Exam Review Flashcards

Flashcards for reviewing key cases and concepts for upcoming exams.

Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972): Case Summary

This case concerned a Jacksonville, Florida vagrancy ordinance that was used to arrest individuals for vague and ill-defined behaviors. The Supreme Court found the ordinance unconstitutional because it was too vague and violated the due process rights of the arrested individuals.

City of Chicago v. Morales (1999): Case Summary

The Supreme Court reviewed a Chicago ordinance that prohibited gang members from loitering. The Court found the ordinance unconstitutional, as it was too vague and gave police too much discretion, leading to arbitrary enforcement.

Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972): Case Summary

This case concerned a Jacksonville, Florida vagrancy ordinance that was used to arrest individuals for vague and ill-defined behaviors. The Supreme Court found the ordinance unconstitutional because it was too vague and violated the due process rights of the arrested individuals.

City of Chicago v. Morales (1999): Case Summary

The Supreme Court reviewed a Chicago ordinance that prohibited gang members from loitering. The Court found the ordinance unconstitutional, as it was too vague and gave police too much discretion, leading to arbitrary enforcement.

Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles (2014): Case Summary

This case challenged a Los Angeles ordinance that restricted individuals from sitting, sleeping, or lying down on public sidewalks. The court found the ordinance unconstitutionally vague because it did not provide clear notice to the public about what conduct was prohibited.

Coker v. Georgia (1977): Case Summary

The Supreme Court addressed whether the death penalty was a constitutional punishment for the rape of an adult woman. The Court held that the death penalty was an excessive punishment for rape, violating the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008): Case Summary

This case examined whether the death penalty could be applied in cases of child rape where the victim did not die. The Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional in such cases, as it was disproportionate to the crime.

Roper v. Simmons (2005): Case Summary

The Supreme Court considered whether it was constitutional to impose the death penalty on juvenile offenders. The Court determined that executing juvenile offenders was unconstitutional, as it violated the Eighth Amendment.

Rummel v. Estelle (1980): Case Summary

The Court reviewed whether a life sentence for a habitual offender, convicted of multiple felonies, was constitutional. The Court upheld the sentence, supporting the state’s interest in preventing recidivism through strict punishment.

Solem v. Helm (1983): Case Summary

This case concerned a life sentence without parole for a defendant convicted of a non-violent crime. The Supreme Court found the sentence unconstitutional, holding that it was disproportionate to the crime committed.

Harmelin v. Michigan (1991): Case Summary

The Supreme Court reviewed a sentence of life without parole for cocaine possession. The Court upheld the sentence, finding that it did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Ewing v. California (2003): Case Summary

The Court addressed the constitutionality of California's "Three Strikes" law, which imposed a 25-to-life sentence for petty theft. The Court upheld the sentence, concluding that it was not cruel and unusual punishment under the circumstances.

In Re Winship (1970): Case Summary

The Supreme Court ruled that in criminal cases, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard applies even in juvenile proceedings, ensuring the protection of due process rights.

Mullaney v. Wilbur (1975): Case Summary

The Court determined that the state must prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If a particular element affects the severity of the crime, the state is obligated to prove that element as well.

Patterson v. New York (1977): Case Summary

This case clarified that while the state must prove the elements of a crime, it is constitutional for the defendant to bear the burden of proving an affirmative defense, such as emotional disturbance, to mitigate culpability.

Martin v. Ohio (1987): Case Summary

The Supreme Court held that it is constitutional to place the burden on the defendant to prove self-defense. Self-defense is considered an affirmative defense, and the state is not required to disprove it as part of its case-in-chief.

Montana v. Egelhoff (1996): Case Summary

The Court ruled that a state can exclude evidence of a defendant's voluntary intoxication when determining whether the defendant possessed the required mental state for a crime.

Montana v. Sandstrom (1979): Case Summary

The Supreme Court determined that mandatory jury presumptions are unconstitutional because they relieve the state of its burden to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

County Court of Ulster County v. Allen (1979): Case Summary

This case clarified that permissive presumptions, which allow but do not require a jury to infer a fact based on evidence, are constitutional.

People v. Decina (1956): Case Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that an individual who knew they were prone to seizures acted voluntarily and could be held liable for the consequences when they chose to drive a car and subsequently caused an accident due to a seizure.

Robinson v. California (1962): Case Summary

The Supreme Court found that it is unconstitutional to punish someone for being addicted to narcotics. The Court drew a distinction between punishing a status (addiction) and punishing a voluntary act.

Powell v. Texas (1968): Case Summary

The Court ruled that it is constitutional to punish public intoxication, as it punishes the voluntary act of becoming drunk, not the status of being an alcoholic.

City of Grant Pass v. Johnson (2024): Case Summary

The Ninth Circuit held that it is constitutional to fine individuals for sleeping in public with blankets, etc., as it considered a content-neutral regulation of conduct.

People v. Beardsley (1907): Case Summary

The Supreme Court of Michigan established that there is no crime if there is no legal duty to act. This principle clarifies the limits of criminal liability based on omissions.

Regina v. Cunningham (1957): Case Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal defined malice as requiring proof of reckless or intentional behavior. This definition is crucial for establishing the mens rea in certain criminal offenses.

Holdridge v. U.S. (1960): Case Summary

The U.S. Court of Appeals highlighted that in strict liability cases, intent is not necessary when the law is designed to protect the public welfare. The focus is on the act itself, regardless of the actor's state of mind.

U.S. v. Balint (1922): Case Summary

The Supreme Court emphasized that in public safety laws, intent is irrelevant. Simply committing the act is sufficient for a conviction under strict liability principles.

Regina v. Prince (1875): Case Summary

This case established that mistakes are not a defense in strict liability offenses. The focus is on whether the prohibited act was committed, not on the defendant's awareness or intent.

Morisette v. U.S. (1952): Case Summary

The Supreme Court clarified that mens rea is a necessary element for theft offenses. An honest mistake of fact can negate the required intent, providing a valid defense.

Lambert v. California (1957): Case Summary

The Court ruled that punishing someone for violating a law they were unaware of violates due process, especially if there was no reasonable notice of the law's existence.

Miller v. Commonwealth (1977): Case Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that reasonable reliance on incorrect legal advice from a government official is a valid defense to criminal charges.

State v. Wickliff (2005): Case Summary

The Court of Appeals of Ohio determined that a legal misunderstanding can negate the required mental state for a crime, providing a valid defense if the defendant's actions were based on that misunderstanding.

Cheek v. U.S. (1991): Case Summary

The Supreme Court stated that a mistake of law can be a defense if the law requires acting 'willfully,' and the defendant genuinely believed their actions did not violate the law.

People v. Armitage (1987): Case Summary

The California Court of Appeal identified key factors in determining causation: Factual Cause - the defendant's act initiated the danger; Proximate Cause - it was foreseeable that someone would attempt to swim and possibly drown in a panic.

People v. Schmies (1996): Case Summary

This case highlighted that Factual Cause exists if, but for the chase, the officer wouldn’t be in danger, and Proximate Cause is established because high-speed chases are inherently dangerous and could result in fatalities.

U.S. v. Hamilton (1960): Case Summary

The Court of Appeals determined that Factual Cause was present because the assault directly led to the victim's hospitalization, and Proximate Cause was established because medical mistakes are foreseeable in emergency care scenarios.

People v. Goetz (1986): Case Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed that self-defense hinges on whether a reasonable person would experience the same fear, not solely on the defendant's subjective belief.

State v. Wanrow (1977): Case Summary

The Supreme Court of Washington emphasized that when evaluating self-defense claims, it is crucial to consider the defendant's background and circumstances to determine if their fear was reasonable.

State v. Ellis (1902): Case Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri clarified that evidence of the victim’s past behavior can be used to support a self-defense claim, providing context for the defendant’s actions.

Tennessee v. Garner (1985): Case Summary

The Supreme Court ruled that police cannot use deadly force unless the suspect poses a significant threat of serious harm to the officer or others.

Scott v. Harris (2007): Case Summary

The Supreme Court found that deadly force was reasonable in a high-speed chase because the fleeing suspect posed a significant risk to bystanders.

People v. Ceballos (1974): Case Summary

The Supreme Court of California established that the use of deadly traps is illegal, even if intended to protect property from intruders.

Nelson v. State (Alaska) (2013): Case Summary

The Court of Appeals of Alaska clarified that a necessity defense is invalid if the defendant’s actions are unreasonable or excessively destructive in relation to the threatened harm.

Regina v. Dudley (1884): Case Summary

This landmark English case established that necessity is not a defense to murder. It is unlawful to kill an innocent person to save oneself.

U.S. v. Paolello (1991): Case Summary

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the necessity defense is applicable if the danger is immediate, and the responsive action is reasonable and brief in duration.

State v. Unger (1977): Case Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a genuine fear and the absence of a safe escape route may justify a duress defense, even for escape from confinement.

People v. Velez (1985): Case Summary

The Supreme Court of Nevada determined that if an individual voluntarily consumes a substance, it constitutes voluntary intoxication, even if the substance is unknowingly laced with additional drugs.

State v. Donner (2019): Case Summary

The Court of Appeals of Washington held that if a person is involuntarily drugged without their knowledge and subsequently loses control, they may have a valid defense against criminal charges.

People v. Conley (1966): Case Summary

The Supreme Court of California ruled that voluntary intoxication can reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter if it negates the specific intent required for murder.

Montana v. Egelhoff (1996): Case Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that states have the authority to disregard evidence of a defendant's drunkenness when determining whether the defendant possessed the intent to commit a crime.

M’Naghten Case (1843): Case Summary

This landmark English case established that a defendant is considered insane if, due to a mental defect, they did not know the nature and quality of their actions or that their actions were wrong.

State v. Crenshaw (1983): Case Summary

The Supreme Court of Washington clarified that if a defendant understands that their actions are considered wrong by society, they are not legally insane, even if their personal beliefs suggest otherwise.

Durham v. United States (1954): Case Summary

The U.S. Court of Appeals introduced the principle that if a crime is the product of a mental illness, the insanity defense may be applicable.

Kahler v. Kansas (2020): Case Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that each state has the autonomy to establish its own standards for the insanity defense, and not all states are required to adhere strictly to the M’Naghten rule.

Rosemond v. US (2014): Case Summary

The Supreme Court held that for a defendant to be guilty of aiding and abetting a crime involving a firearm, the defendant must have known that a firearm would be used and intended to facilitate the commission of the crime.

State v. Cotton (1990): Case Summary

The Supreme Court of North Carolina clarified that the crime of solicitation is complete when the solicitous communication is made; delivery or receipt is not required.

People v. Davis (1994): Case Summary

The California Court of Appeal confirmed that California’s fetal homicide statute does not require fetal viability to be considered homicide with malice aforethought.

Girouard v. State (1991): Case Summary

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that words alone are insufficient to constitute adequate provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter.

People v. Ogg (1970): Case Summary

The California Court of Appeal determined that gross negligence that results in death can lead to a conviction of involuntary manslaughter.

People v. Mehserle (2012): Case Summary

The California Court of Appeal held that gross negligence involving the use of deadly force can result in a conviction of involuntary manslaughter.

Coker v. Georgia (1977): 8th Amendment Context Case Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that imposing the death penalty for the rape of an adult woman is an unconstitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008): 8th Amendment Context Case Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the death penalty is unconstitutional for the rape of a child, unless the crime results in the child’s death.

Brown v. State (Wisconsin) (1906): Defense of Property Case Summary

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin clarified that deadly force is not justified solely to protect property.

What is the key lesson from People v. Griffin (2004) regarding sexual assault?

Physical force isn’t always required; the victim's vulnerability and relationship matter.

What was the central issue in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972)?

Whether a Jacksonville, Florida vagrancy ordinance was unconstitutionally vague, leading to arrests for ill-defined behaviors.

What was the main point of contention in City of Chicago v. Morales (1999)?

Whether a Chicago ordinance prohibiting gang members from loitering was unconstitutionally vague and led to arbitrary enforcement.

What specific restriction was challenged in Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles (2014)?

A Los Angeles ordinance that restricted individuals from sitting, sleeping, or lying down on public sidewalks and whether it provided clear notice of prohibited conduct.

In Coker v. Georgia (1977), what punishment was being questioned in relation to the crime of rape?

Whether the death penalty was a constitutional punishment for the rape of an adult woman.

What specific circumstance was examined in Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) regarding the death penalty?

Whether the death penalty could be applied in cases of child rape where the victim did not die.

What class of offenders was at issue in Roper v. Simmons (2005) regarding capital punishment?

Whether it was constitutional to impose the death penalty on juvenile offenders.

What type of sentence was reviewed in Rummel v. Estelle (1980) for a habitual offender?

Whether a life sentence for a habitual offender, convicted of multiple felonies, was constitutional.

In Solem v. Helm (1983), what characteristic of the crime was significant in the Court's decision?

The case concerned a life sentence without parole for a defendant convicted of a non-violent crime, which the Court found disproportionate.

What specific offense was central to Harmelin v. Michigan (1991)?

A sentence of life without parole for cocaine possession and whether it violated the Eighth Amendment.

What law was challenged in Ewing v. California (2003)?

The constitutionality of California's 'Three Strikes' law, which imposed a 25-to-life sentence for petty theft.

What standard of proof was addressed in In Re Winship (1970)?

The Supreme Court ruled that in criminal cases, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard applies even in juvenile proceedings, ensuring the protection of due process rights.

What aspect of proving a crime was at issue in Mullaney v. Wilbur (1975)?

The Court determined that the state must prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If a particular element affects the severity of the crime, the state is obligated to prove that element as well.

What burden of proof was clarified in Patterson v. New York (1977)?

This case clarified that while the state must prove the elements of a crime, it is constitutional for the defendant to bear the burden of proving an affirmative defense, such as emotional disturbance, to mitigate culpability.

In Martin v. Ohio (1987), what specific defense was the defendant required to prove?

The Supreme Court held that it is constitutional to place the burden on the defendant to prove self-defense. Self-defense is considered an affirmative defense, and the state is not required to disprove it as part of its case-in-chief.

What type of evidence was at issue in Montana v. Egelhoff (1996)?

The Court ruled that a state can exclude evidence of a defendant's voluntary intoxication when determining whether the defendant possessed the required mental state for a crime.

What kind of jury instruction was challenged in Montana v. Sandstrom (1979)?

The Supreme Court determined that mandatory jury presumptions are unconstitutional because they relieve the state of its burden to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

What type of presumption was clarified in County Court of Ulster County v. Allen (1979)?

This case clarified that permissive presumptions, which allow but do not require a jury to infer a fact based on evidence, are constitutional.

In People v. Decina (1956), what prior knowledge influenced the court's decision?

The New York Court of Appeals held that an individual who knew they were prone to seizures acted voluntarily and could be held liable for the consequences when they chose to drive a car and subsequently caused an accident due to a seizure.

What status was deemed unconstitutional to punish in Robinson v. California (1962)?

The Supreme Court found that it is unconstitutional to punish someone for being addicted to narcotics. The Court drew a distinction between punishing a status (addiction) and punishing a voluntary act.

What action was deemed punishable in Powell v. Texas (1968)?

The Court ruled that it is constitutional to punish public intoxication, as it punishes the voluntary act of becoming drunk, not the status of being an alcoholic.

What activity was regulated in City of Grant Pass v. Johnson (2024)?

The Ninth Circuit held that it is constitutional to fine individuals for sleeping in public with blankets, etc., as it considered a content-neutral regulation of conduct.

What principle was established in People v. Beardsley (1907) regarding legal duty?

The Supreme Court of Michigan established that there is no crime if there is no legal duty to act. This principle clarifies the limits of criminal liability based on omissions.

How did Regina v. Cunningham (1957) define malice for criminal offenses?

The Court of Criminal Appeal defined malice as requiring proof of reckless or intentional behavior. This definition is crucial for establishing the mens rea in certain criminal offenses.

In Holdridge v. U.S. (1960), what element was deemed unnecessary in strict liability cases?

The U.S. Court of Appeals highlighted that in strict liability cases, intent is not necessary when the law is designed to protect the public welfare. The focus is on the act itself, regardless of the actor's state of mind.

What aspect is considered irrelevant in public safety laws, according to U.S. v. Balint (1922)?

The Supreme Court emphasized that in public safety laws, intent is irrelevant. Simply committing the act is sufficient for a conviction under strict liability principles.

In Regina v. Prince (1875), what defense was not applicable in strict liability offenses?

Mistakes are not a defense in strict liability offenses. The focus is on whether the prohibited act was committed, not on the defendant's awareness or intent.

What element is necessary for theft offenses, as clarified in Morisette v. U.S. (1952)?

The Supreme Court clarified that mens rea is a necessary element for theft offenses. An honest mistake of fact can negate the required intent, providing a valid defense.

What due process concern was addressed in Lambert v. California (1957)?

The Court ruled that punishing someone for violating a law they were unaware of violates due process, especially if there was no reasonable notice of the law's existence.

In Miller v. Commonwealth (1977), what type of reliance was considered a valid defense?

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that reasonable reliance on incorrect legal advice from a government official is a valid defense to criminal charges.

What type of misunderstanding was addressed in State v. Wickliff (2005)?

The Court of Appeals of Ohio determined that a legal misunderstanding can negate the required mental state for a crime, providing a valid defense if the defendant's actions were based on that misunderstanding.

When can a mistake of law be a defense, according to Cheek v. U.S. (1991)?

The Supreme Court stated that a mistake of law can be a defense if the law requires acting 'willfully,' and the defendant genuinely believed their actions did not violate the law.

What key factors were identified in People v. Armitage (1987) for determining causation?

The California Court of Appeal identified key factors in determining causation: Factual Cause - the defendant's act initiated the danger; Proximate Cause - it was foreseeable that someone would attempt to swim and possibly drown in a panic.

What elements of factual and proximate cause were highlighted in People v. Schmies (1996)?

This case highlighted that Factual Cause exists if, but for the chase, the officer wouldn’t be in danger, and Proximate Cause is established because high-speed chases are inherently dangerous and could result in fatalities.

What scenarios were used to illustrate factual and proximate cause in U.S. v. Hamilton (1960)?

The Court of Appeals determined that Factual Cause was present because the assault directly led to the victim's hospitalization, and Proximate Cause was established because medical mistakes are foreseeable in emergency care scenarios.

On what standard does self-defense hinge, according to People v. Goetz (1986)?

The New York Court of Appeals addressed that self-defense hinges on whether a reasonable person would experience the same fear, not solely on the defendant's subjective belief.

In State v. Wanrow (1977), what factors are crucial when evaluating self-defense claims?

The Supreme Court of Washington emphasized that when evaluating self-defense claims, it is crucial to consider the defendant's background and circumstances to determine if their fear was reasonable.

What type of evidence can support a self-defense claim, as clarified in State v. Ellis (1902)?

The Supreme Court of Missouri clarified that evidence of the victim’s past behavior can be used to support a self-defense claim, providing context for the defendant’s actions.

Under what circumstances can police use deadly force, as ruled in Tennessee v. Garner (1985)?

The Supreme Court ruled that police cannot use deadly force unless the suspect poses a significant threat of serious harm to the officer or others.