Term
|
Definition
| The killing of another human being caused by defendant |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A killing of another human being (homicide) with malice |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Defendant acted alone to cause death.
- Defendant’s omission caused death and defendant by statute, contract, relationship or voluntary undertaking had a duty to act.
- Act of a third party contributed to cause death.
- Death was a foreseeable result of defendant’s act or omission |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A defendant may be liable for the crime of another if the defendant – solicits the crimes a conspirator with the one who commits the crime – is an accomplice to the one who commits the crime OR – under felony murder rule - all felons liable for death caused by co-felon
***Some states will excuse felons from felony murder liability if a non-felon kills another non-felon while resisting the felony. |
|
|
Term
| Liability for third party |
|
Definition
- Vicarious liablity
- Third party act foreseeable |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Intent to kill
- Intent to inflict great bodily ham (or serious bodily injury)
- Depraved heart
- Felony murder |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Defendant's words
- Use of deadly weapon in a deadly manner
Can be first degree murder |
|
|
Term
| Intent to inflict great bodily ham (or serious bodily injury) (malice) |
|
Definition
| Can go as high as second degree murder |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Reckless indifference to known high risk of death |
|
|
Term
| Felony murder rule (malice) |
|
Definition
Homicide committed during the perpetration of an inherently dangerous felony.
- From attempt until felon reaches place of temporary safety
- Inherently dangerous - BARRK (burglary, arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping)
***Minority - Some states include non-dangerous felonies committed in a dangerous manner
A substantive defense to the felony is a defense to a felony murder charge.
The felony must be the proximate cause of the homicide (i.e., the homicide must be a foreseeable result of the felony). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
An unintentional killing of a human being (homicide) committed without malice when there (one of the following)
- Intent to inflict slight bodily injury
- Criminal negligence
- Misdemeanor-manslaughter rule
i.e. there is a justification or excuse |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Intentional killing in the heat of passion (where the Def acts with adequate provocation) |
|
|
Term
| Intent to inflict slight bodily injury |
|
Definition
| Defendant kills victim with no intent to kill or seriously injure, but did have intent to inflict some slight bodily injury. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Defendant kills victim while acting in a more than ordinary negligent manner - gross deviation from the standard of care that a rsnbl person would observe.
Examples
- Defendant shoots a bullet at a distant passing freight train and kills a transient who was hiding in a freight car
- While driving 85 MPH (20 MPH over speed limit), Defendant unable to avoid striking another vehicle and kills the other driver. |
|
|
Term
| Misdemeanor-Manslaughter Rule |
|
Definition
Defendant kills while committing a non-inherently dangerous felony (i.e., felony not sufficient for felony murder rule) or a malum in se (inherently wrongful) as opposed to a malum prohibitum (wrongful only because prohibited by statute) crime.
Examples
Non-inherently dangerous felony: Defendant sells an unregistered stolen rifle (a statutory felony). While arguing with the buyer the Defendant accidentally pulls the trigger, killing the buyer. Defendant can be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
Malum in se: Killings that occur while the defendant was committing misdemeanor battery, larceny, public intoxication, or in possession of drugs
**Something that is historically wrong
Malum prohibitum: A killing that occurs while the defendant was driving on a suspended license, passing through a toll gate without paying the toll, unlawfully possessing a firearm, or unlawfully defacing the flag is not sufficient for involuntary manslaughter. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If a homicide (or any other crime) is justified, the defendant is NOT criminally liable for the crime
- Self defense
- Defense of Others
- Crime Prevention
- Apprehension/Arrest of Criminal
- Reasonable mistake
Cannot use deadly force to protect habitation/ppty, but can use to protect occupants of home from violent intruder |
|
|
Term
| Self-Defense (Justification) |
|
Definition
The defendant may use deadly force to protect against an imminent deadly attack. Deadly force must be reasonable and necessary to repel the attacker.
No duty to retreat: The defendant need not retreat before using deadly force, unless defendant is the initial aggressor (started the fight), and safe retreat is available.
***Minority rule: Defendant must retreat before using deadly force if safe retreat available, unless Defendant in his/her home (castle), a police officer, or victim of a violent felony. |
|
|
Term
| Defense of others (Justification) |
|
Definition
Defendant can use deadly force if reasonable and necessary to defend another.
Split
Under the majority rule, a defendant may claim defense of others if the victim reasonably appears to have the right to use deadly force, even if the “other” does not actually have that right.
Under the minority rule, a defendant can use no more force than the person they are defending (“of person defended”) |
|
|
Term
| Crime Prevention (Justification) |
|
Definition
A police officer or private person may use deadly force if reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of a dangerous felony.
***Private person - rsnbl mistake ok |
|
|
Term
| Apprehension/Arrest of Criminal (Justification) |
|
Definition
A police officer or private person may use deadly force if reasonably necessary to prevent apprehend/arrest a dangerous felony.
***A private citizen can only use deadly force if the person apprehended with deadly force is actually guilty of the dangerous felony. A private citizen is not entitled to make a reasonable mistake (we don’t encourage vigilantism). |
|
|
Term
| Reasonable Mistake (Justification) |
|
Definition
| A defendant may use deadly force based on a reasonable mistake as to self-defense, defense of others (majority only), and crime prevention. Only a police officer can use deadly force to apprehend or arrest based on a reasonable mistake. |
|
|
Term
| Defendant is the initial aggressor (self defense) |
|
Definition
Defendant cannot assert self-defense as a justification unless
- The defendant initial aggressor withdraws (clearly communicates to victim intent to stop fighting) OR
- The defendant initially used non-deadly force and is now faced with attacker suddenly using deadly force AND
- If safe retreat is available, the initial aggressor must retreat before using deadly force. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If a homicide (or any other crime) is excused, the defendant is NOT criminally liable for the crime
- Youth/infancy
- Insanity
- Intoxication |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Under age of 7: No criminal liability.
Between 7 and 14: Rebuttable presumption of no criminal liability.
Over 14: Treated as an adult. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- M'Naghten or Right/Wrong Test
- Irresistible Impulse Test
- ALI/MPC Test
- Durham Test |
|
|
Term
| M'Naghten or Right/Wrong Test |
|
Definition
| Defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect, did not know the wrongfulness of his act OR could not understand the nature and quality of his acts. |
|
|
Term
| Irresistible Impulse Test |
|
Definition
| Defendant, as a result of mental defect, was unable to control his conduct or conform his conduct to the law. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Defendant lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Defendant is not guilty if his crime was the cause of a mental disease or defect. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| If the defendant is intoxicated (alcohol, illegal or legal drugs, etc.) at the time of the crime, the intoxication may excuse criminal liability. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Defendant voluntarily and knowingly consumes an intoxicating substance.
- No defense to crimes requiring no intent (strict liability), general criminal intent or malice.
- Can negate specific intent but only if the defendant is so intoxicated he cannot form the specific intent required for the crime.
- It can also preclude a finding of deliberation if the Defendant is charged with First Degree Murder. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Defendant knowingly (forced to consume) or unknowingly (voluntarily consume without knowledge substance consumed was an intoxicant).
Involuntary intoxication is a defense to all crimes if the intoxication renders the defendant “insane” under the applicable test. |
|
|
Term
| Provocation (voluntary manslaughter) |
|
Definition
The provocative act must be one that would cause both subjective and objective passion and no “cooling off” occurred.
a. Subjective passion: The defendant must have been actually provoked losing self-control and did not cool off before killing the victim.
◊ e.g. someone enraged
b. Objective passion: The provocation must be one that would have caused a to lose self-control and a reasonable person to lose self control and would not have cooled off in the time lapse between the provocation and the time of the killing.
$$$ EXAMPLES OF “REASONABLE” PROVOCATION: Defendant’s who are struck by the victim who inflicts a “staggering blow” to the defendant or if the defendant “catches spouse in act of adultery” with the victim. $$$ |
|
|
Term
| Good faith mistake (voluntary manslaughter) |
|
Definition
| 2. Good Faith Mistake: A defendant who intentionally kills victim under good faith, but unreasonable, mistaken belief as to self defense (so-called “imperfect self defense”), defense of others or crime prevention can successfully argue their homicide crime should be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Premeditated and Deliberate intent to kill OR Felony Murder |
|
|
Term
| Premeditated (First degree murder) |
|
Definition
| The intent to kill is premeditated if the defendant had time (even for a brief few seconds) to think about killing the victim before doing so. |
|
|
Term
| Deliberate (First degree murder) |
|
Definition
| The intent to kill is deliberate if the defendant acted in a calm and cool frame of mind (“cold blooded”) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Attempted battery
- Intentional creation of rsnbl apprehension of contract |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Defendant attempts (but is unsuccessful) to cause imminent harmful contact with victim.
- e.g. throw rock at someone with their back turned and miss
- c.f. torts where there is no assault because don't know |
|
|
Term
| Intentional creation of rsnbl apprehension of contract |
|
Definition
| Defendant attempts to cause victim to reasonably apprehend imminent harmful contact. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The unlawful application of force to another person causing bodily injury or offensive contact. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The confinement of another person involving either movement or concealment of the victim.(No ransom required.) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman by a man, not her husband, without her consent |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Defendant must take possession of victim’s property without the consent of the victim |
|
|
Term
| Taking and carrying away (larceny) |
|
Definition
| Defendant must move the property as part of attempt to take possession. Slight movement is enough! |
|
|
Term
| Personal property of another (larceny) |
|
Definition
| Larceny is a crime against possession, not ownership. An owner can commit larceny over property The owns if the owner gives possession of it to the victim. |
|
|
Term
| With intent to permanently deprive (larceny) |
|
Definition
Defendant must have the specific intent to keep the property (no intent to return) and the intent must exist at the time of the taking
- Def abandons victim's ppty creating a substantial risk of loss
- Intent to deprive does not exist if def only intend to borrow |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The permissive taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive.
Consent is negated because it was acquired by defendant's misrepresentation (trick) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The fraudulent conversion of the property of another by one in rightful possession. |
|
|
Term
| Fraudulent conversion (Embezzlement) |
|
Definition
| The defendant must deal with victim’s property in some manner inconsistent with victim’s grant of possession of the property to the defendant. |
|
|
Term
| By one in rightful possession (Embezzlement) |
|
Definition
| The victim must first voluntarily give the defendant rightful possession of the property that the defendant later fraudulently converts. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The acquisition of title to another’s property by a false representation with the intent to defraud. |
|
|
Term
| Acquisition of Title (False pretenses) |
|
Definition
| The victim must intend to pass title (ownership) not just possession. |
|
|
Term
| False representation (False pretenses) |
|
Definition
| Like larceny by trick, the victim is falsely induced into the transaction. But this transaction is for the passing of title, not just possession |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A larceny (same elements as above) committed from the victim’s person or presence by force or threat of force of immediate bodily harm. |
|
|
Term
| Receiving stolen property |
|
Definition
- Receiving possession and control
- of stolen personal property
- known to have been obtained in manner constituting a criminal offense
- by another
- with the intent to permanent deprive |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Common Law - corrupt collection of an unlawful fee by an officer under color of office
Modern - obtaining property by means of threats to do harm or to expose information
Different from robbery because threats may be of future harm and taking need not be in victim's presence |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The trespassory breaking and entering of the protected structure of another at nighttime with the intent to commit a felony therein. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The burning of a protected structure of another with malice. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| There must be some charring of some part of the structure (wall, ceiling, beams, etc.) caused by fire. A charring of non-fixtures (furniture, paintings, etc.) is not sufficient. |
|
|
Term
| Protected Structure (Arson) |
|
Definition
| At common law, the structure had to be the dwelling house of another. Today, most states protect all structures (residential, industrial, commercial, etc.). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The protected structure must be in the rightful of another when burned. Thus, a landlord who burns a house rented to a tenant can commit arson. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A defendant is guilty of arson if committed with
- the intent to burn the structure OR
- with knowledge of the extremely high risk of the structure burning. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Defendant is guilty of attempt if Defendant commits an act of perpetration with the intent to commit the intended (target) crime. |
|
|
Term
| Act of perpetration (Attempt crime) |
|
Definition
| Defendant must do more than merely prepare to commit the crime; the defendant must take a substantial step toward its commission or come dangerously close to completing the intended crime. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Attempt merges into the target crime so a defendant who actually commits the intended crime cannot be convicted and punished for both attempt and the intended crime |
|
|
Term
| Legal Impossibility (Attempt crime) |
|
Definition
Exists when the acts the defendant intends to commit are legal/permissible in the jurisdiction.
Good defense; Result: Defendant is not liable for attempted arson because the acts he intended to commit had he succeeded are not the crime of arson. Since an arson conviction would be legally impossible, so is an attempted arson conviction. |
|
|
Term
| Factual Impossibility (Attempt crime) |
|
Definition
| Exists when the acts defendant intended to commit would be a crime, if the facts were as defendant believed them to be. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Defendant is guilty of solicitation if Defendant asks or requests or another to commit a crime with the intent that the person solicited commit the crime |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Defendant is guilty of conspiracy if Defendant enters into an agreement with another party to for an unlawful objective and some overt act is performed in furtherance of the unlawful objective. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An agreement can exist by express words or it can be implied by conduct. Co-conspirators need not meet or even know each other exist; so long as they are working toward a common unlawful goal or an agreement exists. |
|
|
Term
| With another party (Conspiracy) |
|
Definition
Majority rule requires conspirators to actually agree to commit the unlawful objective. An agreement with an undercover police officer who only feigns agreement is not a conspiracy. **Need two guilty minds
Minority rule (MPC) follows the unilateral conspiracy rule and provides that “one guilty mind” is enough for conspiracy if the guilty mind believed the other party was actually agreeing to commit the unlawful purpose.
Wharton’s Rule: If the target crime requires two parties (e.g., dueling), then there is no conspiracy to duel unless there are three or more parties. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Withdraw
- Impossibility |
|
|
Term
| Withdraw (Conspiracy defense) |
|
Definition
Defendant must timely communicate (before crime occurs) to all other co-conspirators that defendant is no longer a participant in the conspiracy.
Liable for conspiracy, but not liable for anything that comes after - the target crime.
Under the minority rule (MPC), if the withdrawing conspirator goes to the police in time to permit the police to stop the target crime, the conspirator will not be liable for conspiracy or the target crime. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Under the majority rule today, a party to a crime may be a principal, accomplice or an accessory after the fact.
- Principal
- Accomplice
- Accessory after the Fact
All accomplices (and the principal) are liable for the crimes the principal committed that the accomplice assisted, counseled or encouraged.
Accomplices are also liable for other crimes committed by the principal so long as the other crimes were foreseeable |
|
|
Term
| Principal (Accomplice Liability) |
|
Definition
| One who, with the intent to commit the crime, causes the crime to occur. |
|
|
Term
| Accomplice (Accomplice liability) |
|
Definition
| One who, with the intent the crime be committed, aids, supports, or encourages the principal. |
|
|
Term
| Accessory after the Fact (Accomplice liability) |
|
Definition
| One who, with the intent to help a felon escape or avoid arrest or trial, receives, relieves, or assists a known felon after the felony has been completed. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Insanity
- Intoxication
- Infancy
- Self-Defense
- Defense of Others
- Duress
- Entrapment
- Mistake |
|
|
Term
| Duress (General Defenses) |
|
Definition
| A defendant’s criminal liability (except an intentional homicide) is excused if the crime is committed under the threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. |
|
|
Term
| Entrapment (General Defenses) |
|
Definition
| To succeed on an entrapment defense (an affirmative defense so defendant has the burden of proof) the defendant must show the criminal plan originated with the government and defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to the contact with the government. |
|
|
Term
| Reasonable mistake of fact (General Defenses) |
|
Definition
| If the defendant makes a reasonable mistake of fact or is ignorant of a fact that negates the required mental state for the crime, defendant is not guilty of that crime. |
|
|
Term
| Unreasonable mistake of Fact (Specific Intent)(General Defenses) |
|
Definition
| If the defendant is mistaken or ignorant of a fact, but the mistake is unreasonable under the circumstances, then the mistake is a defense only if the crime is a specific intent crime. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A mistake or ignorance of the law is no defense if charged with violation of that law. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
General criminal intent: Battery and Rape and Assault
Specific criminal intent: Assault when based on an Attempted Battery, all the theft crimes, Burglary, all the Preliminary Crimes, First Degree Murder based on intent to kill (or Felony Murder where underlying felony requires specific intent), and all statutory crimes with words like “knowingly ” or “with intent to ” as the mental element.
Strict Liability crimes: Must be a crime with no mental state required |
|
|
