Nakiya's crim outline

Owens v

A conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Commonwealth v

The common law is sufficiently broad to punish as a misdemeanor, although there may be no exact precedent, any act which directly injures or tends to injure the public to such an extent as to require the state to interfere and punish the wrongdoer.

Keeler v

Penal Code section 187 provides:“Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought.”

Muscarello v

The phrase “carries a firearm” includes knowingly possessing and carrying firearms in a vehicle, including its locked glove compartment or trunk, which the person concerned accompanies.

Martin v

Any person who, while intoxicated or drunk, appears in any public place where one or more persons are present and manifests a drunken condition by boisterous or indecent conduct, or loud and profane discourse, shall, on conviction, be fined.

State v

An “act” committed while one is unconscious is in reality no act at all. It is merely a physical event or occurrence for which there can be no criminal liability.

People v

Establish that no such legal duty is created based upon a mere moral obligation.

Baber v

A physician’s failure to continue treatment of a comatose patient at the request of the patient’s family is not an unlawful failure to perform a legal duty and therefore is not punishable under the penal code.

Morrissette v

The mere omission from the language of the statute of any mention of intent is not to be construed as eliminating the element of intent from the crime.

Staples v

Absent a clear Congressional statement that mens rea is not required, the public welfare/strict liability rationale should not be applied to interpret any statute that fails to mention mental state as an element of the offense.

Garnett v

Traditionally, statutory rape is a strict liability crime designed to protect young persons from the dangers of sexual exploitation by adults, loss of chastity, physical injury and in the case of girls, pregnancy.

United States v

The necessity defense can be invoked if the defendant demonstrates that (1) they faced a choice between two evils and chose the lesser evil, (2) they acted to prevent imminent harm, (3) there was a direct causal relationship between their actions and the harm to be averted, and (4) there were no legal alternatives to breaking the law. However, this defense is not available in cases of indirect civil disobedience.

Nelson v

A crime can be justified if it was necessary to prevent a greater harm. To claim necessity as a defense, the accused must show that the criminal act was committed to avert a significant harm, there were no reasonable alternatives, and the harm caused by the criminal act is proportional to the harm it prevented.

State v

In New Mexico, the defense of habitation allows a resident to use deadly force against an intruder when necessary to prevent a felony inside the home, and it does not require the intruder to have physically entered the home.

State v

When a statute requires knowledge of a specific fact as an element of a crime, the defendant must have actual awareness of that fact for the element to be satisfied, unless the statute specifies otherwise.

People v

A killing can be justified on the grounds of perfect self-defense if the defendant believed it was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm and this belief was reasonable. However, evidence of battered-wife syndrome will not automatically justify a killing unless the defendant believed it was essential to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

State v

The justification for self-defense necessitates a subjective standard of reasonableness, accounting for the defendant’s perceptions and all the facts and circumstances known to the defendant at the time of the incident.

People v

In New York, a person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense or defense of another only if there is an objective and reasonable belief that the attacker is using or about to use deadly force or is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, or robbery.

Regina v

In criminal law, the term “malice” refers to (1) a specific intent to cause the type of harm that was actually caused, or (2) a reckless disregard for the likelihood that one’s actions could cause harm, with awareness of the potential risk involved.

United States v

When a defendant provides evidence during sentencing that they made a mistake of fact regarding the type of drugs involved in a narcotics offense, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution to establish the defendant’s mens rea (mental state) concerning the type of drug.

United States v

In the District of Columbia, an initial aggressor in a fatal conflict cannot claim self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and communicates this withdrawal. Also, the initial aggressor must retreat, if possible, before using deadly force in self-defense.

Patterson v

The state is obligated to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. However, a defendant can be required to prove an affirmative defense, such as acting under extreme emotional disturbance.

People v

A juror can be discharged from jury service if they are unable or unwilling to evaluate the facts of a criminal case and make a verdict based on the court’s instructions.

People v

Criminal intent is necessary for the charge of aggravated battery, and it can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the crime.

State v

Common law recognizes the defense of necessity when a person commits a criminal act to prevent a greater harm.

Commonwealth v

In rape prosecution, the defense of mistake of fact regarding the victim’s consent is not available.

Boro v

Rape can be classified into two categories based on fraud – fraud in the factum and fraud in the inducement.

Commonwealth v

In Pennsylvania, for sexual intercourse to be classified as rape, it must be obtained through forcible compulsion or the threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent the victim from resisting.

State v

In a rape charge, the element of lack of consent can be proven either by demonstrating resistance or by showing that the victim did not resist due to a genuine and reasonably grounded fear.

Rusk v

In Maryland, for a rape conviction to stand, there must be sufficient evidence demonstrating that the victim resisted the act and that the defendant used force or the threat of force to overcome this resistance.

State v

To establish rape, there must be sufficient evidence to prove that sexual intercourse was against the victim’s will and was obtained through the use of force or the threat of force.

Tison v

Proximate Cause

A defendant's conduct is not the proximate cause of a prohibited result if it is beyond the scope of the defendant's conduct or if it would be unjust to hold the defendant criminally liable, even if the defendant's conduct is a cause-in-fact of the result.

Factual and Proximate Causation

To establish causation in a criminal case, both factual and proximate causation must be proven. Proximate causation is established if the injury is a direct and natural result of the defendant's actions. If there is an intervening cause that is not reasonably foreseeable and supersedes the defendant's conduct, the defendant's conduct is not the proximate cause of the injury.

Cause-in-Fact

An injury can be considered the cause-in-fact of a victim's death if it accelerates the victim's death, even if the injury itself is non-lethal and follows a lethal injury.

Good-Faith Misunderstanding of the Law

The question of whether a good-faith misunderstanding of the law negates the specific intent requirement of willfulness under criminal tax laws is a matter for the jury to decide. There is no legal requirement for such a belief to be objectively reasonable.

Defense of Good Faith Mistaken Belief

A person who breaks a law cannot use a defense of good faith mistaken belief regarding the meaning of the law.

Honest Mistake of Fact

In cases of specific intent crimes, an honest mistake of fact is a defense regardless of whether the mistake was reasonable or not.

Mistake of Fact

An honest mistake of the law is a defense when it negates the required mens rea. If specific intent, mistaken good faith belief negates the intent. If general intent, mistake has to be honest and reasonable to negate.

Mistake of Law

Not an excuse unless elemental exception "defendant must know it is illegal" or due process exception:does not like to prohibit a status, no actual notice of omission. Rea Reliance/entrapment by estoppel:official source interprets the law you rely on and then the court changes their mind. Public official letter.

Battery

Battery is the touching or striking of another against their will. It was a voluntary act.

Felony Murder

Felony + a death = felony murder. The defendant satisfied the requisite mens rea for the predicate felony. Because felony murder is a strict liability crime, the defendant only needs to satisfy the mens rea for the predicate felony.

Actus Reus

Voluntary act. A defendant satisfies the voluntary act requirement by voluntarily committing the predicate felony.

Merger Doctrine

If the underlying felony is integral or a necessary part for the homicide, you cannot be found guilty of a felony murder, just murder.

Inherently Dangerous Felony Doctrine

The felony must be an inherently dangerous felony for felony murder to apply. Use abstract approach or facts approach to decide if the felony is inherently dangerous.

Homicide

In this jurisdiction, an individual commits a homicide offense when they act in a way that causes the death of a human being, with a specified mens rea.

Proximate Cause

Proximate cause refers to the moral responsibility and foreseeability of the death. The more foreseeable the act is, the less likely that it severs the proximate cause chain.

Substantial Risk

An actor is negligent if they are subjectively unaware of a substantial and unjustified risk. Gross negligence is a much higher standard than simple negligence; an action is grossly negligent if it falls substantially below the standard of care that a reasonable person would have provided.

Intended Consequences Doctrine

If the defendant gets the result they want in the general manner they intended, the defendant does not escape liability even if an unforeseeable event intervened.

Apparent Safety Doctrine

When the defendant's active force has come to rest in a position of safety, the proximate cause chain is severed.

Intentional Homicide

Murder and manslaughter can take either MPC or common law in the same jurisdiction. CL:"malice aforethought."

Voluntary Manslaughter

Murder can be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter if there is legally adequate provocation, sudden provocation, killing occurred in the heat of passion, and there is a causal relation between provocation, heat of passion, and killing.

Extreme Emotional Distress

Murder can be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter in an MPC jurisdiction if the defendant is extremely emotionally disturbed and a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have been extremely emotionally disturbed if the facts/circumstances were as the defendant believed.

Unintentional Homicide

Depraved heart murder, involuntary manslaughter, and negligent homicide are forms of unintentional homicide.

Depraved Heart Murder

If the defendant acted with awareness that their actions created a substantial and unjustified risk of death or great bodily harm and disregarded the risk, it may be considered depraved heart murder.

Involuntary Manslaughter

If the defendant recklessly caused the death of another, it may be considered involuntary manslaughter.

MPC Extreme Indifference/Recklessness

If the defendant acted with knowledge of recklessness in regard to the risk of death or great bodily harm and there is extreme indifference to the value of human life, it may be considered second-degree murder.

Negligent Homicide

If the defendant was subjectively unaware but a reasonable person would have been aware that there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death, it may be considered negligent homicide.

Attempt

Attempt refers to the act of intending to commit a crime but failing to complete it.

Attempt Crimes

Offenses that allow law enforcement to intervene before the main offense is committed.

Merger Rule

A defendant cannot be convicted of both the attempt and the completed crime.

Physical Proximity

The act for the attempt must be physically close to the completed crime.

Dangerous Proximity

The act for the attempt must be physically close to the completed crime, considering the severity of the crime.

Unequivocal Conduct Test

Actions by the defendant that establish unequivocally that the act is criminal, leaving no other interpretation.

MPC (Model Penal Code)

Separates complete from incomplete attempts, distinguishing between acts completed as planned but unsuccessful in result and acts that are incomplete.

Conspiracy

A partnership between two or more individuals to commit a criminal act or achieve a legal act through unlawful means.

Overt Act

An act that satisfies the requirement for conspiracy, not a difficult test to meet.

Sexual Assault

A crime that violates bodily autonomy, with elements that can be difficult to differentiate.

Force v Consent Elements

The distinction between the use of force and the presence or absence of consent in sexual assault cases.

Force

The use of force to overcome the victim's resistance.

Yes-Means-Yes

Affirmative consent is required to establish consent in sexual assault cases.

No-Means-No

The victim's expression of non-consent is necessary to establish no consent.

Sexual Assault

Mens Rea:Different perspectives on the mental state required for sexual assault cases.

Mistake of Fact Defense

A reasonable and honest belief in the complainant's consent can negate the mens rea of rape.

Unequivocal Conduct Rule

If evidence of actual consent is weak, using a mistake of fact defense implies that the victim did not give consent.

Strict Liability (Minority View)

The state must prove the absence of consent for an assault charge.

General Intent (Majority View)

Mens rea falls under the general intent for sexual assault cases.

California Rule

Mistake of fact can be used as a defense if the mistake can be proven equivocal.

Affirmative Refusal

Non-consent must be expressed by the victim.

Affirmative Consent

Consent is established by an affirmative "yes" from the victim.

undefined