Criminal Law Midterm Study Guide PDF

study guide.docx Criminal Law Midterm Study Guide 1. What are the different states of mind & what does each convey?. Intentional Act - statute that defines a person's desire to cause harm KNOWING the harm it would cause. Doctrine - Transferred Intent: t...

study guide.docx Criminal Law Midterm Study Guide 1. What are the different states of mind & what does each convey?. Intentional Act - statute that defines a person's desire to cause harm KNOWING the harm it would cause. Doctrine - Transferred Intent: transfers intent from one person aimed to be harmed to the other that has been harmed (if A punches B but initially meant to punch C, they are still responsible for punching B).. Knowingly - aware of the fact existing but you ignore it - willfully blind.. Willfully - having intention, evil purpose or motive.. Negligence - deviation of standard of care of a reasonable person.. Criminal Negligence - MAJOR/GROSS deviation from standard of care. They should’ve known.. Reckless - ignorance of risk of actions. consciously disregarding risk. 2. Define Malice in simple terms.. Intentionally or recklessly causing harm. Later, this went on to include “evil intent” in causing harm. 3. Regina v. Cunningham What was the case generally about? Person that steals money from gas monitor. Resulted in the injury of victim. What was the verdict? Conviction reversed by appellate court because he wasn’t aware of the danger so he couldn’t have acted “maliciously”. What are the key findings of the case? Malice must include recklessness, not just “wicked intent.” 4. What are the differences between express malice & implied malice? Express Malice - intentional harm of another person. Has to have proof that the person expressed wanting to cause that harm (ex. premeditated murder). Implied Malice - intentional harm of another person WITHOUT expression of wanting to cause harm. Actions imply you are okay/capable of causing harm. Edit with the Docs app 5. What are the differences between general & specific intent mens rea? Make tweaks, leave comments, and share with others General intent: to edit less at the- same culpable time. requires a blameworthy state of mind. Negligence or knowingly. Specific intent: more culpable - intentionally & willfully. NO THANKS GET THE APP :  Which is more culpable? Specific intent. What are some examples of intent crimes? General - battery. Specific - residential burglary. Larceny/theft. 6. What are the 4 levels of an offender’s culpability according to the MPC? (highest to lowest) - Purposely- conscious engagement in conduct of harm. “I want to do it.” - Knowingly- a person is practically certain that their conduct will cause harm. “I know what can happen.” - Recklessly- conscious disregard of risk resulting from conduct. “I know & I don’t care.” - Negligently- not entirely aware of the risks of their conduct. “You should’ve known.” 7. What is the reasonable person evaluation based on? Based on the perspective of a person in a similar situation. Consider physical characteristics but not mental. 8. What is required/not required in strict liability convictions? Required: Actus Rea Not required: Mens Rea. Need clear legislative intent/statute that mentions NO mens rea requirement for a particular crime. 9. Holdridge v. US What was the case generally about? Defendant caught on airforce base trespassing after multiple escorts. Protests war due to his religion. What was the verdict? Convicted of trespassing. Conviction upheld due to strict liability. What are the key findings of the case? Strict liability offenses are not common law & DON’T require mens rea. 10. What kind of crimes are public welfare crimes & who do they protect? Strict Liability offenses. Meant to protect consumers/large groups of people. Which law disfavors strict liability - MPC. 11. What are examples of non-public welfare crimes? Statutory rape & child abuse leading to death. These crimes protect individuals NOT large groups. Don’t require mens rea due to difficulty to prove. Result can be severe punishment. 12. US v. Balint What was the case generally about? Defendant made a drug containing Opium which violated Federal Narcotics Act. Public Welfare crime. What was the verdict? Federal Narcotics Act valid. Prosecution didn’t need to prove the defendant had knowledge of Opium. What are the key findings of the case? Knowledge elements can be disregarded to maintain public safety. :  13. Morissette v. US What was the case generally about? Defendant took federal bomb casings he thought were abandoned. What was the verdict? His conviction was reversed due to absence of the knowledge element - he didn’t know these were federal bomb casings. What are the key findings of the case? Criminal intent is necessary for federal embezzlement. Knowledge is necessary for larceny/theft convictions. 14. Lambert v. CA What was the case generally about? Lambert didn’t register as a felon in LA within 5 days - a law she wasn’t aware of. Wasn’t allowed to present a mistake of law defense. What was the verdict? Conviction was reversed. What did it violate? 14th amendment due process clause. What are the key findings of the case? Fair notice must be provided. Knowledge is required in a notice offense. 15. What is a mistake of fact? misunderstanding or being unaware about a fact that has to do ith an element of a crime. What requirement does it negate? Mens rea. What kind of defense is it? Affirmative defense. Which crimes is it used as a defense in? Specific intent crimes. Can only be used in general intent if it negates moral culpability of the defendant. What is an example case of mistake of fact being a defense? Morissette v. US 16. What is the mistake of law? ignorance or misunderstanding of the law. What are the exceptions in which it can be used as a defense? Reasonable Reliance. Unclear criminal statutes (fair notice). What crimes can this NOT be used as a defense in? Strict Liability. What is an example case of mistake of law being a defense? Miller v. commonwealth. Lambert v. CA. 17. Regina v. Prince What was the case generally about? Prince “mistook” 14 year old for being 18 & took her away. What was the verdict? Convicted under strict liability laws. What are the key findings of the case? Mens rea due to strict liability. No knowledge element required. Deters from stealing women (as if they’re property). 18. What’s the Legal Wrong Doctrine? Reasonable belief of a mistake of fact doesn’t negate the greater crime committed. Even is the facts are reasonable, the defendant is still blameworthy. 19. State v. Wickliff :  What was the case generally about? Bondsman attempted to apprehend the fugitive by entering the premise (seemingly with no permission). What was the verdict? Got charged with trespassing but it was reversed. What are the key findings of the case? Mistake of law negates the element of “knowing”. What prosecution shortcoming is this an example of? Failure of Proof. 20. Cheek v. US What was the case generally about? Failed to pay income taxes based on attorney advice AND unclear IRC code. What was the verdict? Conviction reversed due to mistake of law (reasonable reliance). What are the key findings of the case? Reasonable misunderstanding of the law negates the knowledge element which is required for conviction. 21. What are the exceptions for using mistake of law as a defense under the MPC? Reasonable Reliance + Fair Notice. It must negate the mens rea. 22. What are the two types of causation? Actual Causation Proximate Causation Which one relies on the “but for” test? Actual causation. Which one tests for foreseeability? Proximate causation. 23. What level of proof is needed for causation? Beyond a reasonable doubt. What are some causes that relieve responsibility? intervening acts. 24. What are the two types of causation intervening acts? Liability depends on if intervening acts are foreseeable or logical. Coincidental - running from robber but hit by DUI driver. Responsive - friend drowning trying to swim to shore after you drive a boat drunk. 25. People v. Armitage What was the case generally about? Armitage drove a boat drunk, friend attempted to swim to shore & drowned What was the verdict? Conviction upheld. Criminally liable. What are the key findings of the case? Defendant is liable if intervening acts are foreseeable. 26. People v. Schmies What was the case generally about? Defendant fled on motorcycle after traffic stop. Officer crashed while chasing him. What was the verdict? Liable as an officer's actions are foreseeable. 27. US v. Hamilton :  What was the case generally about? Hamilton stomps on the victim's head. While getting treated for his injuries, the victim passes due to medical/nurse malpractice (pulled out nasal tubes). What was the verdict? Hamilton is liable for the victim's death. What are the key findings of the case? If foreseeability is logical, the defendant is criminally liable. 28. What is the elemental & culpability approach? Elemental approach negates element of offense (mens rea). Culpability - negates the defendant's culpable state of mind. How/when are they applied? Elemental - specific intent. Culpability - general intent. 29. What causation does the MPC rely on? Actual causation. 30. Define concurrence in simple terms. Criminal act & mens rea must occur at the same time. 31. What is the prosecution burdened with when proving a crime? Defendant’s voluntary act, mens rea & actual/proximate causation of injury. What must they prove about the defendant & their actions? All beyond a reasonable doubt. 32. What is the defense burdened with during a trial? Affirmative defenses. Allocate the burden of production & persuasion. 33. What are the two categories of defenses? Justification & excuses. What does each one focus on? Justification - focuses on the act. Excuses - focuses on the person. 34. What are the 4 different justification theories? One does each one imply?. Public benefit theory - society is better off when the aggressor is condemned.. Moral rights theory - every person has a moral right to their own interest.. Moral forfeiture theory - act didn’t result in moral violation based on victim’s actions.. Superior interest theory - harming different party to prevent greater harm. 35. What are the 3 different excuse theories? What does each one imply?. Deterrence - punishing a criminal won’t deter them in the future.. Causation - crime was caused by external factors outside the defendant's control.. Character - defendant is a good moral person but committed acts out of necessity. 36. In what circumstances is self-defense justified? If the defendant honestly believes they are in danger of death or GBI. What standard is used? Reasonable person standard. What does their belief need to be to justify homicide? REASONABLE. :  37. What 3 factors make up a self-defense justification?. A non-aggressor: defendant has to be passive, can’t start the fight.. Imminent use of force (if necessary). Force needs to be proportional. 38. When is the use of deadly force permissible? If there’s a likelihood the aggressor’s force will result in death or serious bodily injury. How does the MPC define deadly force? Deadly force is only permitted if you’re in imminent danger. NOT permitted if you can safely retreat. 39. Who is defined as an aggressor? The person that initiates an act that is likely to produce harm. 40. In what cases can an aggressor claim self-defense? Withdrawal in good faith. Has to be expressed/made known to the other party. 41. Duty to retreat- How does common law define it? If you can retreat safely you must do so before you use deadly force. How does the MPC define it? If you can retreat safely before use of deadly force, you must do so. What is the “stand your ground” statute? No duty to retreat if you’re in a lawful position. 42. Who does the Castle Doctrine apply to? Non-aggressors in their own home. 43. Imminent Threat- How does common law define it? Reasonable belief that you will be harmed. Must be present & urgent. How does the MPC define it? GBI or death in the near future. Who determines if a threat was imminent or not in a case? Jury. 44. What is an example of an exception to imminent threat? Self-defense against lawful force. 45. What is imperfect self-defense? Honest but unreasonable belief you are in danger. 46. People v. Goetz What was the case generally about? Goetz fired at 4 teenagers due to the belief he was going to be mugged. What was the verdict? He was NOT convicted of use of deadly force due to his honest & reasonable belief he would be mugged. What are the key findings of the case? You must consider all characteristics & circumstances when considering someone’s culpable state of mind. 47. State v. Wanrow What was the case generally about? Old lady on crutches shot & killed a man in her home that she believed had been molesting her son. What was the verdict? Conviction reversed. :  What are the key findings of the case? Self-defense should be considered IN LIGHT OF ALL CIRCUMSTANCES known to the defendant including things that happened before the killing itself. 48. State v. Ellis What was the case generally about? Ellis shot & killed “victim” who carried weapons he used whenever he got into arguments. What was the verdict? Conviction reversed What are the key findings of the case? The info about the victim is relevant to the defendant's apprehension and actions & must be taken into consideration. 49. In what circumstances can a third party “self-defend” a victim/non-aggressor? If the victim has a right to self-defense, then an intervening person can defend them as well. Belief that intervention is necessary to protect third-party/victim. 50. Does defense of property allow use of deadly force? No. What is the exception to this? Castle Doctrine - if the defendant is inside your home. In cases of hot pursuit as well. 51. What are the differences between the contemporary approach & the restricted approach for self- defense in your home? Contemporary - can be used in case you believe unlawful entry is imminent AND belief of injury. Restricted - can only be used if you reasonably believe an intruder is about to commit forcible felony. Not used as often. 52. People v. Ceballos What was the case generally about? Ceballos used a spring gun that would shoot automatically if someone tried to enter through the garage. Spring gun fired at two teenagers attempting to enter the house. What was the verdict? Conviction upheld. Charged with assault with deadly weapon. What are the key findings of the case? Self-defense has to be only if danger is IMMINENT. Usage of spring guns limits discretion. 53. What kind of force is used in crime prevention & when? Non-deadly force to prevent a crime. Belief of crime has to be reasonable for force to be necessary. 54. When is public authority allowed to arrest felonies & misdemeanors? Felonies can be arrested under probable cause. Misdemeanors can be arrested if witness affirmation is present. Citizens arrest can take place under reasonable belief. 55. Tennessee v. Garner :  What was the case generally about? Officer shot at fleeing kid attempting to jump over fence from a burglary. He was under the presumption he could shoot at a fleeing suspect. What was the verdict? Officer convicted. Victim was unarmed & NOT an imminent threat. Unless the officer reasonably believes the person is threatening to cause GBI or death. What are the key findings of the case? A suspect’s life outweighs society’s interest. What did it violate? 4th amendment. Deadly force is a seizure. 56. Which law tends to be more restrictive & which is more liberal? MPC is more liberal whereas common law is more restrictive. MPS serves more as a guidebook than proper statutes. MPC focuses more on mens rea whereas common law focuses more on actus rea. Thus, common law is more punitive. 57. As a reminder, what are permissive presumptions? What key word hints at it? Permissive presumptions are discretionary directions. Key word is “may.” :