Criminal Law Case Analysis Quiz

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What definition of malice did the court side with in the defendant's claim?

The court sided with the defendant's definition of actual malice, which includes ill will, hatred, spite, or evil intent.

What does 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) require to prove unlawful escape from federal custody?

It requires proof that the defendant left federal confinement voluntarily without permission.

In the case of felony manslaughter, what did the court determine about the defendant's awareness?

The court determined that awareness can be established if the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others.

What was the defendant's claim regarding his possession of an unregistered machine gun?

The defendant claimed that he had only operated the firearm semi-automatically and did not know it was modified. Signup and view all the answers

How did the court interpret the mens rea in the defendants' escape case?

The court found that mens rea referred to the defendants' decision to attempt to leave confinement knowingly. Signup and view all the answers

What is required for the state to establish negligence in the felony manslaughter case?

The state must introduce evidence showing the defendant was negligent by being unaware of the risk but should have been. Signup and view all the answers

What does the National Firearms Act state about machine guns?

The National Firearms Act defines a machine gun as a firearm that automatically shoots more than one shot and makes possession unregistered punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Signup and view all the answers

Why did the court reject the idea of mens rea being voided in the defendants' escape case?

The court rejected this idea because they found that the defendants knowingly attempted to leave confinement regardless of the conditions. Signup and view all the answers

What was D's primary defense in the case regarding the shooting at the van?

D claimed he shot at the van to scare them and did not have intent to kill. Signup and view all the answers

Why could D not be charged with felony murder in the second case involving a high-speed chase?

The chase was categorized as assaultive and not inherently dangerous, thus excluding the possibility of a felony murder charge. Signup and view all the answers

What was the underlying felony in the case involving D's son, and why was it not considered inherently dangerous?

The underlying felony was wrongfully permitting the child to be a habitual sufferer, which was not inherently dangerous to human life. Signup and view all the answers

In the case of the planned robbery that involved undercover police, what theory was applied to determine the charge of felony murder?

The proximate cause theory was applied, establishing that D's actions were the proximate cause of the officer's death. Signup and view all the answers

What must the government prove to hold a defendant liable for unregistered possession of a gun?

The government must prove that the defendant knew the gun was capable of automatic firing. Signup and view all the answers

How does the Felony Murder doctrine relate to the nature of the felony in question?

The Felony Murder doctrine requires that the underlying felony must be non-assaultive and inherently dangerous to qualify for felony murder. Signup and view all the answers

How does a mistake of fact impact the offense of theft according to State v. Sexton?

A mistake of fact can negate the mens rea required for theft if the defendant did not know the property belonged to someone else. Signup and view all the answers

In People v. Weiss, what was the court's stance on the defendant's belief regarding the gun?

The court stated that merely believing the gun was unloaded does not negate the culpable mental state for manslaughter. Signup and view all the answers

What role does mens rea play according to the rules discussed in the cases?

Mens rea is imputed from the underlying felony, which affects the determination of liability in felony murder cases. Signup and view all the answers

Explain the legal significance of a felony being deemed inherently dangerous.

A felony deemed inherently dangerous allows for felony murder charges, while non-dangerous felonies will not support such charges. Signup and view all the answers

What essential issue does the mens rea attach to in cases of false imprisonment under People v. Marrero?

The mens rea attaches to the willful intent to seize a person without authority of law. Signup and view all the answers

What implication does the outcome of State v. Stewart have for future cases involving high-speed chases?

The case implies that high-speed chases linked to non-inherently dangerous felonies cannot result in felony murder charges. Signup and view all the answers

What is required for a defense based on mistake of fact under the Model Penal Code?

The defendant must demonstrate that the mistake was reasonable and negated the required culpable mental state. Signup and view all the answers

In the context of the criminal charges discussed, how is culpable mental state typically determined?

Culpable mental state is typically determined by evaluating the defendant's knowledge and intent at the time of the offense. Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome for the defendants who believed they had authority under the law in People v. Marrero?

The court ruled that their belief in having authority under the law could negate the intent to act without lawful authority. Signup and view all the answers

Why is the concept of mistake of fact significant in the context of these cases?

Mistake of fact is significant because it can serve as a defense that negates the necessary intent for a crime. Signup and view all the answers

What is required for someone to be held criminally liable as an accomplice according to State v. Tally?

The person must possess the mens rea at the same time as participating in the crime, either by committing the offense or encouraging others to do so. Signup and view all the answers

In Waddington v. Sarausad, what is established about causation and complicity?

Causation is not necessary for being complicit; mere presence and some action can be sufficient to constitute encouragement. Signup and view all the answers

How is one determined to be an accomplice in US v. Alvarez?

A person is considered an accomplice if they have knowledge that their actions will promote or facilitate a crime, and they either solicit or aid in the crime's commission. Signup and view all the answers

What does the Pinkerton rule entail as discussed in People v. Bruno?

Under the Pinkerton rule, all conspirators are responsible for crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, including those that are reasonably foreseeable. Signup and view all the answers

How was the drug trafficking conspiracy characterized in the case with 88 defendants?

The conspiracy was deemed a single large conspiracy, as all groups were aware of the broader drug trade and each other’s involvement. Signup and view all the answers

What does the term 'ineffectual assistance' refer to in relation to accomplice liability?

Ineffectual assistance refers to actions that do not lead to success in committing a crime but can still indicate complicity if they provide encouragement. Signup and view all the answers

What role does awareness play in determining complicity as seen in the discussed cases?

Awareness of circumstances surrounding a crime, such as escalating violence or the nature of drug trafficking, is critical in establishing accomplice liability. Signup and view all the answers

Why is the concept of mens rea important in accomplice liability?

Mens rea is crucial because it evidences the individual's intention or knowledge in facilitating or engaging in the criminal act alongside the principal. Signup and view all the answers

In the context of conspiracy, what must a defendant demonstrate to effectively withdraw from a conspiracy?

A defendant must take affirmative action that disavows or defeats the purpose of the conspiracy. Signup and view all the answers

What is required for a claim of perfect self-defense to be valid in a homicide case?

The defendant must reasonably believe that they would suffer great bodily harm immediately at the time of the killing. Signup and view all the answers

In the case of using self-defense, how does being the aggressor affect a defendant's right to claim self-defense?

An aggressor is not allowed to use self-defense, as their initial act of aggression negates this right. Signup and view all the answers

Why was the Castle Doctrine inapplicable in the case of People v. Riddle?

The garage was not considered part of the dwelling, thus the Castle Doctrine did not apply. Signup and view all the answers

What must be established for a defendant to justify the use of physical force under NY Penal Code when confronted with a robbery?

The defendant must reasonably believe that such force is necessary to defend themselves from the robbery. Signup and view all the answers

What was a critical factor that influenced the court's decision in the case involving Daddino's involvement in conspiracy?

The court emphasized that mere cessation of activity does not equate to withdrawal; active disavowal is required. Signup and view all the answers

How did the court in State v. Norman define the difference between voluntary manslaughter and first-degree murder regarding the defendant's state of mind?

Voluntary manslaughter is applicable when the defendant acts in the heat of passion, while first-degree murder requires premeditation. Signup and view all the answers

In US v. Peterson, what circumstance negated the application of self-defense for the defendant?

The threat was not imminent as the defendant believed it would occur the following day. Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of the objective standard in defining moral wrong?

The objective standard in defining moral wrong indicates that wrongfulness is determined by society's morals, even if the individual is unaware of this moral code. Signup and view all the answers

What limitation applies to the Decree exception regarding moral wrong?

The Decree exception is limited to cases involving direct divine communication or severe mental health issues affecting judgment. Signup and view all the answers

In Pollard v. United States, how does the court apply the concept of irrepressible impulse?

The court suggests that for an irresistible impulse defense, there must be a mental disease or defect that compels the person to act against their volition. Signup and view all the answers

What are the four elements of duress established in US v. Contento-Pachon?

The elements are: 1) immediate threat of death, 2) well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out, 3) no reasonable opportunity to flee, and 4) sometimes a demand to turn oneself in. Signup and view all the answers

How does the Commonwealth v. DeMarco case redefine the concept of duress?

The case redefines duress by allowing threats that do not necessarily involve death or severe bodily injury to be considered under the reasonable firmness standard. Signup and view all the answers

What role does the reasonable person standard play in assessing duress claims?

The reasonable person standard evaluates how an average person would respond to threats, focusing on situational facts rather than individual characteristics. Signup and view all the answers

What criteria determine if a defendant's actions are considered under duress following the findings of US v. Contento-Pachon?

The criteria include the legitimacy of the threat and whether the individual had reasonable options to escape the situation. Signup and view all the answers

How does knowledge of an act's wrongful nature influence a defendant's liability according to Pollard v. United States?

Knowledge of an act being wrongful indicates an awareness that negates claims of irresistible impulse, thereby affirming liability. Signup and view all the answers

What evidence was sufficient to prove intent in the case of Taylor v. State?

Evidence showed no considerable provocation and demonstrated a malignant heart, supporting express malice. Signup and view all the answers

In State v. Guthrie, what contributed to the defendant's state of mind leading to murder?

The defendant's deep insecurity and a panic attack during the incident contributed to his mental state. Signup and view all the answers

What was the court's finding regarding premeditation in Commonwealth v. Carroll?

The court found that the evidence pointed to legal impossibility of premeditation despite the defendant's claim. Signup and view all the answers

How does the law distinguish between first and second-degree murder according to the information?

First-degree murder involves deliberation and premeditation, while second-degree murder does not require these elements. Signup and view all the answers

What role does a 'malignant heart' play in assessing guilt in homicide cases?

A 'malignant heart' indicates an intentional disregard for human life, which supports a conviction for murder. Signup and view all the answers

What constituted sufficient evidence for murder in State v. Guthrie despite the defendant's claims?

The defendant's confession and circumstances surrounding the stabbing indicated malice aforethought. Signup and view all the answers

Explain the significance of a quick interval between intent to kill and execution as per relevant caselaw.

A brief interval does not negate the intent if the killing is intentional, willful, and deliberate. Signup and view all the answers

In what way does emotional provocation affect legal outcomes in homicide cases?

Emotional provocation may reduce the culpability but does not excuse intentional acts of murder. Signup and view all the answers

What was the court's reasoning for imposing a 150-year sentence on Madoff despite his life expectancy?

The sentence aimed to send a strong symbolic message for general deterrence and restore trust in financial institutions. Signup and view all the answers

Why was the defense of conditioned response not accepted in State v. Utter?

The court found insufficient evidence to support the claim of a conditioned response due to D's lack of recollection and the absence of witness memory. Signup and view all the answers

How did the court interpret the duty to act in Commonwealth v. Pestinikas?

The court determined that defendants had a contractual duty to provide care, making their omission of providing food and shelter sufficient for a homicide conviction. Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining the appropriateness of Madoff's sentence?

It requires that punishment considers the nature of the offense and the characteristics of the defendant to ensure a fair and just sentence. Signup and view all the answers

In the context of voluntary acts, how does the court distinguish between voluntary and unconscious actions?

Voluntary acts are those performed with awareness, whereas unconscious actions, like sleepwalking or reflexes, do not qualify as voluntary under the law. Signup and view all the answers

What role does the M.P.C. 2.01(3) play in establishing liability for omissions in criminal cases?

It states that liability for omissions can arise if a legal duty to act is imposed by law or if an omission is expressly made sufficient by law. Signup and view all the answers

Why was the voluntary intoxication defense insufficient in the ruling on D's actions in State v. Utter?

The court ruled that voluntarily induced consciousness does not constitute a complete defense and requires more substantial evidence to justify its application. Signup and view all the answers

What legal precedent was set by the ruling in Commonwealth v. Pestinikas regarding contractual obligations?

The ruling established that failure to fulfill a duty arising from a contract, especially in care-related contexts, can lead to criminal liability for omissions. Signup and view all the answers

What criteria must be met for an adequate provocation to possibly reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter?

The provocation must be adequate, the killing must occur in the heat of passion, there should be no reasonable opportunity for passion to cool, and a causal connection must exist between the provocation, passion, and fatal act. Signup and view all the answers

In the case of D's mob beating, what did the court determine regarding the adequacy of provocation?

The court found that there was adequate provocation due to serious abuse or injury towards a family friend, and the mob frenzy hindered the cool down period. Signup and view all the answers

Explain the Extreme Emotional Distress Defense and its required components based on D's case against her ex-husband.

The Extreme Emotional Distress Defense requires that the defendant acted under severe emotional distress and that there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for such distress. Signup and view all the answers

What role does the reasonable person standard play in evaluating emotional distress claims?

The reasonable person standard is used to determine whether a typical individual in a similar situation would have reacted with extreme emotional distress. Signup and view all the answers

How did the court determine the immediacy of passion in State v. Castagna?

The court concluded that words alone, like threats, did not constitute adequate provocation to warrant a reduction to voluntary manslaughter. Signup and view all the answers

What implications did the 'mob frenzy' have on the assessment of provocation in State v. White?

The mob frenzy was deemed a factor that prevented the defendants from having a cooling-off period, influencing the finding of adequate provocation. Signup and view all the answers

What external factors contributed to D's extreme emotional distress toward her ex-husband?

D faced financial struggles from the divorce, health issues from the cancellation of her insurance, and his refusal to pay child support. Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of establishing a causal connection in the context of provocation rules?

Establishing a causal connection is vital as it links the provocation experienced to the emotional response and the subsequent fatal action taken by the defendant. Signup and view all the answers

What constitutes the 'taking' element of larceny as demonstrated in US v. Villalobos?

The bare removal and sufficient control of an object to satisfy the 'taking' element. Signup and view all the answers

How is extortion defined in the context of Marsh v. Commonwealth?

Extortion is induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force to instill fear. Signup and view all the answers

In People v. Peck, why was the defendant not able to demonstrate the ability to return the stolen jewelry?

The defendant lacked substantial ability to return the jewelry, as he didn't aim to return it unconditionally. Signup and view all the answers

What was the crucial element in the decision regarding aggravated battery in State v. Birthmark?

Spitting is considered offensive and insulting, which is grounds for aggravated battery. Signup and view all the answers

What does State v. Boodoosingh reveal about mens rea in threatening scenarios?

The intent of the defendant does not matter; it is the conduct that needs to demonstrate mens rea. Signup and view all the answers

In Rusk v. State, what constitutes a substantial step in an attempt to commit battery?

An attempt to commit battery involves having the intent to commit the crime and taking a substantial step toward it. Signup and view all the answers

In the context of force or threat, what indicates reasonable fear according to the case involving the man and woman at her home?

The victim's fear must overcome her will to resist, highlighting the sufficiency of the threat involved. Signup and view all the answers

What essential legal principle regarding threats and negotiations is established in the Marsh v. Commonwealth case?

The case establishes that negotiations can constitute extortion if they involve unlawful threats. Signup and view all the answers

In conspiracy law under the MPC, what element must be completely and voluntarily renounced?

The defendant's own involvement in the conspiracy. Signup and view all the answers

What is the significance of unilateral agreement in conspiracy cases as exemplified by People v. Breton?

Unilateral agreement suffices even if the other party is an undercover agent. Signup and view all the answers

In solicitation cases, how does the Model Penal Code differ from common law concerning effective communication?

Under the MPC, it does not matter if the communication succeeds; shouting into the void counts. Signup and view all the answers

What is required from an accomplice to establish liability for aiding and abetting as seen in Rosemond v. US?

The accomplice must intentionally assist with the knowledge that the principal will commit a crime. Signup and view all the answers

In People v. Rowe, what rule applies concerning attempts to solicit an innocent agent?

It does not count for solicitation but satisfies attempted solicitation under MPC. Signup and view all the answers

According to the discussed cases, what does 'advance knowledge' entail for an accomplice?

Advance knowledge refers to the awareness at the time the accomplice can act on it to prevent the crime. Signup and view all the answers

What legal outcome results from D's agreement with a hitman in the context of solicitation?

D could face charges for solicitation and attempted murder due to finalizing the agreement. Signup and view all the answers

What factor prevents a defendant from claiming solicitation if they attempt to use an innocent agent under the Innocent Instrumentality rule?

Soliciting an innocent agent does not meet the criteria for solicitation. Signup and view all the answers

In the context of self-defense claims, how does the concept of a genuine mistake impact the potential for a manslaughter charge?

A genuine mistake can lead to a manslaughter charge if the jury agrees that the mistake was reasonable under the circumstances, indicating that the defendant's perception of danger was flawed but sincere. Signup and view all the answers

Why does common law not excuse murder based on necessity, according to US v. Ridner?

Common law does not excuse murder based on necessity because it undermines legal principles and sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that taking a life can be justified when no imminent threat exists. Signup and view all the answers

What is the relevance of the M'Naghten rule in assessing the sanity of a defendant, as seen in Sanders v. State?

The M'Naghten rule is relevant as it determines whether the defendant understood the nature of their act and if they recognized it as wrong at the time of the offense. Signup and view all the answers

What key factor did the court identify for the failure of the necessity defense in US v. Bailey?

The court identified that the defendant's failure to cease illegal conduct as soon as possible after avoiding harm was a key factor in rejecting the necessity defense. Signup and view all the answers

In US v. Schoon, what did the court conclude regarding the motives behind civil disobedience?

The court concluded that the motives for the civil disobedience were more about seeking attention than legitimate necessity, failing to meet the legal standards for justifying the trespass. Signup and view all the answers

How does the legal distinction between factual and delusional mistakes affect a defendant's liability?

Factual mistakes involve misperceptions of objective circumstances, while delusional mistakes reflect beliefs detached from reality, impacting the legal understanding of a defendant's guilt. Signup and view all the answers

What does the ruling in State v. Crenshaw suggest about moral wrongfulness in the context of the defendant's beliefs?

The ruling suggests that a defendant's belief in the moral justification of their actions does not exempt them from liability if they are aware that their act is wrong according to societal standards. Signup and view all the answers

What did the court find lacking in the application of the necessity doctrine in the context of civil disobedience cases?

The court found that the defendants failed to sufficiently meet the necessary legal factors to justify their actions under the necessity doctrine. Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Criminal Law Cases

Owens v. State: Owens was convicted of driving while intoxicated. Evidence included him being found asleep in his vehicle with open beer cans and lights on, but he claimed the evidence was insufficient to prove he was driving. The court ruled that circumstantial evidence alone isn't enough to sustain a conviction unless it's inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
USA v. Reffitt: Reffitt was charged with participating in the January 6th riots. The prosecution argued for a maximum sentence due to his leadership role, supported by video evidence. Reffitt admitted to one charge but argued for a lenient sentence based on his character. The court considered the offense's nature, Reffitt's history, and goals of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation in sentencing him to 7.25 years.
USA v. Brewer: Brewer was convicted of defrauding the Navy for $6 million. The court considered his medical issues and role as primary caretaker for his spouse, in relation to sentencing guidelines. The court did not believe that the sentencing will act as general deterrence in white-collar crime cases.
USA v. Madoff: Madoff was convicted of various financial fraud crimes related to a decades-long pyramid scheme resulting in $13 billion in losses. He requested a lesser sentence citing reputational losses as sufficient deterrence and that he had already been punished enough. The court sentenced him to 150 years despite his limited life expectancy.
State v. Utter: Utter was convicted of manslaughter for stabbing his son. Utter claimed a lack of memory due to drinking, but a defense of conditioned response, which he had previously demonstrated, was not accepted when the circumstances of the death were unclear.
Commonwealth v. Pestinikas: Pestinikas was convicted of murder for starving a man with whom they had a contract to care for. The court considered the omission of providing the contractual essentials (food and shelter) in the defendant's guilt.
State v. Davis: Davis was convicted of sexual assault concerning a sexual assault perpetrated on a woman in the presence of the Defendant's son.
People v. Wong: Wong was convicted of manslaughter concerning the death of an infant cared for by the defendants. The court ruled that the culpability was equal given the circumstances of the death.
Oxendine v. State: Oxendine was convicted of manslaughter in the death of his 6-year-old son. The court found that there was sufficient evidence for the act resulting in the death.
State v. Olsen: Olsen was convicted of manslaughter for a vehicular accident. The court argued about the awareness of the dangerous result and the defendant's actions, arguing whether or not the defendant acted in a manner that indicated a reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Staples v. US: Staples was indicted for unlawfully possessing an unregistered machine gun that had been modified to be automatic. A lack of knowledge about the gun being capable of automatic fire was not a valid defense.
People v. Navarro: Navarro was convicted of 2nd degree sexual assault concerning acts in the presence of the defendant's son.
State v. Sexton: Sexton was convicted of manslaughter as he killed a friend. The court considered a lack of knowledge (mistaken belief) as a defense in determining the culpable mental state, which was not found sufficient.
People v. Weiss: Defendants seized a man that they believed they were under authority to arrest with intent to confine him. The court ruled it was a credible claim unless they were not acting under lawful authority.
People v. Marrero: Marrerro was convicted under mistaken belief of law. The defense of a mistaken belief of law was not successfully argued.
Young v. State: Defendant was found guilty of aggravated child abuse for hitting their child. The court sided with the correct legal definition of malice when determining culpability.
US v. Bailey: Defendants were inmates at a federal detention facility who were charged with escaping custody. In this case, the defendants claiming to have left voluntarily and knowingly to escape not normal conditions was not sufficient to excuse their actions.
People v. Kolzow: Kolzow was convicted of reckless murder for leaving a child in a car for an extended period of time. The court found the act of reckless indifference in leaving the child was not justifiable.
People v. Knoller: Knoller was charged with murder concerning the death of a person as a result of a dog attack. The court held that the threat of harm was sufficient for guilt in this case.
People v. Snyder: Snyder was convicted of depraved-indifference murder after suffocating her daughter. The court ruled the act of torture and indifference to life contributed to the death resulting in the conviction.
State v. Smith: Smith was convicted of assault and involuntary manslaughter for hitting someone resulting in a traumatic brain injury. The act of not providing medical care after causing the injury was identified as concurrent cause and not sufficient.
People v. Chun: Chun was a passenger in a vehicle during a drive-by shooting that killed passengers in another vehicle. The court ruled, based on the doctrine of felony murder, that the act directly led to the victims' death.
People v. Howard: Howard was convicted of murder for engaging in a high-speed car chase. The chase involved hitting another vehicle, killing one of the passengers.
State v. Stewart: Stewart was convicted concerning the death of a child. Causation was found between wrongfulness and the death of the child due to the circumstances and the actions of the Defendant.
State v. White: White was charged with attempted murder regarding the threat to kill a jail guard. The defense of factual impossibility was rejected.
Ross v. Mississippi: Ross was convicted of attempted rape. A defense based off of abandonment was not found justified by the court.
State v. Pacheco: Pacheco conspired with others to commit a first-degree murder and to deliver a controlled substance. The court considered the actions to be sufficient evidence.
Kotteakos v. US: Individuals were charged with a singular conspiracy but the court ruled this to be separate conspiracies due to the individual actions of each Defendant and lack of shared knowledge.
US v. Shabani: Shabani was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and the court ruled that their conduct constituted an overt act.
Commonwealth v. Nee: Nee was found guilty of felony murder. The court acknowledged that a completed overt act was not required and a failure to act can be considered a crime.
People v. Breton: Breton was charged with conspiracy to murder and the court held that there was a sufficient showing of the intent of the conspiracy.
State v. Cotton: Cotton was charged with sexual assault and the court held that an inmate's letter to a spouse was not sufficient to show wrongdoing.
State v. Tally: Tally was convicted concerning the murder of a man where a prior act of provoking the killer may be a defense.
People v. Superior Court (Decker): Decker was convicted of soliciting murder. The act of soliciting murder was sufficient.
People v. Rowe: Rowe was convicted of harassment. The harassing act and posing as a person to whom she solicited sexual interaction was deemed sufficient.
Rosemond v. US: The court found that the Defendant was an accessor and that his actions constituted a substantial act sufficient to warrant conviction.
State v. VT: VT was convicted concerning actions of supporting criminal activity. The court held that being present at the crime was sufficient to constitute criminal liability.
State v. Elmore: The court addressed specific intent and factual mistakes as defenses in detail, including the different forms and types of mistaken beliefs, which is important for understanding the various claims and types of defenses in certain cases.
US v. Ridner: Ridner was found guilty concerning an act of self-defense. The court held that the use of deadly force in self-defense is not justified if the person initiating the violent action is not facing foreseeable harm.
People v. Riddle: Riddle was charged with murder. The court upheld the determination that an act was not considered an omission based on certain evidence.
People v. Goetz: Goetz was charged with assault. The court considered reasonable fear, based on the circumstances, as a defense.
US v. Bailey: Bailey was charged with an escape. The court held certain factors are required to use this defense.
US v. Schoon: Schoon was found guilty of conspiracy to violate the RICO Act.
State v. Crenshaw: Crenshaw was convicted of murder. The court rejected a defense based on religious duty as not sufficient to excuse the crime.
Pollard v. United States: Pollard was convicted of robberies after the death of his wife. The court determined there was no irresistible impulse defense.
US v. Contento-Pachon: Contento-Pachon was charged with drug smuggling. The duress defense was rejected.
Commonwealth v. DeMarco: DeMarco was charged with perjury. The court recognized factors to evaluate the circumstances concerning a duress defense.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Test your knowledge on key court rulings and legal principles in criminal law. Explore definitions, mens rea, and unlawful escape requirements as you dive into various case scenarios. This quiz encompasses essential concepts relevant to felony manslaughter and firearm regulations.