Term
| Can mitigating circumstances, e.g. adequate provocation, be transferred under the transferred intent doctrine? |
|
Definition
| Yes! NOTE: a person found guilty of a crime on the basis of transferred intent is usually guilty of two crimes: the completed crime against the actual victim and attempt against the intended victim. |
|
|
Term
| What is Burglary at Common Law? |
|
Definition
| The BREAKING and ENTERING of the DWELLING of another at NIGHTTIME with the intent of COMMITTING A FELONY therein |
|
|
Term
| What is ARSON at common law? |
|
Definition
| The malicious burning of the dwelling of another. Must be some "charring." |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The trepassory taking and CARRYING AWAY the tangible personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the person of his interest in the property |
|
|
Term
| Must an initial aggressor retreat (if possible) if the victim responds with deadly force? |
|
Definition
| Yes! Only the victim is not required to retreat in the majority of jurisdictions! |
|
|
Term
| What is the crime of FALSE PRETENSES? |
|
Definition
| obtaining TITLE to the property of another by intentional (or knowing) false statement of past or existing fact with the intention to defraud. |
|
|
Term
| What is the continuing trespass doctrine? |
|
Definition
| If a defendant takes and carries away property with a wrongful state of mind but without the intent to steal (e.g., takes car for joyride), and later, while still in possession of it, forms the intent to steal, the defendant is guilty of larceny. |
|
|
Term
| What is larceny by TRICK? |
|
Definition
| same as larceny but defendant takes property with the victim's consent given as a result of a misrepresentation |
|
|
Term
| Distinguish FALSE PRETENSES from LARCENY BY TRICK |
|
Definition
| False Pretenses involves the fraudulent acquisition of TITLE, whereas larceny by trick involves acquisition of POSSESSION |
|
|
Term
| What are the states of mind sufficient to support the mens rea finding of "malice aforethought" |
|
Definition
1. Intent to kill
2. Intent to inflict great bodily harm
3. Depraved heart
4. Felony murder |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought |
|
|
Term
| What is the scope of possible consequences a defendnat is responsible for as a result of defendant's conduct? |
|
Definition
example: woman gives man poison with intent to kill, man ingests poison and, feeling sick, rushes downstairs to call the doctor. On the way down, man slips, falls and dies. Cause of death shows broken neck. Poison alone not enough to cause death? Is the woman guilty of murder? YES!
General rule is that a D is responsible for all the natural and probable consequences of his conduct, even if he did not anticipaite the precise manner in which they would occur. |
|
|
Term
| When does mistake of fact serve as a defense to a crime? |
|
Definition
| ONLY when it shows that the D did not have the requisite intent to commit the crime. The mistake must be REASONABLE |
|
|
Term
| When is abandonment a defense to an attempt crime? |
|
Definition
in most jurisdictions, a person can only raise the defense of abandonment if he abanonds in the mere preparation stage. Once he has taken the affirmative step towards committing the crime, abandonment is no longer valid.
In some jurisdictions, abandonment is still valid even after the affirmative step, but the abandonment must be fully voluntary and not because of increased risk and complete renunciation of criminal purpose |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
attempt is an act, done with the intent to commit a crime, that falls short of completing the crime. Attempt ALWAYS requires SPECIFIC INTENT.
Overt Act: D must commit an act beyond mere preparation for the offense. Must be dangerously close to succevssful completion of the crime. Or Substantial step.
NOTE: This overt act is much more OVERT than that required for conspiracy |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
One who, with the intent the target crime be committed, aids, cousnsels or encourages the principal before or during the defense. Modern statutes treat accomplices as principals.
Accessory after the fact is one who helps principal escape the police or avoid punishment. Modern statutes charge such defendnats with obstruction of justice. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A person who effectively withdraws from a crime before it is committed cannot be held as an accomplice. Withdrawal must occur BEFORE the crime becomes unstoppable.
Repudiation is sufficient withdrawal for mere encouragement.
Attempt to neutralize assistance is required if participation went beyond mere encouragement.
Notifying the police or taking other action to prevent the crime is also sufficient. |
|
|
Term
| List and define the three inchoate offenses |
|
Definition
1. Solicitation
2. Conspiracy
3. Attempt |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Solicitation: inciting, counseling, advising, urging, or commanding another to commit a crime, with the intent that the person solicited commit the crime.
Most defenses there is no defense for withdrawal.
Solicitation merges with the target offense. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
An agreement between two or more guilty minds to commit a crime. Need intent to enter into agreement and an intent by at least two persons to achieve the the objective agreement. Most states now also require an OVERT ACT, but mere preparation will suffice.
Exam tip: If D is charged with conspiracy and is the only one arrested and charged, two possible results: (1) if he is the only one charged because the rest are still at large, then he can be convicted. (2) If other conspirators have all been ACQUITTED, then D cannot be charged with conspiracy. |
|
|
Term
| When can a co-conspirator be held liable for the crimes of another co-conspirator? |
|
Definition
A conspirator may be held liable for crimes committed by co-conspirator in furtherence of conspiracy and that were reasonably foreseeable.
NOTE! Remember that a conspiracy is complete upon an agreement with the requisite intent and an overt act, including mere preparation. Thus, the crime of conspiracy can be complete very quickly. Withdrawal is only possible before the crime is completed. Such actions might relief D of criminal liability for her co-conspirators acts after this withdrawal |
|
|
Term
| Define the M'Naghten Rule |
|
Definition
Under this rule, a D is entitled to acquittal only if he had a mental diesease or defect that caused him EITHER to (1) not know that his act would be wrong; or (2) not understand the nature and quality of his actions.
Loss of control is no defense! |
|
|
Term
| Irresistible Impulse Test |
|
Definition
| A D is entitled to acquiital only if, because of a mental illness, he was unable to control his actions or conform his conduct to the law. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| combines the M'Naughten Rule and the Irresistible Impulse Test |
|
|
Term
| Can an insane person be executed? |
|
Definition
| Only if he understands the nature and purpose of the punishment. Required by Due Process Clause. |
|
|
Term
| What are the four defenses for negating criminal capacity? |
|
Definition
1. Insanity -- apply appropriate test. Defense to all crimes
2. Intoxication -- voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary intox is a defense to specific intent crimes if it prevents the formation of the requisite intent. Involuntary intox, i.e., taking substance w/o knowledge of its nature, duress, or medical advice. This is treated as a mental illness and is a defense to all crimes.
3. Infancy. At common law, under age 7 is absolute defense. Under 14, rebutabble presumption of defense.
Diminished capacity: mental defect short of insanty, D did not have teh required mens rea. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Defense to a crime OTHER THAN HOMICIDE that the D reasonably believed that another person would imminently inflic death of GBH upon him or a member of his family if he did not commit the crime. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| when the criminal design originated with the cops and the D was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to contact with the cops. |
|
|
