personal property, structures other than dwelling houses, and certain forestland. |
| MPC Theft | nder the MPC, larceny, larceny by trick, false pretenses, and embezzlement are combined into one crime called “theft by unlawful taking or disposition.” |
| Defenses to crimes | |
| Insanity | defendant may meet the legal test for insanity where the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect, and as a result of the defect |
| I: M'naghten | 1) The defendant did not know the nature and quality of his actions, or (2) he did not know that what he was doing was wrong |
| I: Irrsistible impulse test | he defendant was (1) unable to control his conduct or (2) unable to conform his conduct to the law. |
| I: mpc | he defendant lacked substantial capacity to (1) appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or (2) conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. |
| I: Durham Rule | defendant committed the crime |
| competency to stand trial | f (1) fully understanding, both rationally and factually, the nature and significance of the trial proceedings and (2) properly assisting in the preparation of the defense A defendant found incompetent will likely be committed to a mental |
| Diminished Capacity | he defendant suffers from some mental disability that prevents the defendant from forming the required level of mens rea for a crime, the defendant may be acquitted for any crime under the MPC and specific-intent crimes under C |
| Infancy | young children cannot be criminally culpable because they lack the ability to form the requisite mens rea for criminal offenses; the MPC sets the age at 16 where a person is subject to criminal prosecution rather than juvenile adjudication. |
| Intoxication | Involuntary intoxication is a defense, but voluntary intoxication is often not a defense. |
| Intox: Involuntary | Applies if the defendant was unwittingly drugged or otherwise intoxicated against the defendant’s will where the effect was powerful enough to defeat the mens rea requirement. |
| Intox: Voluntary | not apply if the required mens rea was formed before intoxication. o CL: Applies to specific-intent crimes, but not general-intent or strict liability crimes. o MPC: Applies to a mental state of purpose or knowledge, but not recklessness or negligence. |
| consent | if (1) the person knowingly and voluntarily consents, and (2) an element of the offense involves an unlawful contact of another or taking of another’s property. The contact or taking is not unlawful defendant reasonably believes that it is permitted. |
| Consent: exceptions | Does not apply (1) to strict-liability offenses, (2) if the defendant exceeds the scope of consent, (3) if the harm is the infliction of serious bodily injury or death. |
| Self-defense | (a) must not be the aggressor or (b) must have regained the right, 2) must (a) honestly and (b) reasonably believe faces an (c) imminent threat of unlawful bodily contact, 3) must (a) honestly and (b) reasonably believe that the force used is reasonab |
| SD: Duty to retreat- deadly force | minority of jurisdictions, if deadly force is used, the defendant must retreat most- if deadly force is used, there is no duty to retreat if the defendant was lawfully standing in a place where the defendant had the right to be. |
| SD: Duty to retreat | (Nondeadly Force/Castle Doctrine): In all jurisdictions, there is no duty to retreat if nondeadly force is used or the defendant was in the defendant’s home or workplace. |
| Defense of others | the defendant (1) honestly and (2) reasonably believed (3) there was an imminent threat of unlawful bodily contact to another person and that the force used was necessary to prevent the threatened harm; works in the same manner as self-defense. |
| Defense of property | defendant (1) honestly and (2) reasonably believed there was an (3) imminent threat of unlawful intrusion or interference, and (4) the force used to prevent the harm was reasonable |
| DP: Deadly force | ever allowed to defend property unless the person is (1) defending the person’s dwelling and (2) reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent entry by an intruder who intends to commit a felony in the home or SBI |
| Arrest | (1) a law enforcement officer used force to effectuate a felony arrest, and (2) the individual is fleeing or poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to others. |
| Crime prevention | (1) a law enforcement officer or private person (2) used nondeadly force to prevent any felony (3) provided that the force used is reasonably necessary to prevent the crime. |
| Entrapment | if (1) the government (2) improperly induced or caused the defendant to commit the crime and (3) the defendant was not predisposed to commit it |
| Necessity | (1) the defendant’s action was taken to avoid significant harm, (2) there was no adequate legal alternative, and (3) the harm caused by the defendant’s action was less than the harm avoided |
| N: CL Exception | Necessity is not a defense to intentional killings or when the defendant was responsible for creating the situation. |
| N: MPC | Allows the possibility of a necessity defense to intentional killings, but not when the defendant was responsible for creating the situation. |
| Duress | elieved that (1) the defendant or another person faced an ongoing threat of death or serious bodily harm, and (2) the defendant could prevent the threatened harm only by carrying out the unlawful action with which the defendant is charged. |
| Duress: CL Exception | Duress is not a defense to intentional killings or when the defendant was responsible for creating the situation. |
| Duress: MPC | Duress is a defense to intentional killings and does not require the threat to be immediate or imminent, only that a reasonable person could not have resisted it. |
| Mistake of fact | not a defense, but the mistake of a material fact can negate the mens rea requirement |
| MF: Specific intent crime | mistake must be made in good faith. |
| MF: General- intent crime | mistake must (1) be made in good faith and (2) be reasonable. |
| Mistake of law | Ignorance or misinterpretation of the law will not shield the defendant from criminal liability, but it can negate the mens rea requirement |
| ML: Exceptions | 1) the defendant reasonably relies on a statute, administrative decision, official interpretation, or judicial decision that authorized the defendant’s conduct, but was later overturned or overruled; or (2) the law of charge not suffcetinyl published |
| Merger doctrine | merges with the greater offense where all the elements of the lesser offense are also elements of the greater offense ( A court must give a lesserincluded-offense instruction at a party’s request when evidence could lead the jury to rationally convict |
| Inchoate crimes | |
| Attempt | 1) Requires the purpose to commit the acts in question and the target offense and (2) conduct that goes beyond mere preparation to act in furtherance of the planned criminality. |
| A: Dangerous- proximiaty test | Dangerously close to completing the last act of a crime |
| A: Uneqivocal test | defendant’s actions unequivocally or unquestionably show an intent to commit the crime. |
| A: Substantial-step test | Requires a major step or action; preparatory steps are not sufficient. |
| Defenses to attempt: | |
| Legal impossibillity | defense at CL but not under the MPC; under the defense, the defendant believes the defendant is committing a crime, but the defendant’s actions do not constitute a crime. |
| Factual impossibility | not a defense where the defendant’s commission of the target offense is unsuccessful because of the erroneous belief about a factual circumstance related to the crime. |
| Abandonment | ot a defense at CL, but under the MPC, a defendant can avoid conviction if the defendant shows that the defendant (1) voluntarily and (2) completely abandoned the attempt before the last act. |
| solicitation | equires (1) purposeful promotion of criminal conduct and (2) communication (either oral or written) encouraging, commanding, or requesting another person to commit a crime. |
| S: Conduct | Under the MPC, the communication does not need to be heard or received by the intended recipient; but it does under CL. |
| S: Recipients actions | recipient does not need to respond to the defendant’s communication, or actually commit or agree to commit the crime. |
| Defense to soliictation | |
| DTS: Renunciation and withdrawal | defense under the MPC, but not under CL. The renunciation must be voluntary and complete, and the defendant must thwart the success of the criminal purpose. |
| DTS: Impossibility | Factual impossibility is not a defense, but legal impossibility is a defense under the common law. |
| Conspiracy | 1) An agreement to commit a crime, (2) with the purpose or conscious objective to enter into the agreement and commit a crime, and (3) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy are required under modern law |
| C: Agreement | an be express or implied. |
| C: Mens Rea | CL, at least two defendants must act with the purpose or conscious objective to commit the crime; under the MPC, only one defendant must act with the purpose to commit the crime |
| C:MR: Bumping | efendant may be guilty if the d knows services used to facilitate the commission of a crime and (1) there is direct evidence of participation, (2) the planned crime is aggravat or (3) the defendant has a special interest in the enterprise. |
| C:Overt Act | Any action, including mere preparation, by a conspiracy member is enough. |
| Defenses to conspiracy | |
| DC: Wharton's rule | the crime itself requires two parties for its commission, then there must be an agreement with at least one additional person other than the two persons required for the crime. |
| DC: Class protected | When the target offense is one that has been enacted to protect a class of persons from harm, a person within the protected class cannot be a member of the conspiracy. |
| DC: renunciation and withdrawal | nder the MPC, but not under CL; under the MPC, a defendant is not guilty of conspiracy if the defendant (1) renounces or abandons the plan voluntarily and completely and (2) thwarts the success of the conspiracy. |
| DC: Impossibility | Legal impossibility is a defense under the common law but not under the MPC. Factual impossibility is not a defense. |
| Merger Doctrines | Solicitation and attempt merge with the completed substantive crime. |
| Derivative Liability | |
| DL: conspiracy liability - pinkerton rule | e criminally liable for crimes in furtherance if the crime was (1) reasonably foreseeable and (2) in furtherance of the consp Statute of Limitations: terminates when (1) the crime’s objective is completed, or (2) bandons the agreement |
| DL: Defenses to conspiracy liability- renuciation and withdrawal | ndant (1) makes the defendant’s withdrawal known to all other coconspirators in advance of completion of an overt act, and (2) takes an affirmative action to negate any assistance that the defendant previously provided. |
| DL: Accomplice liabity | 1) purposely promotes the criminal conduct, (2) the accomplice has the same mens rea as would be required for commission of the crime, (3) the accomplice actually provided or attempted to provide assistance, and (4) the principal committe |
| DL:AL: Bumping knowlegde to purpose | defendant could be guilty if the defendant knows the defendant’s services are being used to facilitate the commission of a crime. |
| DL:AL: Assistance | defendant must provide aid, assistance, or encouragement through words or action; the defendant’s presence alone is not enough. |
| DL:AL: Accessory- after the fact | erson who helps the principal avoid capture or punishment after the crime has been committed cannot be convicted of the underlying substantive crime but may be convicted of a separate crime |
| DL:AL: Foreseeable crimes | defendant is an accomplice, the defendant is liable for any other offenses that are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the commission of the crime. |
| Defenses to accomplica liabity | |
| withdrawal | Is a defense if the defendant (1) withdraws her complicity before the principal commits the crime and (2) nullifies the help she gave. |
| Prinicpals actions | person cannot be guilty of a crime as an accomplice if there is no principal who committed the crime, but the principal does not need to be tried and convicted of the offense |
| class protected | A person within the protected class cannot be liable for a crime as an accomplice (e.g., a minor who is unable to consent to sexual intercourse) |
Created by:
Vanderhoof_