Term
| What are the goals/rationales behind criminalizing activity? |
|
Definition
| Retribution, Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Incapacitation. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| D should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and his failure was a gross deviation from the standard of care. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| D was aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and consciously disregarded it. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| D acted under circumstances showing extreme indifference to the value of human life. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| D was aware to a practical certainty or aware of a high probability |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| D's conscious object or D was aware and hoped for the R. |
|
|
Term
| #1) A takes B's umbrella, believing it to be his own. What type of mistake is this? Is it attempt? Why? |
|
Definition
| Factual mistake. Not attempt because no purpose. |
|
|
Term
| #2) B points to his umbrella and says, "its yours" but revokes before delivery. A then grabs it thinking it is his. Mistake Type? Attempt? Why? |
|
Definition
| Collateral Law error. NOT attempt because no purpose. |
|
|
Term
| #3) A takes what he knows is B's umbrella, but thinks that because he is a cop, the law allows it. Mistake type? Attempt? Why? |
|
Definition
| Error about the law defining the offense. Attempt because ignorance of law is no excuse. |
|
|
Term
| #4) A takes his own umbrella, thinking it is B's. Mistake type? Attempt? Why? |
|
Definition
| Factual error. Attempt because the law takes the AC and R as he believes them to be. |
|
|
Term
| #5) B says, "take my umbrella," and gives it to A; then says "I revoke." A takes umbrella, thinking it belongs to B. Mistake type? Attempt? Why? |
|
Definition
| Collateral law error. Attempt because the law takes the AC and R as he believes them to be. |
|
|
Term
| #6) A takes B's umbrella knowing it is B's, but doesn't know that because it is raining outside, the law allows it. Mistake type? Attempt? Why? |
|
Definition
| Error about the law defining the offense. Not attempt because even if the AC and R were as he believes them to be, there is still no crime. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1) Sexual intercourse
2) with "reasonable resistance" to force
3) negligent as to age or consent? |
|
|
Term
| What are the MPC gradings and requirements of homicide? |
|
Definition
1. Murder - P, K, OR
2. Manslaughter - R; P/K w/reasonable excuse
3. Negligent Homicide - gross negligence |
|
|
Term
| What are the CL gradings and requirements of homicide? |
|
Definition
Murder 1/2 - P, K, OR
Voluntary Manslaughter - murder w/provocation or matter of degree
Invol. Manslaughter - R or GN |
|
|
Term
| CL: What two rules are used to distinguish 1st and 2nd degree murder? |
|
Definition
1. "No time is too short"
2. "You gotta think about it for a while" |
|
|
Term
| What evidence might show premeditation? |
|
Definition
| Planning activity, prior motive from a relationship, surrounding circumstances. |
|
|
Term
| When will provocation be a partial defense? Describe the two approaches. |
|
Definition
Categorical/list approach: "calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable person."
Matter of Degree: D needed to be reasonably provoked and not reasonably cooled off. (4 elements) |
|
|
Term
| When is a murder mitigated to manslaughter under the MPC? |
|
Definition
| When committed under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a "subjectively reasonable" explanation or excuse. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| OR is presumed if committing robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A felon is held strictly liable for all killings caused by him.
1. Inherent Dangerousness: Abstract or As committed (foreseeable or highly probable.
2. Independent Felonious Purpose or some other muddled doctrine.
3. Identity of Killer: either felons must do the killing or anybody that is proximately caused by D.
4. Identity of the victim: killing of co-felons either triggers the rule or it doesn't. |
|
|
Term
| What is the first element of the causation analysis? |
|
Definition
| Concurrent actors: Yes, if both causes are significant. |
|
|
Term
| What is the second element of the causation analysis? |
|
Definition
| Fully Autonomous: If yes the chain of causation is broken. If no, then ask if foreseeable. |
|
|
Term
| What standard of foreseeability is used in causation? |
|
Definition
| A low standard for responding agents, a higher standard for non responding agents. |
|
|
Term
| What is the MPC standard for causation in strict liability offenses? |
|
Definition
| R must be a probable consequence of the AR |
|
|
Term
| What goals/rationales are behind criminalizing attempted crimes whose criminal purpose never happens? |
|
Definition
| Retribution, Rehabilitation and Incapacitation. |
|
|
Term
| CL: What is the required MR for attempt? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The CL requires for attempt, at least one of what four tests of proximity to the actual crime attempted? |
|
Definition
Last Act
Equivocality test - reasonable person
Proximity test - closeness in time/space
Probable distance - was D far past where a reasonable person would change his mind? |
|
|
Term
| MPC: What is the required MR for attempt? |
|
Definition
| Act with the PURPOSE to engage in the elements of the offense or the BELIEF that his actions will cause the result. |
|
|
Term
| What is the MPC rule for attempt when there is no result element? |
|
Definition
| Guilty if purposely engages in conduct that would be a crime if the AC were as he believes them to be. |
|
|
Term
| What is the MPC rule for attempt when the crime has a result element? |
|
Definition
| Guilty if acts with the purpose or belief that his act will cause the result w/o further conduct on his part. |
|
|
Term
| The MPC requires for attempt, that the actor must act with the kind of culpability required for the crime, and take a: |
|
Definition
| substantial step strongly corroborative of his criminal purpose. |
|
|
Term
| D is guilty of attempt if he purposely does or omits to do anything that, under the AC as he believes them to be would be a " " toward a crime. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| When might D be allowed the defense of abandonment? |
|
Definition
| When he prevents the crime under circumstances demonstrating complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Commands, encourages, or requests another to engage in specific criminal conduct, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the crime. |
|
|
Term
| 2.06: A person is guilty of the offense of another if he: |
|
Definition
1) With the MR necessary for the offense, causes an innocent or irresponsible person to commit the offense.
2) With the purpose of promoting or facilitating the offense, solicits another; aids or agrees or attempts to aid another; or fails to fulfill his legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense. |
|
|
Term
| When can D's purpose be inferred from knowledge of a crime? |
|
Definition
| Posner - when the crime is heinous. |
|
|
Term
| When is the Luparello Doctrine invoked to hold an accomplice liable for a crime? |
|
Definition
When the actual crime committed was a foreseeable consequence of the purposeful promotion of a different offense.
(A is liable for second bad act if he encouraged the first bad act) |
|
|
Term
| Define Conspiracy under 5.03 |
|
Definition
| With purpose of promoting or facilitating agrees to do or aid conduct that is a crime, attempts, or solicitation. Includes unilateral agreements (merges into target offenses) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Two or more people agree to commit a crime. |
|
|
Term
| D says, lets rob a bank, and his buddy says ok. Conspiracy? |
|
Definition
| MPC and most JD's require at least one overt act to display purpose to promote or facilitate. |
|
|
Term
| What is Pinkerton Liability. Can it be used under the MPC? |
|
Definition
| D is guilty of crimes committed by other members of a conspiracy, though he did not cause them, if they were reasonably foreseeable and done in furtherance of the conspiracy). MPC doesn't recognize |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| D did the right thing under the circumstances, even though he broke the law. (Choose the lesser evil). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| D did the wrong thing, but it was understandable. (Choose the worse evil, but we can't expect them not to under those circumstances) |
|
|
Term
| CL: What are the elements of self defense? |
|
Definition
1)imminent peril
2)necessary response
3)reasonable belief
4) Must not "know he can retreat with complete safety" |
|
|
Term
| MPC: What are the elements of self defense 3.04? |
|
Definition
1) immediately necessary
2) against unlawful force
3) probably reasonable belief
4) cannot "know he can retreat with complete safety" |
|
|
Term
| In MPC self defense, if negligence or recklessness suffices to establish the elements of a crime, when will SD be precluded under 3.09? |
|
Definition
| If D was reckless or negligent as to his belief that force is necessary to prevent unlawful harm. |
|
|
Term
| What is the Alverez exception to conspiracy liability? |
|
Definition
| A D at the bottom of a conspiracy pyramid shouldn't be liable for everything beyond his knowledge. |
|
|
Term
| When is there a requirement to retreat? Are there any exceptions? |
|
Definition
| Only when subjected to deadly force. Excepted when at domicile or workplace. |
|
|
Term
| How is provocation in self defense treated under the CL? Under MPC? |
|
Definition
CL: Person who started aggression cannot claim SD, even against lethal force.
MPC: as long as the force is unlawful, you can use SD. (This means that if you start a fist fight and the other guy shoots at you, you can shoot back) |
|
|
Term
| Under the MPC, when may a person come to the aid of another? |
|
Definition
1. When he believes the other would be justified in using the same force.
2. When he believes the use of force is immediately necessary to prevent the harm to the other.
3. When neither is under a duty to retreat. |
|
|
Term
| When can you defend others at CL? MPC? |
|
Definition
| CL: If you honestly and reasonably believe that the victim could defend himself. |
|
|
Term
| When defending another under the MPC, if the crime occurs in the defender's workplace to someone who does not work there, can the defender legally use force? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| When can D invoke the justification of necessity under 3.02? |
|
Definition
If the harm sought to be avoided is reasonably greater than the harm prevented by the law defining the offense.
Objectively judged. If R/N offense, D's belief must also be R/N. |
|
|
Term
| What are some considerations when balancing lives under necessity? |
|
Definition
Aggressor's lives don't count
Innocent lives saved must be greater than, not equal to. |
|
|
Term
| When can D invoke a Duress excuse at CL? MPC? |
|
Definition
Only when threat of death or great bodily harm is present, imminent, and pending. Reasonableness of D's lack of volition at the time.
MPC: Reasonable firmness standard. Any unlawful force will do, if reasonable. |
|
|
Term
| Can acts of God cause duress? |
|
Definition
| No, only threats of others |
|
|
Term
| Explain the Voluntary Intoxication defense under 2.08. |
|
Definition
VI is a defense if it negatives an element of the offense.
If recklessness establishes an element of the offense, and D was negligent, recklessness is assumed. |
|
|
Term
| When is Involuntary intoxication a defense? |
|
Definition
When D lacks substantial capacity to appreciate its criminality, or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
Cognition/Volition prongs. |
|
|
Term
| Explain the difference between the Cognition/Volition prongs. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Define the terms Mental illness, Insanity, Incompetence |
|
Definition
MI = medical term used to refer to a recognized disorder for diagnosis and treatment.
Insanity = legal term that refers to a person's state of mind at the time of a crime.
Incompetence = legal term that refers to a person's mental state at the time of a legal proceeding. |
|
|
Term
| When can D invoke an insanity defense? |
|
Definition
M'Naghten ROL: every man is presumed sane until proven otherwise by showing that he did not know what he was doing or that it was wrong.
MPC: If D lacks substantial capacity to appreciate its criminality, or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. |
|
|
Term
| What are two other rules used by JDs for insanity? |
|
Definition
Lyons - MPC test w/o volitional prong (lack of ability to appreciate criminality) Experts not confident that they can assess a lack of volition.
Crenshaw - Unable to perceive nature and quality of acts or tell right from wrong. |
|
|
Term
| A mistake about the law that defines the offense is a defense when... |
|
Definition
when the statute or enactment is not known to the actor and has not been published or reasonably made available.
or
He acts in reliance upon an official statement of the law, later found to be wrong, in a statute, judicial opinion, administrative order, or an official interpretation by a public officer responsible for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense. |
|
|
