Studied by 111 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
What are the official two reports?
Supreme Court (SC) reports and Appellate Court reports (total of 6 districts based on geography)
criminal law characteristics
penalty = punishment/"rehabilitation"; beyond a reasonable doubt
civil law characteristics
penalty = compensation; preponderance of evidence
what are the 3 sources of criminal law?
federal, state, and local
what are california's 4 classifications of offenses?
felonies, wobblers, misdemeanors, and infractions
felony classifications
state prison possible (highest CA classification), local custody (jail), prison (16+ mo. sentence)
wobbler classifications
felony or a misdemeanor (wobbly)
misdemeanor classifications
up to a year in county jail
infraction classifications
fine only
PC section 461
burglary punishment
1st degree burglary punishment
imprisonment in state prison for 2, 4, or 6 years (felony) [2, 4, 6 rule]
2-4-6
2 = low, 4 = mid, 6 = upper [sentencing for burglary]
2nd degree burglary
imprisonment in county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of section 1170 [wobbler]
PC section 247
discharging firearm at unoccupied aircraft: any person who willfully and maliciously discharges a firearm at an unoccupied aircraft is guilty of a felony
PC section 18
punishment for felony not otherwise protected: except in cases different punishment is prescribed by any law of state, every offense declared to be felony punishable by imprisonment for 16 mos., or two, or three years in state prison unless offense punishable pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170
16-2-3
16 = low, 2 = mid, 3 = upper
PC section 19
punishment for misdemeanor: except in cases where different punishment is prescribed by any law of this state, every offense declared to be misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail NOT exceeding 6 MOS., or by fine NOT exceeding $1000, or by both
what are the 5 elements for criminal liability?
actus reus, mens rea, concurrence, causation, resulting harm
mayhem
"every person who unlawfully maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disable, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem." Penal Code 203
mens rea
criminal intent
actus reus
physical act of the crime
what is an omission?
the legal duty to act/failure to act
actual possession
D knowingly exercises direct physical control over an object
constructive possession
D knowingly exercises control over, or right to control an object either directly or through another person
general intent
intent to do act
specific intent
requires a certain intent behind act
transferred intent
when D intends to harm one individual, but unintentionally harms a different person
constructive intent
no intent to inflict harm, but acting so recklessly/negligently there is an intent
PC section 240
an assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury in the person of another (general intent crime)
PC section 459
every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, or other building with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary (specific intent crime)
what is concurrence?
Penal Code section 20
"In every crime or public offense there must exist a union, or joint operation of act and intent, or criminal negligence."
factual causation
"but for" test; actor conduct set a chain of events in motion which led to harmful result
proximate causation
indicates a nearness in time and lace between the actor and the result
what does self-defense require?
an actual belief and a reasonable belief, and it must be in an IMMINENT danger
self-defense for homicide; CALCRIM 505
the defendant is not guilty of murder if he was justified in killing someone in self-defense or defense of another
D acted in lawful self-defense or defense of another if, what?
1. D reasonably believed he or someone else was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury
2. D reasonably believed the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against danger
AND
3. D used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against danger
factors to consider for self-defense
a. physical size of victim and D
b. did victim have a weapon?
c. threats of violence( prior to killing & at time of killing)
d. physical proximity
e. prior acts of violence by victim known by D
CALCRIM 3470
self-defense is a defense to
CALCRIM 3470: D acted in lawful self-defense or defense of another is: (homicide SD)
1. D reasonably believed that he or someone else was in imminent danger of suffering DEATH or GREAT BODILY INJURY (GBI);
2. D reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger;
AND
3. D used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.
what about DV cases for SD?
if you find that D knew the victim had threatened or harmed others in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether D's conduct and beliefs were reasonable
CALCRIM 505: imminent danger
belief in future harm not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be; D must have believed there was an imminent danger of death or gbi to himself or someone else
- D's belief must have been reasonable and must have acted only because of that belief
CALCRIM 505: burden of proof
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 find D guilty
CALCRIM 505: stand your ground
D not required to retreat; entitled to stand his ground and defend himself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of death or great bodily injury has passed
- this is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating
CALJIC 5.13
homicide is justifiable and not unlawful when committed by any person in the defense of himself if he actually and reasonably believed that the individual killed 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
CALJIC 5.16
a forcible and atrocious crime is any felony that by its nature and the manner of its commission threatens, 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
what are the 4 forcible and atrocious crimes?
murder, mayhem, rape, robbery
CALCRIM 3470: D acted in lawful self-defense or defense of another if: (ordinary, non-homicide SD)
1. D reasonably believed that he or someone else was in imminent danger of suffering BODILY INJURY
2. D reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger
AND
3. D used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger
difference between homicide SD and non-homicide SD
- homicide SD requires D or another to be in imminent danger of suffering DEATH or GBI
- non-homicide SD requires D or another to be in imminent danger of suffering BODILY INJURY
CALJIC 5.31
an assault with the fists does not justify the person being assaulted in using a deadly weapon in self-defense unless that person believes and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon him
if someone uses their fists as force, can you use a gun?
no
if someone is pointing an unloaded gun at you, can you use a gun?
yes; you don't know the gun is unloaded but a gun in your face can be seen as an imminent threat/danger
CALJIC 5.51
actual danger not necessary to justify self-defense. if one is confronted by 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
CALJIC 5.52
the right of self-defense exists only as long as the real or apparent threatened danger continues to exist; when danger ceases to appear to exist, right to use force in self-defense ends
CALJIC 5.55
the right of self-defense is not available to a person who seeks a quarrel with the intent to create a real or apparent necessity of exercising self-defense
does self-defense stand if someone is looking for a problem to exercise SD?
no
CALJIC 5.56
the right of self-defense is only available to a person who engages in mutual combat
what are the requirements for CALJIC 5.56?
1. in good faith, individual refuses to continue fighting
2. by words or conduct cause opponent to be aware he wants to stop
3. by words or conduct cause opponent to be aware he has stopped
4. given opponent opportunity to stop
- after done these four things, he has right to self-defense if opponent continues to fight
CALCRIM 506
defense of home
- D is not guilty of murder if he killed to defend himself or any other person in the defendant's home
defense of home killing is justified when:
1. D reasonably believed he was defending a home against the decedent, who intended to or tried to commit
2. D reasonably believed danger was imminent
3. D reasonably believed use of deadly force was necessary to defend against danger
AND
4. D used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the danger
CALCRIM 3477
law presumes that the defendant reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily injury to himself, or to a member of his family or household
requirements of CALCRIM 3477
1. intruder unlawfully and forcibly entered or was entering the defendant's home
2. D knew or reasonably believed that intruder unlawfully and forcibly entered or was entering the defendant's home
3. intruder was not a member of the defendant's household or family
AND
4. D used force intended to or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to the intruder inside the home
CALCRIM 3403: necessity
D is not guilty of
what must be met to establish necessity defense?
1. D acted in an emergency to prevent a significant bodily harm or evil to himself or someone else
2. D had no adequate legal alternative
3. D's acts did not create a greater danger than the one avoided
4. when D acted, he actually believed that the act was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil
5. reasonable person would also have believed that the act was necessary under the circumstances
AND
6. D did not substantially contribute to the emergency
how many phases are there for NGRI?
2
what are the 2 phases of NGRI?
1. guilt phase
- not guilty? D goes home
- guilty? proceed to next phase
2. sanity phase
CALCRIM 3450
D must prove it is more likely than not he was legally insane when committed the crime
CALCRIM 3450: D was legally insane if:
1. when D committed the crime, he had a mental disease or defect
AND
2. because of disease or defect, D was incapable of knowing or understanding nature and quality of his act or incapable of knowing or understanding that his act was morally or legally wrong
- you may consider any evidence that D had mental disease or defect before commission of crime
- may find at times D was legally sane and at other times was legally insane
what must be done in order to defend with NGRI?
a psych. eval. must be done by a psychiatrist
CALJIC 4.22: voluntary intoxication
intoxication of a person is voluntary if it results from the willing use of any intoxicating liquor, drug or other substance, knowing that its capable of an intoxicating effect or when he willingly assumes the risk of that effect
how to prove sexual battery
1. person touched an intimate part of alleged victim
2. touching was against the will of alleged victim
3. touching was done with specific intent to cause sexual arousal, gratification or abuse
principles in parties
two kinds of principles: those who actually commit the crime, and those who aid and abet the commission of the crime
accessories to parties
those who assist after the commission of the crime
PC section 30
the parties to crimes are classified as principles and accessories
PC section 971
no distinction between principals in the first and second degree; no distinction between accessory before the fact and a principle; all persons concerned in the commission of a crime are principles
PC section 32
every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors, conceals, or aids a principle in such felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having knowledge that said principle has committed such felony, is an accessory
target offense in aiding and abetting
the crime that the accused parties intended to commit
non-target offense in aiding and abetting
an additional unintended crime that occurs during the commission of the target offense
do target and non-target offenses apply to murder?
no
what is flight?
running from a scene
consciousness of guilt
conscious of guilty act/evidence you're guilty of a crime
CALCRIM 372
if D fled, or tried to flee, immediately after the crime was committed or after accused of committing the crime, that conduct may show that he was aware of his guilt; if you conclude that D fled, or tried to flee, it is up to you to decide the meaning and importance of that conduct; however, evidence that D fled, or tried to flee, cannot prove guilt by itself
PC section 21a: what does an attempt to commit a crime consist of?
1. specific intent to commit crime (actus reus)
2. direct but ineffectual act done towards its commission (mens rea)
what is the actus reus step in an attempt?
a direct step requires more than merely planning or preparing to commit a crime or obtaining or arranging for something needed to commit a crime
- one that goes beyond planning or preparation and shows that a person is putting his plan into action
is every attempt a specific intent crime?
yes
CALCRIM 460: abandonment
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
- on the other hand, if a person freely and voluntarily abandons his plans before taking a direct step toward committing the crime, then that person is not guilty of the attempt
conspiracy
an agreement entered into between two or more persons with the specific intent to agree to commit the crime of,
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 happen after D has agreed to commit the 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
CALCRIM 417: liability
a member of a conspiracy is also criminally responsible for any act of any member of the conspiracy if that act is done to further the conspiracy and that act is a natural and probable consequence of the common plan or design of the conspiracy
- this rule applies even if the act was not intended as part of the original plan
what is a natural and probable consequence?
one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes
what is homicide?
the killing of one human being by another, either lawfully or unlawfully
- homicide includes murder and manslaughter, which are unlawful, and acts of excusable and justifiable homicides, which are lawful
what are the 4 types of homicide in CA?
1. first degree murder
2. second degree murder [always start with asking if it is 2nd degree]
3. voluntary manslaughter
4. involuntary manslaughter
when is a human being, according to law, a fetus?
has to be a fetus, not an embryo; post-embryotic stage
how soon after incident must someone die?
PC section 194: death must occur within 3 years and a day
murder: PC section 187
murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or fetus, with malice aforethought
what is express malice?
intent to kill
proof of express malice
- statement from defendant prior, at time of, or after crime
- specific wounds
implied malice (CALCRIM 520)
CALCRIM 520: D acted with implied malice if:
- he intentionally committed an act
- the natural and probable consequences of the act were dangerous to human life
- at time he acted, he knew his acts were dangerous to human life
AND
- D deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life
does implied malice require intent to kill?
no
first degree murder
a premeditated and deliberate killing
first degree premeditated and deliberate murder
1. express malice (intent to kill)
2. premeditation
- CALCRIM 521: considered BEFOREhand; D acted with premeditation if he decided to kill before completing the act that caused death
3. deliberation
- CALCRIM 521: D acted deliberately if he carefully weighed considerations for and against his choice and, knowing the consequences, decided to kill
