Criminal Law

The retributive theory will only take into account the past wrongs of the accused in deciding whether punishment is deserved

True

To determine the meaning of a statute, all courts will look to legislative intent

False

Criminal Law is based on common law, the constitution, judicial opinions, and legislative enactments, and can be shaped by unofficial sources like commenters or scholars

True

The principle of lenity ensures that if any ambiguity exists in a statute then the interpretations should be in favor of the accused

False

On appeal, a court will decide for themselves whether the elements have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, if not, they must overturn the jury verdict

False

Specific deterrence provides a future benefit because the punishment today will ensure that others will decide crime doesn't pay and decide not to break the law

False

The Utter case found that no criminal defendant will be able to claim a conditioned response as a valid defense to a criminal charge

False

Since retributive theory justifies punishment based on a person doing a morally wrong act, an immoral act can be punished by the law

False

The definition of purposely in the MPC varies between result and attendant circumstance elements

True

Any statute that fails to state a means rea element is strict liability

False

For an actor to be reckless, they must be consciously aware of the risk they are creating

True

A statute that prohibits "Possession of a car knowing you do not have the owner's permission" is a general intent crime

False

The greater the possible punishment the more likely the offense is a public welfare offense and therefore strict liability

False

The only way to act "knowingly" under the MPC as to an attendant circumstance is if the actor is actually aware of the circumstance or fact in question

False

To be acting "knowingly" under the MPC as to a result element, the actor must aware that the result is practically certain to happen as a result of his conduct

True

In Conley, the prosecutor needed to prove that the defendant intended great bodily harm or permanent disability/disfigurement for him to be guilty

True

All felony murders involve inherently dangerous crimes

False

A charge of assault of a government agent is very unlikely to be a proper basis for a second-degree felony murder charge should the victim die after the assault

True

One of the controversies with homicide law is that depraved heart murder has a lower standard for mens rea than involuntary manslaughter does, and is thus inequitable

False

For provocation, words alone during the altercation are irrelevant because words will never be enough to allow for adequate provocation

False

The MPC approach to the heat of passion homicide does allow for more consideration of the specific peculiarities of the individual defendant than the Common Law approach

True

The American Law Institute hated the felony murder rule so they decided to eliminate it from the Modern Penal Code

False

To decide if the defendant acted with a depraved heart, the legal test asks whether they knew they were endangering the life of another and acted with a conscious disregard for human life

True

A reckless homicide is involuntary manslaughter under the MPC approach

False

A mistake of a fact must be reasonable to be a valid defense to a specific intent crime

False

All proximate causes are actual causes, but not all actual causes are proximate causes

True

Brain-based criteria for death can only be adopted through legislative action

False

The Modern Penal Code section on actual cause is nearly identical to the common law approach, but on proximate cause, it differs from the common law approach

True

Acting on the advice of an attorney will provide a defendant with reasonable reliance to have a valid Mistake of Law Defense

False

When a cause is independent and sufficient, then the correct test for the actual cause is the substantial factor test rather than the but-for test

False

The Lambert rule requires that when a crime is an omission to act based on status, the protection has the burden of proving that the Defendant had notice of the statute

True

Either Specific or General --> requires intent to perform the prohibited act but not the intent to cause any certain result

General

Either Specific or General --> requires intent to perform the prohibited act combined with the intent to bring about the prohibited result

Specific

A. Nature of the Forbidden Conduct --> acts performed by the person (eg: reckless driving) B. Attendant Circumstances --> circumstances that must exist for there to be an offense under the statute (eg: age of X has to be under 18) C. The Result of the Conduct --> certain thing results (eg: Homicide)

Material Element of Offense

* MPC 2.03(2)
* only if the result is the same
* if you intend on more serious, but less serious occurs, you will be responsible for less serious

Transferred Intent

\-MPC 2.02 a. Purposely: consciously want it to happen b. Knowingly: doesn't intent, highly certain c. Recklessly: involves conscious risk creation d. Negligently: should've been aware

4 kinds of culpability

all crimes besides strict liability require

actus rea, mens rea, causation, particular result

* conduct must be strictly prohibited by criminal laws before it can be punished
* understandable to ordinary citizens
* not too much discretion for judges, police, prosecutors, etc. judicial interpretation biased in favor of the accused

legality

statute should be read in light more favorable to the defendant

Lenity Doctrine

\-punishment because they have committed the crime deterrence not needed for justification justified in punishing the guilty only because offenders deserve it

Retributive Theory

\-pain is justified when it increases pleasure in society 4 categories: general --> population is deterred specific --> offender is deterred incapacitation --> offender removed from society reform --> criminal might reform and become happier/useful

Utilitarian Theory

MPC 2.05 mens rea irrelevant eg: statutory rape, traffic violation

Strict Liability

a. you have a special relationship --> mom and child b. when you have already started to care --> driving to the hospital c. when a statute states you must care d. when you have a contractual duty --> hired caretaker e. when you are the only person who can --> home alone f. you created the risk

omission liability

knowledge of law not specifically an element of an offense, unless specifically mentioned

A. defense when it negates purpose required 3. Defense when (a) statute or enactment hasn't been publsihed or readily available to actor prior conduct (b) actor acts in reasonable reliance to something later determined to be invalid or erroneous in: (i) statute (ii) judicial decision/opinion (iii) administrative order or grant of permission (iv) official interpreataion of law by appropriate official

Mistake of law - MPC

\-belief relates to the content or meaning of the law -ignorance is no excuse exceptions: (1) reliance on official statement of law (2) constitutional notice - only for a crime involving omission, based on statute --> eg: not knowing you have to register as a felon (3) if the person genuinely believed, then it negates for a specific intent crime

Mistake of law - CL

* for a general intent crime: only defense if the mistake was reasonable
* for a specific intent crime: even if it wasn't reasonable, but D genuinely believed

Mistake of fact - CL

defense if (A) mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to est. material element of offense or (b) law states - mistake is a defense exception: you don't get a defense, if you knew you were still doing something bad, you just get charged with extent you knew

Mistake of fact - MPC

Murder

purposely, knowingly; extreme indifference felony murder --> felony becomes malice

Manslaughter

* recklessly, mental emotional disturbance - assess the reasonableness

Negligent Homicide -- killing done negligently

Homicide Law - MPC

Murder is unlawful killing with malice aforethought

malice can be expressed - deliberate intention or implied - no considerable provocation

1st Degree: all murder willful, deliberate, premeditated killing

2nd Degree --> Manslaughter - killing without malice Voluntary - sudden quarrel, heat of passion Involuntary - unlawful act occurs, not felony Vehicular - driving in an unlawful manner with gross negligence

Homicide Law - CL

Actual Cause:

* antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred

Proximate Cause:

* actual result involves some kind of injury or harm and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence,

Causation - MPC

Actual Cause: use but for, then substantial
but-for: result wouldn't have occurred, but for defendant's conduct

Substantial Factor --> 2 independent, sufficient, and simultaneous causes

proximate cause: when but-for won't work or theres an intervening force

6 proximate cause factors apparent safety voluntarily human intervention De minimus factors Intended consequences doctrine omission factors reasonable foreseeability

Causation - CL

For Murder:

time gap, must be fully conscious of intent

interval must allow for a 2nd look, interval of time for conscious assessment

factors for premeditation and deliberation a. want of provocation on part of deceased b. conduct and statements of defendant before and after killing c. threats of defendant before/during occurrence giving rise to death d. ill-will or previous difficulty between parties e. lethal blows after deceased has fallen, helpless f. evidence that killing done in a brutal manner

Deliberation/Premeditation Formula - CL

no language of this

knowing = practically certain to cause result; let jury decide

Deliberation/Premeditation Formula - MPC

circumstances indicate an abandoned and malignant heart to constitute malice for depraved heart

Phillips ==> To show malice, D must have a conscious disregard for the danger to human life

Murder - CL

* a defense for this:

extreme emotional distress (EED)

(1) must act out of EED (2) assess the reasonableness

Manslaughter - MPC

4 elements of provocation

* must have been adequate provocation
\-killing must have been done in heat of passion
\-has to be sudden, no reasonable opportunity to cool
* causal connection between provocation, passion and fatal act

usually jury decides if its adequate, but factors...

* calcuated by reasonable man - objective standard Some circumstances discovery of adultery mutual combat illegal arrest injury to close relative assault upon defendant

Voluntary Manslaughter - CL

1st Degree: explicit crimes listed
2nd Degree: felony has to be inherently dangerous

* felony can't be assaultive in nature - independent
* death must occur during felony
* death must be actually caused by felony
* death must be proximately caused by felony

Felony Murder

What Case? Beyond a reasonable doubt intoxicated in his driveway

Owens

What Case? how much punishment is needed

Du

What Case? Legality: changes to act only prospectively

Keeler

What Case? Legality: court can adopt new criteria

Eulo

What Case? Analyzes theories of punishment, is it needed

Dudley

What Case? Statutory Clarity, what counts and what doesn't

Descertain

What Case?
Statutory Interpretation

* does a certain thing count?

Muscarello

What Case? actus rea: must do the act voluntarily

Martin

What Case? omissions liability

Beardsley

What Case? mens rea, infering intent

Conley

What Case? knowledge? under CL you have to prove they were actually aware, but under MPC just a high probability

Nations

What Case? no mens rea for a strict liability crime like statutory rape

Garnett

What Case? MoF, General: he had a reasonable belief Specific: genuinely believed

Navarro

What Case? MoL, ignorance of law is no defense

Gardner

What Case? MoL, belief negates purpose

Cheek

What Case? must hasten, accelerate for actual causation

Oxendine

What Case? must be the substantial factor for actual cause

Velasquez

What Case? proximate cause is determined by 6 factors

Rideout

What Case? time gap; must be fully conscious of intended result

Gauthrie

What Case? interval must allow for a 2nd look

Morrin

What Case? must prove there was deliberation to convict of 1st degree

Midgett

What Case?
6 factors considered for adequate provocation


1. want of provocation
2. conduct and statements of D before and after
3. threats of D before and during conduct causing death
4. ill will and previous difficulty with D and V
5. dealing with lethal blows by D after V falls
6. killing done in brutal manner

Forest

What Case?
words alone never enough, 5 situations::

* mutual combat
\-illegal arrest
\-assault upon defendant
* discovery of spousal adultery
* injury to close relative

Girouard

What Case? implied malice with conscious disregard for human life and abandoned and malignant heart

Knoller

What Case? eluding the police not an inherently dangerous felony

Howard

What Case? felony can't be assaultive in nature utilized ireland, wilson, sears, burton

Smith

What case? no mens rea with strict liability

Morisette

What case? establishes elements for self defense

Patterson

1. There is a threat that is actual/apparent of use of deadly force 
2. The threat is unlawful and immediate 
3. The defender must believe he was in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm 
4. The response is necessary to save self 

\
* All must be subjectively held, but also be objectively reasonable

Elements of Self-Defense

A legal principle that allows individuals to use deadly force to defend themselves in their homes or any other place where they have a legal right to be.

Castle Doctrine

What case? You can consider physical characteristics in Self-Defense

\
* Relevant knowledge of the D of the other person 
* Physical attributes of all persons 
* Prior experiences if they add to reasonable belief 
* Physical movements of all persons

Goetz

D stand in the shoes of the person who was defended to determine if using deadly force for defense was appropriate

Alter Ego Rule

What case?

defend others when imminent/necessary

Kurr

What Case? -- Defense of Property

defense of habitation permitted when it is necessary to prevent a \[violent\] felony inside

Boyett

CL or MPC?

No use of deadly force for the defense of personal property

MPC

What case?

Elements in Necessity in response to natural forces

Nelson

\

1. Act must have been done to prevent significant evil 
2. Must have no adequate alternative 
3. Harm caused cannot be disproportionate to harm avoided

Elements of Necessity -CL

\

1. Actor believes its necessary to avoid evil 
2. Harm sought to be avoided is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense 
3. No specific exemption to necessity defense in the statute 
4. No other specific exception to necessity by legislative intent

Elements of Choice of Evils - MPC

What case?

cannot claim defense for a homicide charge aka necessity is never a defense for murder

Dudley

What case?

no right to kill innocent people, no legal justification, prisoner’s acts are murder

Hale

What case?

Establishes elements of durress

Contento-pachan

\

1. Immediate fear of death/SBI
2. Well-grounded fear it will be carried out
3. No reasonable opportunity to escape

Elements of Duress - CL

\
* Affirmative defense that actor engaged in conduct by unlawful threat and a reasonable person would do the same  
* Defense unavailable if he placed himself in that situation - w/ his negligence

Elements of Duress - MPC