Download Criminal Law Midterm | CRJU - Criminal Law and more Quizzes Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Criminal Liability: All crimes have 4 elements
Voluntary act (actus reus)
Culpable Intent (mens rea)
Concurrence between mens rea and acts reus
Harmful result and causation
TERM 2
Actus
Reus
DEFINITION 2
Actus Reus-- "the deed of the crime"
the voluntary and forbidden act
the wrongful deed that comprises the physical
components of a crime and that generally must be
coupled with mens rea to establish criminal liability
TERM 3
Actus Rea: Voluntary Act
DEFINITION 3
Act must be voluntary unless statute says otherwise
TERM 4
Voluntary Act: What circumstances could
relieve part or all criminal liability?
DEFINITION 4
- Certain circumstance may relieve some degree of criminal
liability(i.e. unconsciousness, intoxication, mental illness,
duress, hypnosis, insanity)
TERM 5
Voluntary Act: State v. Hinkle
DEFINITION 5 Hinkle caused a head on collision Hinkle had an undiagnosed brain disorder which caused hi to black out while driving He was not guilty as the undiagnosed condition lead to his blackout Thus, making the head on collision not a voluntary act -Had Hinkle been aware of his condition or if it was previously diagnosed, he would have been held responsible for his actions (becomes reckless behavior)
Act of Possession
Elements include actual possession, knowledge, access,
ownership, proximity, and intent
TERM 7
Act of Possession: Possession of a controlled
substance with intent to distribute
DEFINITION 7
- Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent
to distribute:
Knowingly and intentionally possess (dominion and
control)
Intent to distribute (depends on quantity)
TERM 8
Act of Possession: State v.
Fox
DEFINITION 8
Two brothers were growing marijuana
Reasons for inferred/constructive possession include:
ownership of the property, construction of the
greenhouses, proximity to access, and related
paraphernalia
Knowledge of and access to object do not equal possession
TERM 9
Act of Possession: State v. Fox: Constructive
Possession (8 Factors)
DEFINITION 9 Constructive Possession- access to and subject to one's dominion and control. (Are all the factors below required?) Factors to determine if accused had constructive possession: Control/access over area Incriminating statements/behavior Presence of drug paraphernalia Ownership: defendant owns property or drugs found on property Occupancy Proximity of individual to controlled dangerous substance TERM 10
Act of Possession: State v. Fox: Constructive
Possession (7,8) Cont. plus Maryland Factors
DEFINITION 10
7. Within view and knowledge of defendant8. Ability to
reduce and object to control
Maryland factors are: (no need to prove all factors)
Proximity (arms length)
Within the knowledge of the defendant
Ownership/occupancy/ possessionary right
Reasonable inference defendant used contraband
Specific Intent: The major specific intent
crimes and their intent are:
Solicitation- intent to have the person solicit commit the crime Attempt- intent to complete the crime Conspiracy- intent to have the crime completed First degree premeditated murder- premeditated intent to kill Assault- intent to commit battery Larceny and Robbery- intent to permanently deprive another Burglary- intent at the time of entry to commit a felony Forgery- intent to defraud False pretense- intent to defraud Embezzlement- intent to defraud TERM 17
Specific Intent: State v.
Trinkle
DEFINITION 17 Trinkle is drunk and denied at the bar He goes to another bar and returns later to the first bar with a gun and shoots at the bar (from outside) injuring one patron Twinkle did not intend to shoot Gayle Lane or to kill anyone He cannot be held liable for attempted murder since her did not have the mental state to kill someone (he had no specific intent) TERM 18
Specific Intent: Elements of Attempted
Murder:
DEFINITION 18
Act: substantial step toward the commission of the offense
of murder
Shot: (in the case, Gayle Lane) ***(Not sure if this is
correct)
Knowing such an act would create death or serious bodily
harm
TERM 19
Specific Intent: Ignorance
DEFINITION 19
--- Ignorance is not a defense unless the defendant's
ignorance itself was objectively reasonable (honestly and
reasonable)
knowledge and belief are usually questions of fact, and
therefore, jury questions
TERM 20
Is there something enough to negate specific
intent?
DEFINITION 20
Intoxication (ex: if defendant breaks and enters and is too
drunk to commit larceny probably not guilt of burglary)
Mistake (ex: defendant breaks and enters in an attempt to
take something that he thought was his, may be acquitted of
burglary (but not breaking and entering which has general
intent)
General Intent
Only requires the defendant to know the type of conduct engaged in, even if he/she is unaware of the results result of conduct is foreseeable, but was not specifically intended, only requires accused to know in a general way certain action will cause harm A jury can infer general intent merely from the doing of the act this is the state of mind required for the commission of certain common law crimes not requiring a specific intent or not imposing strict liability TERM 22
General Intent continued.
DEFINITION 22
General intent usually takes the form of recklessness
(involving actual awareness of a risk and the culpability
taking of that risk)
or negligence (involving blameworthy inadvertence)
TERM 23
General Intent: State v. Rocker
DEFINITION 23 -- Rocker was sunbathing nude at a public beach and arrested for creating a common nuisance (indecent exposure not directed to any particular person Indecent exposure - must be in a public area where it may be seen by others (only need to be seen by one person) General intent: not necessary that the act was done with the intent that someone in particular see it but that exposure is likely for it to be seen by others (inferred by circumstances and environment) TERM 24
Criminal Intent necessary for Indecent
Exposure Elements:
DEFINITION 24
Draws attention to exposed condition or
Display in a place so public that it is presumed it was
intended to be seen
Offend the community's common sense of decency,
property, and morality
TERM 25
Act and Mental State of Crime:
DEFINITION 25
-An act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also
guilty
Mental Component of a Criminal Offense:
Model Penal Code: Purposely (memorize
definition)
Purposely --- a person acts purposely with respect to his
conduct when it is his conscious objective to engage in
certain conduct or cause a certain result (i.e. burglary)
TERM 32
Mental Component of a Criminal Offense:
Model Penal Code: Knowingly (memorize
definition)
DEFINITION 32 Knowingly- -- a person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that certain circumstances exist; he acts knowingly with respect to the result of his conduct when he knows that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause such a result (i.e. possession) TERM 33
Mental Component of a Criminal Offense:
Model Penal Code: Recklessly (memorize
definition)
DEFINITION 33 Recklessly--- a person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial or unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation; recklessness requires that the actor take an unjustifiable risk and that he knows he knows of and consciously disregards the risk; --- mere realization of the risk is not enough; involves both objective ("unjustifiable risk") and subjective ("awareness") elements TERM 34
Mental Component of a Criminal Offense:
Model Penal Code: Negligently (memorize
definition)
DEFINITION 34 Negligently--- a person acts negligently when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that certain circumstances exist or a result will follow, and such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances; the actor must have taken a very unreasonable risk in light of the usefulness of his conduct, his knowledge of the facts, and the nature and extent of the harm that may be caused (i.e. driving in excess of the speed limit and killing a pedestrian) TERM 35
Transferred Intent
DEFINITION 35 Transferred Intent- if a defendant intended a harmful result to a particular person or object and, in trying to carry out that intent, caused a similar harmful result to another person or object, his intent will be transferred from the intended person/object to the one actually harmed Any defenses or mitigating circumstances that the defendant could have asserted against the intended victim (i.e. self-defense, provocation) will also be transferred in most cases Most commonly applies to homicide, battery, and arson Intent must exist in the first place for it to be transferred Does not apply to attempt crimes
Recklessness and Criminal Negligence
Recklessness--- a gross deviation from the standard of care a law- abiding person would observe with mens rea present Criminal Negligence--- a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent person;-------a reasonably prudent person would foresee that the action would create a substantial and unjustifiable risk of injury;------the risk created must be of such a nature and degree that a reasonably prudent person's failure to see it would involve a gross deviation fro the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe in the same situation; an objective standard. TERM 37
Recklessness and Criminal Negligence:
Santillanes v. State
DEFINITION 37
Santillanes cut his 7-year-old nephew's neck with a knife
during an altercation.
He was charged with child abuse involving no death or
great bodily injury.
Santillanes was criminally negligent in his actions.
TERM 38
Strict Liability
DEFINITION 38 Strict Liability --- n offense that does not require awareness of all of the factors constituting the crime; the requirement of a state of mind is not abandoned with respect to all elements of the offense, but only with regard to one or some of the elements; the exception to mens rea; criminal liability without mens rea. ----------- A crime is a strict liability crime if no mens rea requirement is specified within the statute (i.e.speeding, DWI, bigamy)--Certain defenses (i.e. mistake of fact) are not available. TERM 39
Strict Liability: Mala prohibita
DEFINITION 39 Mala prohibita -- statutory and victimless crimes (i.e. speeding, traffic violations) are punished without intent; generally for the safety and protection of the general public and society; the mental element is not necessary; a statutory crime; not inherently evil; wrong because the statute created by the legislature says it is wrong TERM 40
Mala in se
DEFINITION 40
Mala in se --- a moral wrong or inherently evil act requiring
mens rea and acts reus;
the mental element and the physical element are
necessary;
a common law crime;
bad in and of itself (most crimes are male in se)
Presumptive Intent Example: Morissette v.
United States-
The government used an tract of land for a practice bombing range by the USAF. The leftover casing for the practices were just piled into heaps on the side of the land after usage. Morissette was hunting in this area and decided to load some of the casings into his truck for salvage. He was charged with stealing and covering governmental property. ------ Found the idea of presumptive intent to be unconstitutional when not including a felonious intent TERM 47
Mistake and Ignorance: Mistake of Law
DEFINITION 47 Mistake of law- a mistake about the legal effect of a known fact or situation; Ignorance of the law is no excuse; Everyone is presumed to know the law because the law is published publicly and everyone has access to the law; a person is not excused from the law if it is by her own erroneous reading of the law that she commits a crime TERM 48
Exception to Mistake of Law
DEFINITION 48
Authorized reliance-- a person is excused from the law if
they relied on an authorized carrier of the law
Examples: a statute that is later determined invalid;
a judicial decision that is later determined to be
erroneous;
an official statement by the government that is an
erroneous statement of the law
TERM 49
Model Penal Code (Mistake of Law):
DEFINITION 49
--- a mistake of law that negates the mens rea or a material
element of the offense
Example: Cheek v. United States --- airline pilots that
were convicted of tax evasion;
did not believe that wages were income, and did not
realize the wages were taxable
TERM 50
Mistake of
fact
DEFINITION 50
--- a mistake about a fact that is material to a transaction
Can be used as a defense for a specific intent crime
An honest and reasonable reliance on a mistake of fact
can be a defense for a general intent crime
Cannot be used as a defense for a strict liability offense
Mistake of fact example: People v.
Hernandez
Hernandez had intercourse with a girl under the age of 18; She was consenting (which is legally irrelevant due to her age); Hernandez had known the girl for several months, but did not know her actual age Ignorance of a fact is a defense when it negates criminal intent An honest and reasonable belief in the existence of circumstances, which if true3, would make the act for which the person is indicted an innocent act, has always been held as a good defense TERM 52
Statutory Rape: Elements and Modern view
DEFINITION 52
Elements of Statutory Rape:
Sexual intercourse
With a female not the wife of the perpetrator
The Female is under the age of 18
Modern View of Statutory Rape -- it is a strict liability
crime;
mistake of fact is not a defense;
decision made for the best interests of society
TERM 53
Maryland Statute for statutory rape
DEFINITION 53
under the age of 14
the perpetrator is 4 or more years older than the age of
the victim
TERM 54
Causal Connection
DEFINITION 54
the criminal actions are a direct cause of the final result;
when a crime is defined to require not merely conduct but
also a specific result of the conduct, the defendant's
conduct must be both cause-in-fact and the proximate
cause of the specified result
TERM 55
Causal Connection: Cause-in-Fact and Year
and a Day Rule
DEFINITION 55 --- Cause-in-fact--- the defendant's conduct must be the cause- in-fact of the result (i.e. the result would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct)----- Year and a Day Rule --- the death of the victim must occur within one year and one day from the infliction of the injury or wound;------------if it does not occur within this period of time, there can be no prosecution for homicide, even if it can be shown that "but for" the defendant's actions, the victim would not have died as and when he did (Maryland does not follow the Year and a Day Rule)
Causal Theories Cont.: 5. Intervening
Circumstances
- Intervening Circumstances --- an event that comes between the initial event in a sequence and the end result, thereby altering the natural course of events that might have connected a wrongful act to an injury; an intervening act will shield the defendant from liability if the act is a mere coincidence or is outside the foreseeable sphere of risk created by the defendant's act (i.e. an act of nature, an act by a 3rd party, an act by the victim) TERM 62
Causal Theories: People v. Love Facts
DEFINITION 62 Mr. Love got into an argument with his wife, Mrs Love, in their apartment, which was witnessed by Mrs. Love's friend. During this argument, Mr. Love became very physically violent towards his wife, and she sustained much bruising and some broken ribs. Several days later, she was admitted to the hospital for her injuries, where after three surgeries, she died. TERM 63
Causal Theories: People v. Love Analysis
DEFINITION 63
Her injuries were a result of him beating her;
had he not beaten her, she would not have needed to
have surgery;
had she not had surgery, she would not have gotten
pneumonia that resulted in her death.
2. In a roundabout way, he caused the pneumonia that
resulted in her death.
TERM 64
Causal Theories: Reasonable/Unreasonable
and Pre-existing Conditions
DEFINITION 64 --- Reasonable/Unreasonable -- how reasonable were the actions of the victim? If the victim's actions were reasonable, defendant is most likely criminally liable (i.e. victim commits suicide by jumping out a window rather than being killed by the defendant)--- Pre- existing Conditions -- a victim's pre-existing condition that makes him/her more susceptible to death does not break the chain of causation; "take the victim as you can find them" TERM 65
Causal Theories: State v. Frazier
DEFINITION 65 The defendant hit Daniel Gross in the face. It was later found out that Gross was a hemophiliac, but the defendant was unaware of this at the time of the incident. As a result of the defendant hitting Gross, he sustained a laceration inside his mouth, which due to his medical condition, caused him to die Even though there were 14 days between the defendant's actions were the direct cause of the victim's death
Causal Connect and Theories questions to
consider:
What was the proximate cause of the result?
Did the action trigger the sequences which lead to the
result?
Did the act accelerate the result?
What was the direct cause of the result?
What was the result after the application of the "but for"
test?
Was the result foreseeable from the action?
TERM 67
Suicide, Assisted Suicide, and Euthanasia
DEFINITION 67 --- Suicide --- the act of taking one's own life--- Assisted Suicide - -- the intentional act of providing a person with the medical means or the medical knowledge to commit suicide(same as physician- assisted suicide)---- Euthanasia --- the act or practice of killing or bringing about the death of a person who suffers from an incurable disease or condition, especially a painful one, for reasons of mercy; sometimes regarded by the law as second-degree murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide TERM 68
Homicide and Classifications of Homicide
DEFINITION 68
Homicide -- the killing of one person by another---
Classifications of Homicide:
Justifiable homicide - those commanded or authorized
by law
Excusable homicide - this for which there was a defense
to criminal liability
Criminal Homicide
TERM 69
When is life and when is death?
DEFINITION 69 Origina l (common law) answer: a complete and prominent stoppage of the blood and cessation of respiration. Current (modern) answer: brain death exists when the whole brain goes through an irreversible cessation of functioning of all three parts of the brain (the cerebrum, the cerebellum, and the brain stem) Timeline of Life (from various states and perspectives) Conception, 8th week (Cal.), 28th week (medically viability), Birth & alive (NY, Md.)Maryland follows either the Original answer or the Current answer TERM 70
Homicide Basics: Murder
DEFINITION 70 -- Murder -- killing of human being by another human with malice aforethought Must possess one of the four states of mind Intention to kill a human (express malice) Intention to inflict serious bodily harm (implied malice) Extremely reckless disregard for human life (depraved heart/depraved indifference) Intention to commit a felony during which death results (felony murder)
2nd Degree Murder (serious bodily harm,
Depraved Heart/Depraved Indifference killing,
and Punishment)
2nd Degree Murder --Intent to kill but no premeditation and deliberation A. Intent to inflict serious bodily harm -- victim dies, but defendant did not mean to kill him/her; intent was only to injure, but results in death. B. Depraved Heart killing -- reckless disregard of a serious risk to human life or extreme indifference for human life (universal malice); acts with high risk of death C. Punishment: maximum 30 years imprisonment TERM 77
2nd Degree Murder in Maryland
DEFINITION 77
2nd Degree Murder in Maryland (MD Criminal Law: 2-
All murders that are not of the first degree
Punishment:
--- Imprisonment not to exceed 30 years
TERM 78
Felony Murder
DEFINITION 78 Felony Murder-- Unlawful homicide that occurs in the commission or attempted commission of a felony that creates 1st degree murder; an unplanned, unlawful homicide that occurs in the commission or attempted commission of certain felonies as established in state statutes; the malice is imputed with the intent to commit the felony; the death can be an accidental, unintentional, or unforeseeable result of the felony TERM 79
Felony Murder Cont. (What felonies constitute
felony murder?
DEFINITION 79
Certain felonies constitute "Felony Murder" :
A. "MRS BAKER"--- M ayhem (aggravated assault), R ape,
S odomy, B urglary, A rson, K idnapping, E scape, R obbery
--- Maryland uses MRS BAKER felonies to establish crimes
that qualify for felony murder
TERM 80
Felony Murder: How do you define the scope
of commission of a felony is?
DEFINITION 80 B. Felony murder can take place anytime during the commission of a felony, but how do you define what the scope of the commission is? The felony begins with attempt (a substantial step towards the commission of the crime) When is the crime completed? --- This is a jury question
- Geographical proximity 4. What is the place of temporary safety? --- This is a jury question
Proximate Cause versus Agency Theory:
Proximate Cause
Proximate Cause --- if the defendant set in motion a chain of events that lead to death, then all viable defendants are guilty; defendants are guilty even if a police officer or other adversary does the actual shooting; co-felons are guilty of other co-felons' death if the death is caused by police shooting ---- the proximate cause theory is the minority view TERM 82
Proximate Cause versus Agency Theory:
Agency Theory
DEFINITION 82
- Agency Theory -- co-felons are only guilty of their actions and those of their agents, not responsible for police or other adversarial shootings, not responsible for deaths of co-felons. The agency theory is the majority view, which is also held by the model penal code Human shield--- If the felon uses a victim as a shield, and the shooting is done by a police officer, the felon can be convicted of felony murder (this is the exception to the agency theory) If defendant is no longer an active pay to the crime (i.e already apprehended) then he is no longer liable for the acts of others TERM 83
Affect of Intoxication
DEFINITION 83 A. Usually reduces murder charges from 1st degree to 2nd degree; may possibly reduce murder charge to involuntary manslaughter --- Can be considered 2nd degree depraved heart murder if the evidence shoes that the defendant knew of reckless behavior when drunk or formed his/her intent before drinking B. Incapable of foreign specific intent C. The cool, calm reflection is missing TERM 84
Manslaughter
DEFINITION 84
Manslaughte r-- unlawful killing of human by another human
without malice aforethought.
TERM 85
Voluntary
Manslaughter
DEFINITION 85
Voluntary Manslaughter -- real design or purpose to kill,
but through violence or sudden passion is provoked and
frailty of human nature reduces crime;
an act of murder reduced to manslaughter because of
extenuating circumstances such as adequate provocation
(arousing the "heat of passion") or diminished capacity.
Adequate Provocation: Reduced Criminal
Charges by satisfying four (4) tests: (3 and 4)
- There must not have been sufficient time between the provocation and the killing for the passions of a reasonable person to cool (this is a factual question that depends upon the nature of the provocation and the attendant circumstances, including any earlier altercations between the defendant and victim) 4. The defendant in fact did not cool off between the provocation and the killing. TERM 92
Deadly Force can be used
when:
DEFINITION 92 Force has been threatened against defendant Person threatened is not the aggressor--- free from fault Danger to threatened person was imminent Threatened farce was unlawful Person threatened must actually and reasonable believe ---- i. Danger to life exists ----ii. Use of deadly force is reasonably necessary to avert danger TERM 93
Adequate Provocation (spouse in be with
another person, "mere words", and
reasonableness)
DEFINITION 93 iii. Most frequently recognized in cases of being subjected to a serious battery or a threat of deadly force, and discovering one's spouse in bed with another personiv. "mere words" do not constitute adequate provocationv. Model Penal Code: reasonableness is determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor's situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be TERM 94
State v. Miranda: Inaction and Legal Duty:
Take Away Rules
DEFINITION 94 Criminal liability of parents is based upon failure to act in accordance with common law affirmative duties to protect the kid. Where duty exists and injury results, failure to protect kid will be deemed to be the cause of those injuries and the person bearing the duty will face criminal sanctions. Criminal liability can come via actions or omissions to act when there is a duty to do so. TERM 95
State v. Miranda: Inaction and Legal Duty:
Take Away Rules Cont.
DEFINITION 95 Duty is a legal conclusion about relationships between individuals after the fact. Nature of duty and to whom it is owed are determined by circumstances surrounding individuals conduct. Four widely recognized scenarios when not acting may result in breach of legal duty (1) RELATIONSHIP, (2)STATUTORY, (3)CONTRACT, (4)VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION OF CARE***
State v. Miranda: Inaction and Legal Duty:
Take Away Rules Cont.
Recognizing primary responsibility of a natural parent
does not mean unrelated person may not also have some
responsibilities incident to care/custody of the child.Such
duties may be regarded as:
(1) derived from primary custodianor (2) arise from the
nature of the circumstances.
TERM 97
Actus Reus: Take Away Rules: Inaction
DEFINITION 97
Inaction:
DUTY TO ACT: No legal duty to act on behalf of strangers
Must consider what D should have done but failed to do
--FIVE TIMES WHERE THERE IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO
ACT: (1) Relationship, (2)Statute, (3)Contract, (4)Voluntary
Assumption of Care, (5)D was the cause of Vs injury
TERM 98
Actus Reus: Duty to act
DEFINITION 98
There is NO DUTY for a bystander to act on behalf of a
stranger
TERM 99
Criminal Conduct=
DEFINITION 99
actus reus + mens rea + causation = criminal conduct
TERM 100
Mens Rea: Common Law vs. Model Penal
Code (MPC)
DEFINITION 100
Common law- old English/England rulesModel Penal Code
(MPC)- agreed on traits that states may or may not adopt
parts of it.
Common Law Men Rea:-- Specific intent v. General
Intent
MPC Mens Rea: -- The four requisite states of mind
