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
Crim law 3
crim law 3
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Mistake is for good/bad? Impossibility is for good/bad? | Mistake=good (didnt know it was a crime)Impossibility=bad (thought it was a crime) |
| C/L Mistake of Specific Intent Crime | Honest and negate the SI portion of the crime |
| C/L Mistake of GI Crime | Honest and reasonable. Not a crime as D believed them to be. Grading mistakes don't matter. |
| MPC Mistake | If it negated the MR requirements |
| Mistake of Criminal Law. Does MPC and C/L treat differently? | MPC- it's the same as Mistake of Fact. C/L- it's only a defense for SI crimes; NOT a defense for GI crimes. |
| c/l Mistake of Crim Law | Honest and negates the SI portion of the crime |
| Mistake of Crim Law for GI crime? | No defense |
| C/L Intoxication for GI crime? | No defense |
| C/L Intoxication for SI crime? | 3 Rules 1) Lack of capacity 2)Restrictive 3) Logical Relevance |
| MPC Intoxicaton | P or K crimes= logical relevance. No Def for R or N crimes |
| MPC Intoxication for R or N crimes | not much of a defense. either it was not self induce or it was pathological (took dayquill and didn't know it would do what it did to D) |
| MPC and C/L logical relevance for intoxication | If you were so intoxicated you didn't have the MR then a D. The burden of proof is on the D to show level of intoxication. Only for SI crimes in C/L or P/K in MPC |
| Can some elements of a crime have a MR and some be S/L? | yes |
| Does MPC have strict liability | for our purposes; No |
| S/L in C/L factors | Regulatory in nature, small severity of sentence, bad in and of itself (FM), or risk to other rights |
| C/L and MPC Actus Reus for attempt | C/L-3 tests MPC-substantial step strongly corroborates |
| C/L and MPC AR for conspiracy | C/L=bilateral agreement MPC=unilateral agreement+overt act |
| C/L adn MPC complicity | C/L=aids and abets MPC+P knowing OR providing successful aid=aids agrees to aid, attempts to aid (no need for P to know; no need to be successful) |
| MR for attempt (both) | C/L-MR for SI crime MPC=c-P, c-same and underlying crime, R-P |
| MR for conspiracy (both) | SI crime and stake in venture or K(+); MPC C-P, C-K, R-P |
| MR for complicity (both) | SI crime and stake in venture or K(+); MPC c-P, C-K, R- same as underlying crime |
| For Attempt, Conspiracy, and Complicity do you need the collateral purpose? | Yes |
| Liability for others in conspiracy (both) | C/L- crimes agreed to+those reasonably forseeable; MPC-crimes agreed to |
| Renunciation for attempt | C/L-none ; MPC abandon effort or otherwise prevent |
| Is renunciation a defense or is withdrawel a defesne | renunciation is a defense |
| Renunciation of conspiracy | C/L-none; MPC-thwart success AND completely renounce |
| Renunciation of complicity in C/L | C/L- tell others+render all aid ineffective by undoing what you did to become an accomplice |
| Renunciation of complicity in MPC | Terminate complicity+wholly deprive OR tell the cops OR other timeley efforts |
| Withdrawel for attempt/conspiracy/ or complicity? | Conspiracy. And it only makes sense to do it for C/L. |
| Withdrawel of conspiracy | C/L- tell others+timely (at least this stops Pinkerton Liability) MPC- advise co-conspirators or tell cops (this is your Defense for accoomplice, you have no defense against conspiracy unless you thwart the success. |
| Can you be guilty of an attempt to commit conspiracy? | No |
| C/L- Can you charge conspiracy, and co-conspirator of completed crime | yes (I think so) |
| C/L- Co-conspirator vs. accomplice | Co-Conspirator you need a unilateral agreement vs. Accomplics you need aid and abet; MR is the same but liability for other is greater b/c conspiracy has foressable crimes in furtherence |
| MPC- Difference in MR between Conspiracy and Complicity and Attmept | Conspiracy=P,K,P Complicity=P,K,underlying Attempt=P, underlying, P |
| C/L stake in the venture factors | 1)Seriousness of the crime; 2) % of business; 3) Are there other legitimate uses; 4) was it sold at market price? |
| What is Knowledge + | You must have knowledge of the crime and look like you wanted to bring about the result...not quite to the level of stake in the venture. |
| Is solicitation good enough to prove attempt? | Typically yes. |
| C/L- on a crime spree when can you be convicted of a crime you didn't have the MR for? | Durham rule; on a crime spree the natural and probable consquences of your aid. Used mainly when you know accomplice is armed and he kills someone...you should have perceived the risk and are guilty |
| Does MPC have any of the liability from the durham rule? | No. 1) did he aid or agree to aid. 2) did he have the MR for the crime...especially results |
| Can you be convicted as an accomplice is the principle is innocent due to MR? | yes |
| Terminology difference b/n Renouncing complicity in C/L and MPC | C/L- render my assistane ineffective in a timely manner; MPC- wholly deprive it of effectiveness or tell cops or other efforts to prevent |
| Is simply not showing up a renunciation of complicity? | No |
Created by:
acrawfo222