Term
|
Definition
(Transporting drugs, chose not to know what contents were)
Creates defense if actually did not know was doing something illegal.
M.R. is raised from reckless to knowing if:
• Must be aware of a high probability of criminality.
• Deliberately avoids knowing the truth. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
(Moved to city, didn't now had to register as drug offender)
If an affirmative duty is required then knowingly must be implied. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
(shot wife twice in the back of the head when she was laying in bed)
Timeframe doesn't matter so long as there was a cooling period (even if seconds) to form logical intent to kill
(Blurs line between M1 & M2) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Guthrie: Stabbed coworker in restaurant for making fun of his nose
Anderson: Stabbed step daughter 60 times
NEED PREMEDITATION.
Evidence sufficient to determine premeditation:
(1) Facts regarding D’s behavior prior to killing that might indicate a design to take life.
a. [Planning]
(2) Facts about D’s prior relationship to victim that might indicate a reason to kill.
a. [Motive]
(3) Evidence that “the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that D must have intentionally killed. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
[Co-conspirators](In jail while brother continued scams)
Liability for all crimes by co-conspirators in furtherance of conspiracy. MUST OFFICIALLY LEAVE TO BE OUT. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
[Co-conspirator] (Evidence had transacted with Brown, but no evidence that any of the defendants had transacted with each other)
No conspiracy just because two people (who have nothing to do with each other) contract with the same central person. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
When an offense requires the voluntary agreement of more than one person and would be impossible without more than one person, a conspiracy offense cannot be maintained.
EX. Dueling, adultery |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
(Girl & man leave state for adultery)
Can’t convict the victim of conspiracy |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
(Tries to hire hitman to kill husband)
Under common law’s bilateral approach, she could not be charged
(Undercover cop had no intention of committing the crime so no conspiracy exists.)
MPC’s unilateral approach, she could |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
(To raise incompetency)
• Must have rational understand proceedings
• Must rationally consult with a lawyer
• [∆ drugged up until they are competent] |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
(Tried to kill British PM)
1. ∆ presumed sane
∆ must prove (affirmative defense)
a) At the time of the crime
b) ∆ has disease or defect of the mind
c) ∆ does not know:
1. The nature and quality of the act
2. did not know act was wrong
d) Irresistible impulse [goes to volitional prong of MPC]
e) Deific decree/command [goes to cognitive test in MPC] |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
[Diminished Capacity]
reduce specific intent crime to general intent crime [M1 M2]
(Only if there is a lesser crime that you can be charged for) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| No requirement for expert testimony for Mens rea, only required for mental capacity |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
[EED](Killed girl he was obsessed with)
R.P. w/ physical and emotional characteristics of ∆
It is quite possible that significant mental trauma affected a defendant’s mind over a period of time.
Does not necessarily mean that a defendant engaged in a spontaneous action |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
[Strict Liability] (took bomb casings)
Acts which are bad in themselves, including larceny, require the element of Mens rea and any similar strict liability statute will not be construed as eliminating the Mens rea element. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
[HOP] (taunted & raped him, 2 weeks later killed him)
Reasonable person would have been provoked.
R.P. w/ physical and objective characteristics
EX. age, sex, height, weight |
|
|
