Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/44

Click to flip

44 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

State v. Utter

CL


when the state of unconsciousness is voluntarily induced through the use of drugs or alcohol, not a complete defense. War vet stabbed son after drinking.

Martin v. State

CL


D was dragged, drunk, into public by police so not guilty. But MPC would probably say guilty because he drank.

MPC§ 1.13(2)

act = bodily movement (even involuntary)

MPC§ 2.01(1)

Not liable w/o voluntary act

MPC § 2.01 (2)

Involuntary acts are: (a) reflexif (b) while unconceous (c) hypnotized (d) other

MPC§ 2.01(4)

you POSSESS something if you've had a chance to throw it away.

Peoplev. Decina

MPC epileptic driver. Guilty because they knew about condition

Jonesv. U.S

CL Situationswhere legal duty to act




Statutory Duty

Crimesof commission

CL Duty by status, k, volunteering, risk creation

Peoplev. Beardsley

CL, "burns candle at both ends" Hehad no legal obligation to act, only a moral one which is notpunishable by law.

Barberv. Superior Court

CL: Removal of life support not act, ommission, Not guilty


MPC: removing life support is act: guilty.

MPC§ 1.13(4)

Omission = failure to act

MPC§ 2.01(3)

not liable for omission unless otherwise stated

Social Harm

Result: Death after manslaughter


Conduct: Driving after drunk


Attendant Circumstance: drunk while driving

INTENT

CL: PURPOSEto cause; KNOWLEDGE of result

Transferred Intent Doctrine

Intenttransfers if a person acts intentionally as defined above and if theresult of his conduct differs from that which he desired only inrespect to the identity of the victim. (Dillof’s specialty)

Reginav. Cunningham

CL: tore gas meter off wall to steal coins in it...???

Specific/General Intent

Defines specific mens rea in definition


/


any mens rea inferred from actus reus

MPC§ 2.02

Culpability hierarchy:


Purposefully,


Knowingly,


Recklessly, or


Negligently.


Higher is sufficient for lower. If not specified first 3 will do.

2.02(1)

“Aperson is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely,knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law may require, withrespect to eachmaterial element ofthe offense.”Liabilityif C+R+AC + MR(C)+MR(R)+MR(AC).

Transferred Intent Doctrine/MPC 2.03

CL and MPC: only same crime transfers (MPC2.04(2) never worse crime)


People v. Conley: D intended to strike V1, accidentally struck V2, intent can be transferred.

Willful blindness

CL: Avoids knowing fact (Statev. Nations, underage dancer, got off because girl was supposedly on her way to her purse for ID.)


MPC: knowledge if aware of high probability

CL Intent

Have to interpret statute to see what Mens Rea applies to, courts often hold it doesn't apply to the Attendant Circumstances.




Flores-Figueroav. United States: comma placement implied guilt.

MPC§2.02(4)

Unless contrary purpose "plainly" (yeah right) appears, intent required for every element.

Strict Liability

No Mens Rea required, guilty if actus reus,


Type ii (limited) strict liability, one/some elements require no mens rea (statutory rape) Garnettv. State

MPC§2.05

No strict liability for imprisonable violations



Mistake of fact (failure of proof)

MPC 2.04(1) Not guilty if mistake (reasonable or unreasonable) negates mens rea




CL: Must be a REASONABLE mistake for General Intent crimes




Does not apply to strict liability offences.

moral/legal wrong doctrines

Even if you were mistaken/ignorant, if you still believed you were doing moral OR legal wrong, you're liable.




Test = D believe he was committing a socially wrong act?




D can be guilty of GREATER offense.

MPC 2.04(2)

Like moral wrong doctrine but,



you can be charged with the LESSER offense you BELIEVED you were committing.

Peoplev. Marrero

Mistake of law (ignorance) Corrections officer took gun into night club. Still liable because HE misread the statute. No Mistake of law.




Mistake of law requires that the law not be published (CL & MPC) or that it actually contradict itself (MPC 2.04(1))

CL Reasonable Reliance/MPC 2.04(3)

If a legitimate source told you the law wrong you're not liable.

Lambert v. California

Ex felon supposed to register with city but didn't.




Due Process violated if:


1 Criminalizes omission


2 based on status not conduct (AC not AR)


3 Mallum Prohibitum (Not inherently evil)

Homocide

Human to human w/o justification/excuse, (so the bear hypothetical makes sense for accomplice liability)


AR = the killing MR = distinguishes type of homocide

CL


Murder (malice aforethought)


M1= "cool mind"


M2= default


Manslaughter 1 (voluntary)


Manslaughter 2 (involuntary)


Depraved heart = carelessly reckless

MPC 210.1 - 210.2


Murder = does not require premeditation/deliberation


Manslaughter 210.3 = reasonable Ex.Mnt.Emo.Dst.


Negligent Homicide = clueless homicide

CL v. MPC manslaughter?

No "cooling off" period in MPC. The murder doesn't need to immediately follow the provocation under MPC.

Midgettv. State

CL, abusive father beat son to death, 2nd degree because no malice aforethought.

Statev. Forrest

Said he promised he wouldn't let father suffer, so there WAS premeditation and deliberation. 1st degree murder.

FMR (controversial/judges don't like)

CL = 1st = Arson,Rape,Burgl,Rob


2nd = any other non-enumerated felony


MPC = 210.2(1)(b) Arson,Rape,Burgl,Rob,Kidnapping,Escape

Peoplev. Fuller


--CL--


People v. Stamp

Car chase after car jacking, ran red light, 1st degree murder




gun point robbery, victim had heart attack later, 1st degree murder

Merger limit and Inherently Dangerous Felony limit Doctrines

Assault is manslaughter and IDF's are Murder 2

Peoplev. Smith

Mom beat child to death, Merger = couldn't be charged wit BOTH abuse AND murder 2.

Kingv. Commonwealth (CL)

1 of 2 drug smugglers died in plane crash, no FMR.




MPC 203.2 = cannot be too remote or accidental.

Statev. Sophophone


CL

No FMR for police killings

Peoplev. Casassa


MPC

Stalker killed V for rejecting him. Defense to M2 was EMED. Didn't work because the AR must be reasonable under believed circumstances and the believed circumstances must be reasonable by societal standards.