CJ320- Midterm

Burglary in the first degree is punishable how?

by imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 4, or 6 years (2-4-6 rule; low-mid-upper term)

Burglary in the second degree is punishable how?

by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year OR imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170; wobbler

Any person who willfully and maliciously discharges a firearm at an unoccupied aircraft is guilty of a _________

felony

Except in cases where a different punishment is prescribed by any law of this state, every offense declared to be a felony is punishable by imprisonment for _____ months, or ______ years, or _______ years in the state prison unless the offense is punishable pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170

16, 2, 3 (16-2-3)

Penal Code Section 1170 (h)

Mandates prison sentences for certain non-violent felonies to be served in county jail rather than prison

Classification of Offenses- Felony

state prison is possible

Classification of Offenses- Wobblers

could be a felony or misdemeanor

Classification of Offenses- Misdemeanor

up to a year in county jail

Classification of Offenses- Infraction

fine only

Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any peace officer in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office of employment, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $______, OR by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, OR by both that fine and imprisonment

$1,000

Any person who falsely represents or identifies himself or herself as another person or as a fictitious person to any peace officer, upon a lawful detention or arrest of the person, either to evade the process of the county, or to evade the proper identification of the person by the investigating officer is guilty of a ___________

misdemeanor

Elements for Criminal Liability

actus reus, mens rea, concurrence, causation, resulting harm

Punishment for Misdemeanor; Punishment Not Otherwise Prescribed

Except in cases where a different punishment is prescribed by any law of this state, every offense declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding 6 months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000 by both

Actus Reus

A direct but ineffectual step done toward its commission (the act, bodily movement) + will

Mens Rea

A specific intent to commit the crime (mental state)

Concurrence

has to happen at the same time

Causation

what was the cause for the result?

Resulting harm

what was the result of the harm? (murder, mayhem)

Factual causation

"But for" test; The actor's conduct set a chain of events in motion which led to the harmful result (the actual evidence, or facts of the case, that prove a party is at fault for causing the other person's harm, damages, or losses)

"But for" evaluates what?

whether or not the result would have occurred without the actions or omissions of the defendant

Proximate cause

indicates a nearness in time and place between the actor and the result; aka Is the result a result of the crime/offender or of time?

Omission

An act that was pre-agreed but failed to act upon, must have a legal duty to act

Omission- legal duty arises based on what?

Statues, contracts, special relationship (parent-child)

i.e. Failure to safely store firearm, failure for peace officer to arrest someone (state prison or jail not exceeding 1 year)

Actual possession

defendant knowingly exercises direct physical control over an object; physically having an item in one's personal custody or having direct control over that item

Constructive possession

defendant knowingly exercises control over, or the right to control an object either directly or through another person

Self-defense requires what?

1. Actual belief (subjective standard) AND 2. Reasonable belief (objective standard) AND

3. In an imminent danger

The defendant acted in lawful self-defense or defense of another when killing another if

1. The defendant reasonably believed that he or someone else was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily danger

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger; AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger

Homicide is _____ and not _______ when committed by any person in the defense of himself if he actually and reasonably believed that the individual intended to commit a forcible and atrocious crime and that there was imminent danger of that crime being accomplished. A person may act upon appearances whether the danger is real or merely apparent

justifiable, unlawful

A forcible and atrocious crime is

any felony that by its nature and the manner of its commission threatened, or is reasonably believed by the defendant to threaten life or great bodily injury so as to instill in him a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury

Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are ________ and ____ crimes

forcible and atrocious

Is actual danger necessary to justify self-defense?

No, actual danger is not necessary to justify self-defense. If one is confronted by the appearance of danger which arouses in his mind, as a reasonable person, an actual belief and fear that he is about to suffer bodily injury, and if a reasonable person in a like situation, seeing and knowing the same facts, would be justified in believing himself in like danger, and if that individual so confronted acts in self-defense upon these appearances and from that fear and actual beliefs, the person's right of self-defense is the same whether the danger is real or merely apparent (i.e. A gun being pointed at u even if it's not loaded)

The right of self-defense exists when?

Exists only as long as the real or apparent threatened danger continues to exist. When the danger ceases to appear to exist, the right to use force in self-defense ends

Does the right of self-defense available to a person who seeks a quarrel with the intent to create a real or apparent necessity of exercising self-defense?

No

The defendant is not guilty of murder if he killed to defend himself or any other person in the defendant's home. Such a killing is justified, and therefore not unlawful, if _____, _____, _____?

1. The defendant reasonably believed that he was defending a home against the decedent, who intended to or tried to commit [insert forcible and atrocious crime] or violently tried to enter that home, intending to commit an act of violence against someone inside;

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the danger was imminent;

3. The defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger

T/F: Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury

true

The defendant is not guilty because of legal necessity. The defendant must prove what factors?

1. He acted in an emergency to prevent significant bodily harm or evil to himself or someone else

2. He had no adequate legal alternative;

3. The defendant's acts did not create a greater danger than the one avoided;

4. When the defendant acted, he actually believed that the act was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil;

5. A reasonable person would also have believed that the act was necessary under the circumstances; AND

6. The defendant did not substantially contribute to the emergency

An attempt to commit a crime consists of what two elements?

mens rea, actus rea

What is the punishment for an attempt?

If you don't actually complete the crime you get 50%, half the time

Every attempt crime is a _______ intent crime

specific (i.e. If you're charged with attempted robbery, rape, etc., you have to have a specific intent to rob, rape, etc.)

Abandonment

A person who attempts to commit a crime is guilty of an attempt even if, AFTER taking a direct step towards committing the crime, he abandoned further efforts to complete the crime or if his attempt failed or was interrupted by someone or something beyond his control

when can someone abandon a crime without being guilty of an attempt?

if a person freely and voluntarily abandons his plans before taking a direct step toward committing the crime

A direct step requires

going beyond planning or preparation and shows that a person is putting his plan into action. (ACTUS REUS INVOLVES DIRECT STEP)

Conspiracy

an agreement entered into between two or more persons with the specific intent to agree to commit the crime of ________, and with the further specific intent to commit that crime, followed by an overt act committed in California by one or more of the parties for the purpose of accomplishing the object of the agreement

Overt act

an act by one or more of the members of the conspiracy that is done to help accomplish the agreed upon crime. The overt act must be more than the act of agreeing or planning to commit the crime, but it does not have to be a criminal act itself

Are any members of the conspiracy still liable for the act even if it wasn't intended as part of the original plan?

Yes, as long as the act was a natural and probable consequence of the common plan

T/F: All conspiracy charges are specific intent crimes

True

Solicitation Elements

1. The defendant requested another person to commit a crime

2. The defendant intended that the crime be committed;

3. The other person received the communication containing the request

Is a person guilty of solicitation even if the crime solicited is not completed or even started?

Yes, they are guilty. The person solicited does not have to agree to commit the crime

Principals

those who actually commit the crime, and those who aid and abet the commission of the crime

Accessories

those who assist after the commission of the crime

To prove that the defendant is guilty of aiding and abetting a crime, the people must prove what factors?

1. The perpetrator committed the crime;

2. Defendant knew that the perpetrator intended to commit the crime;

3. Before or during the commission of the crime, the defendant intended to aid and abet the perpetrator in committing the crime; AND

4. Defendant's words or conduct did in fact aid and abet the perpetrator's commission of the crime

Someone aids and abets a crime if he ________ of the perpetrator's unlawful purpose and he __________ _________ to and does in fact, aid, facilitate, promote, encourage, or instigate the perpetrator's commission of that crime

knows, specifically intends

One who aids and abets in the commission of a crime is not only guilty of that crime, but is also guilty of any other crime committed by a principle which is a ______ ______ _______ of the crime originally aided and abetted

natural and probable consequence

natural and probable consequence

something that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, consider all of the circumstances established by the evidence. If the ADW was committed for a reason independent of the common plan to commit robbery, then the commission of the ADW was not a natural and probable consequence of robbery

To prove that the defendant is guilty of ADQ, the people must prove what factors?

1. Defendant is guilty of robbery

2. During the commission of the robbery a co-participant in that robbery committed the crime of ADW; AND

3. Under all of the circumstances, a reasonable person in defendant's position would have known that the commission of ADW was a natural and probable consequence of the commission of robbery

T/F: Natural and probable consequence does not apply to murder

true

If the defendant fled immediately after the crime was committed, that conduct may show that he was ______ of his guilt

aware

Flight- Conclusion

If you conclude that the defendant fled, it is up to you to decide the meaning and importance of that conduct. However, evidence that the defendant fled cannot prove guilt by itself

Does future harm count as imminent danger?

No

Who has the burden of proof in self defense cases?

The PEOPLE have the burden of proving beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that the killing was not justified. If the People have not met this burden, you must fine the defendant not guilty.

Burden of proof

the standard that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must satisfy to have that fact legally established

Burden of proof in a criminal case

Burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

burden of proof in a civil case

Preponderance of the evidence (51%: plaintiff proves it is more likely then not)

Stand your ground

A defendant is not required to retreat. Can defend themselves or pursue an assailant until imminent danger has PASSED

To use self defense when someone engages in mutual combat they must do what 4 things?

1. In good faith refuse to fight

2. Make opponent aware you want to stop fighting

3. Make opponent aware that you stopped fighting

4. Give opponent an opportunity to stop fighting

What are the two types of official reporters?

1. Supreme Court Reporters

2. Appellate Court Reporters (6 appall are districts)

Can criminal law and civil law overlap?

Yes. You can be sued for breaking a crime by the state and by an individual for the same act.

What are the different goals of criminal law and civil law?

Criminal law: jail time

Civil law: compensation

General intent

you have the intent to do just the act (i.e. walking into the store and seeing the waterbottle and then wanting to steal it)

Specific intent

crimes that require you to do the act with a specific intent (actual intent to perform some act, along with a wish for the consequences that result from that act) i.e. walking into the store with with the intention to already steal the waterbottle

Transferred intent

when a defendant intends to harm one victim, but then unintentionally harms a second victim instead

Constructive intent

you don't have the intent to inflict harm, but you act so recklessly, you should sort of expect harm to happen; one should have reasonably expected or anticipated a particular result

Mayhem

Mutilating/crippling any part of the body

For a defendant to be legally insane they must meet 2 criteria?

1. Had a mental disease or defect when he COMMITTED the crime

2. Because of that he was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his act or that his act was morally or legally wrong. (wouldn't cover up the crime because they didn't know any better)

How do u come to the determination of sanity?

Consider evidence of the defendants mental disease or defect- Before, during or after the commission of the crime

Can you use voluntary intoxication as a defense to general intent crimes?

No, an act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is not less criminal by reason of that condition

Is sexual battery a specific intent crime?

Yes

What 3 elements must be proven in the crime of sexual battery?

1. A person touched an intimate part of the alleged victim

2. The touching was against the will of the alleged victim

3. The touching was done with the SPECIFIC INTENT to cause sexual arousal, gratification or abuse

If you are unconscious and commit a crime are you guilty of a crime?

No

Do you have to be incapable of movement to be unconscious?

No

Law of unconsciousness

This rule of law applies to persons who are not conscious of acting but who perform acts while asleep or while suffering from delirium or fever, or because of an attack of epilepsy, a blow on the head, the involuntary taking of drugs or the involuntary consumption of intoxicating liquor, or any similar cause

To prove that the defense is guilty of aiding and abetting a crime, the People must prove what factors?

1. The perp committed the crime

2. Defense KNEW that the perp intended to commit the crime

3. Defendant INTEND to aid and abet the perp (before or during commission or crime)

4. Defenses words or conduct did in fact aid or abet

If you aid and abet a robbery by being the get away driver can you be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if your partner gets into a shootout with a guard?

Yes, you are guilty not only of the robbery but of any other crime committed by a principal which is a NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE of the crime originally aided and abetted

Target offense

The crime that the accused parties INTENDED to commit

Non-target offense

An additional UNINTENDED crime that occurs during the commission of the target offense

Not Guilty Verdict

Does NOT mean innocent! It means that the gov did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

People vs. Armitage

Defendant was being reckless while drunk and tipped the boat with his friend in it. The defendant's friend tried to swim to the shore but drowned. The defendant claimed that he shouldn't be held liable for his friend's death because tipped the boat wasn't his friend's actual cause of death. He claimed that his friend trying to swim to safety was stupid and that he should've waited. However, if it wasn't for the defendant's actions, his friend would still be alive. This case has to do with CAUSATION. The "but for" test: the actor's set a chain of events in motion which led to the harmful result. Defendant was convicted.

People vs. Vizcarra

Defendant showed up to a gas station with a gun under his poncho with intensions to rob the gas station. He walked up to the door but turned around because a customer walking out scared him. Cops then found the gun and arrested him for attempted robbery. This is because the defendant took a DIRECT STEP that he was going to commit the crime

People vs. Rojas

Conduits were stolen from a construction site. They were given to Rojas and Rojas was convicted of receiving stolen property at first. However, because the conduits were recovered by the police first, he was only convicted of attempted receiving stolen property

necessity

A defense that permits a person to act in a criminal manner when an emergency situation, not of the person's own creation compels the person to act in a criminal manner to avoid greater harm from occurring

People vs. Wilson

Defendant and his ex girlfriend were having problems for quite a while. One night, he called her but she was with two other guys and a girl. One of the guys told him to "get lost" and hung up on him. Outraged, the defendant showed up to his girl's house with a gun and killed everybody besides one person who begged for their life. The defendant was convicted of murder, but he claimed that he blacked out and was unconscious. He wasn't let off the hook

People vs. Slack

Defendant was drunk-driving away from TJ cops but was eventually pulled over. He tried to claim necessity defense, but his actions indeed created a greater danger than the one he tried to avoid. He was convicted

People v. Beeman

Defendant Beeman drew a map/floor plan of a house that was robbed. He even told the robbers where he thought there was jewelry at. He ended up not going to commit the robbery, but he was still convicted

specific intent crime

require that the defendant intentionally commit an act and intend to cause a particular result when committing that act