003 Criminal Law

Front 1

Knowingly

Back 1

-sometime "willfully"
∆ is aware that his conduct is of that nature
OR
aware that certain circumstances exist.

Front 2

4 common law mental states

Back 2

1. Specific Intent
2. Mailce
3. General Intent
4. Strict Liability

Front 3

Specific Intent Crime

Back 3

a specific intent includes an actual subjective intent to cause the proscribed result.

Front 4

Major Specific Intent Crimes?

Back 4

BAFFLE PACK RV?

Burglary
**ATTEMPT and SOLICITATION
Forgery
False Pretenses
Larceny [by trick]
Embezzlement
Premeditated [intent to kill] Murder
Assault
**CONSPIRACY
Robbery
Voluntary Manslaughter

Front 5

Describe a malicious
crime.

Back 5

To be guilty of a malice crime, ∆
must act with a reckless disregard of a high risk that harm will occur.
e.g.
-depraved heart murder
-arson

Front 6

Describe a general intent
crime.

Back 6

A general intent crime requires merely an intent to do the proscribed actus reus.

Negligence or recklessness is sufficient for general
intent crimes.

The concept of "motive" is substantively immaterial to the determination of intent to commit a criminal act.

-rape
***-battery--UNLESS a statute changes it s.i. crime on MBE
-kidnapping
-false imprisoment

Front 7

Specific intent v. General Inent

Back 7

(1)GI--intent is presumed from the act itself
SI--intent cannot be presumed

(2) some defenses are available fro SI but not for GI e.g. VIntox, unreasonable mistake of fact

MPC disregards GI v. SI

Front 8

Strict Liability Crimes

Back 8

Actus Reus is enough--no mens rea requirement.

e.g. statutory rape; speeding; bigamy; adultery

Front 9

Strict Liability--Mens Rea?

Back 9

Exception not the rule. even in crimes where there is no mens rea, there is a mens rea requirement unless there is clear legislative intent not to require a mens rea?

Front 10

Strict Liability--Defenses

Back 10

Entrapment; involuntary actus reus; mechanical failure.

"Good Faith"

Front 11

Strict Liability--Vicarious Liability

Back 11

if statute is strict liability, and imposes liability on supervisors as well as the direct violator, doctrine of vicarious liability precludes owner from defense that he was unaware of the violation

Front 12

Elements of a crime

Back 12

1. Actus Reus
2. Mens Rea
3. concurrence of 1 and 2
4. causal connection
5. harm

Front 13

Actus Reus--basic definition

Back 13

voluntary criminal act

can be a positive act or an omission

usually results in social harm [or intending to cause harm]

Front 14

Actus Reus--Voluntary Affirmative Acts

Back 14

person must be engaged in conscious and volitional movement i.e person's brain was engaged

examples of involuntary--seizures, in a state of unconsciousness, sleep or automatism, under some jurisdictions hypnosis

unless you have knowledge of your condition and it is reasonably foreseeable that the result would occur?

Front 15

Actus Reus--Omissions--generally

Back 15

-usually a ∆ not guilty for failing to act even is the omission causes harm and the harm could have been prevented at no risk to ∆'s personal safety

Front 16

Actus Reus--Omissions--when is there a duty to act?

Execptions

Back 16

1. statutorily defined duty i.e. file taxes
2. status relationship i.e. duty of care to a child from a parent
3. contractual agreement i.e. babysitter/caretaker
4. voluntarily assuming the care of another i.e. good samaritan takes injured cyclist into home, tells others she will call for help, but doesn't
5. ∆ created the risk

EXCEPTION---> when fulfilling the duty will cause harm to the "∆"

Front 17

Actus Reus--Status Crimes

Back 17

unconstitutional unless acting illegally i.e. an alcoholic arrested for public drunk.

under 8th amendment clause against cruel and unusual punishment.

Front 18

Causation

Back 18

State must prove that ∆'s act was:
1. cause in fact of the result
2. criminal proximate cause of the result

Front 19

Cause in Fact/Actual Cause

Back 19

courts apply a but for test.

would the same result have happened in the exact same way without ∆'s conduct?

Front 20

Criminal Proximate cause

Back 20

An act is the criminal proximate cause of all the natural and probable consequences of the act.

-

Front 21

Causation--Intervening Causes--Factors

Back 21

1. nature of the IC
2. was IC forseeable?
3. Who had control over IC[independent or dependent]
4. How much harm did the IC contribute?
5. Policy arguments in favor of/against breaking the causal chain

Front 22

Describe the requirements
of concurrence of the
mens rea and actus reus
elements of a crime.

Back 22

It is not only necessary that the defendant's criminal intent occur at the time he commits the criminal act, but the mental state should
also actuate, or put into action, the act or omission.

The mens rea and actus reus elements concur when the factors which ultimately cause the result are set in motion with the requisite mens rea.

EXAMPLES
X breaks into Y's home to recover his (X's) television set
(which X had loaned to Y). If, once inside, X sees and
decides to steal Y's gold watch, X is guilty of larceny.
However, no burglary has occurred. X did not enter Y's
home intending to commit a larceny (i.e., there was no
intent to take the property "of another").
X implants poison into a cupcake which she knows will
be eaten by Y. Before the item is consumed, X changes
her mind. She tries frantically to warn Y, but is unable to
do so. Although X did not desire Y's death when the
cupcake was eaten, X has committed murder.

Front 23

IC and medmal

Back 23

doctor must be reckless or intentional in order break the chain of causation

Front 24

Hom--Common Law Homicide--definition

Back 24

unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought

Front 25

Hom--Elements--actus reus

Back 25

to kill or can be an omission i.e. allowing a child to starve to death.

Front 26

Murder--Premeditated--def

Back 26

any willful murder; if ∆ had a cool moment of thought, even for a sceond then purposely kills victim, ∆ is guilty of premeditated killing

Front 27

Hom--Elements--when does death occur?

Back 27

when the brain ceases to function or when respiratory system/heart stops?

Front 28

First Degree Murder

Back 28

All Killings that take place with premeditation and deliberation

AND

Killing occurring during commission of dangerous felonies

--N.B. deliberation can be formed in an instant

--s.i. crime so voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact defenses are available.

***on MBE if question does not specify 1st degree murder, then you are dealing with Malice crimes

Front 29

Second Degree Murder

Back 29

Person Intends to inflict serious bodily harm and death results

AND

Depraved Heart: ∆ is aware of an extreme risk to human life and ignores that risk

Front 30

Types of Murder

Back 30

1. Intent to Kill
2. Intent to inflict serious bodily harm
3. "Depraved Heart" Murder--extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life.
4. Felony Murder

Front 31

Hom--Depraved Heart--elements

Back 31

1. ∆ must realize that conduct poses risk to human life
2. ∆'s recklessness is particularly extreme or gross.

Front 32

Felony Murder--Def

Back 32

∆ kills another person, even accidentally, during the commission or the attempted commission of a felony

"constructive murder" b/c intent to commit felony substitutes the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Front 33

Felony Murder--felonies that typically lead to it

Back 33

BARKRM
Burglary
Arson
Rape
Kidnapping
Robbery
Mayhem

Front 34

Felony Murder Rule--Limitations

Back 34

-∆ must be guilty of the underlying felony

-Felony must be distinct from the killing itself

-death must have been a foreseeable result

-death must have been caused before ∆'s "immediate flight" if ∆ has reached a place of temporary safety, then subsequent deaths are not felony murder.

-not liable for death of co-felons

Front 35

FMR--Proximate Cause theory

Back 35

∆ responsible for any death that occurs during commission of felony regardless of whether the felon directly caused the death AS LONG AS the death is sufficiently related to the ∆'s conduct.

e.g. using an innocent bystander as a human shield who is then shot/killed by non-felon

Front 36

FMR--Agency Theory

Back 36

felon only responsible for death of a victim if the death is directly caused by one of the felons--Majority approach

Front 37

FMR--killing by a non felon

Back 37

1. Who did the killing?
2. Who was killed?
3. Did it further the felony?

1. Agency Theory
2. Proximate Cause Theory

Front 38

Unlawful Act Doctrine/Misdemeanor Murder--def

Back 38

unintentional killings committed during an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, automatically constitutes manslaughter.

e.g. ∆ violates a saftey ordinace resulting in his rotweilers killing innocent bystander

some courts limit this rule to:
1. inherently dangerous unlawful acts. i.e. malum in se rather than malum prohibitum regulatory purpose versus the protection of the safety of others

OR

apply doctrine of merger

Front 39

Manslaughter--def/types

Back 39

unlawful killing of another human being without malice--lesser included defense for purposes of double jeopardy
1. VM--heat of passion after sufficient provocation
2. IM or Negligent Homicide--reckless killings or those committed by grossly negligent behavior
3. Misdemeanor Manslaughter

Front 40

VM--when applied

Back 40

1. provocation (heat of passion)
OR
2. Extreme emotional disturbance
OR
3. imperfect self-defense

Front 41

Vm--Heat of Passion--def examples

Back 41

1. ∆ acted in actual heat of passion
2. legally adequate provocation
3. inadequate time for ∆ to "cool off"--this time is loosely defined.

Front 42

VM--legally adequate elements (categorical approach)

Back 42

1. aggravated assaults
2. observations of adultery by a spouse
3. illegal arrest
4. mutual combat
5. attacks against a close family member

Front 43

VM--legally adequate elements (Reasonable person approach)

Back 43

whether there was an act of provocation that would have inflamed a reasonable person to act at that moment without due deliberation or reflection, but out of passion

Front 44

VM--inadequate cooling off time

Back 44

1. long smoldering reaction
2. rekindling doctrine

Front 45

VM--inadequate cooling off time--long smoldering reaction

Back 45

delayed response still acceptable if ∆ can show his emotions continued to smolder for hours or even days

Front 46

VM--inadequate cooling off time--rekindling doctrine

Back 46

∆, even though he may have cooled off after the initial provocative act, heat of passion was rekindled by some kind of reminder of victim's provocation

Front 47

VM--EED

Back 47

extreme mental or emotional disturbance
1. ∆ must have acted under influence of extreme emotional disturbance
2. must be a reasonable explanation or excuse

Front 48

VM--EED--reasonable explanation or excuse

Back 48

determined from the viewpoint of the person under the circumstances as he believes them to be.

Front 49

IM--basically

Back 49

the unintentional killing of another without malice and while engaged in either: (1) an unlawful act not amounting to a felony and not naturally tending to cause death or great bodily harm; or (2) a lawful act with reckless disregard for the safety of others).

homicides caused by mere recklessness or criminal negligence

a killing without due caution and circumspection to such a degree that the ∆'s behavior warrants criminal punishment.


basically ∆ does not realize the risk, but a reasonable person would have realized the risk so it is up to a jury to decide whether the behavior is so gross as to warrant punishment

Front 50

Voluntary Act v. Mens Rea

Back 50

mens rea= actor's state of mind re: social harm of the offense.
v.
voluntariness applies to the act that cause the harm

e.g. ∆ fires a bullet at a tree but π walks in front of bullet. Voluntary act but lacks requisite mens rea requirement

Front 51

Doctrine of Transferred Intent

Back 51

When a ∆ intends to commit one crime accidentally commits another or intends to kill one person and accidentally kills another, the ∆ is just as culpable as if the ∆ had accomplished the intended crime.

there must be a connection between the two crimes i.e. malum in se v. malum prohibitum

Front 52

Accomplice Liability--Generally

Back 52

a person is guilty as an accomplice if the person:

1. Assists, counsels or encourages another before or during the commission of a crime

WITH

2. Intent that crime be committed

UNLESS

person is a member of the class of people the statute is designed to protect i.e. child labor; statutory rape

**absent a statute MERE KNOWLEDGE that a crime MAY RESULT from the aid provided is INSUFFICIENT for accomplice liability

Front 53

Accomplice Liability--MBE tips

Back 53

-person aided does not have to know of the assistance he received in order for accomplice to be liable

-alleged accomplice need not have been convicted, state must prove that target crime was actually committed

-∆ responsible for criminal acts of another whom he aided, abetted or facilitated provided that the consequences are REASONABLY FORESEEABLE in terms of acts ∆ intended to aid or abet.

Front 54

Aiding and Abetting

Back 54

one who aids, counsels, or encourages another in the commission of a crime
AND
who is PRESENT when crime is committed
is generally guilty of aiding and abetting
UNLESS
∆ is a member of a class sought to be protected by the statute that has been violated

Front 55

Accomplice Liability--Exception

Back 55

No criminal liability if the alleged accomplice is a member of the class of people the statute is designed to protect.
-e.g. statutory rape/child labor.
V can't be held liable under theory of accomplice liability.

Front 56

Accomplice Liability--Withdrawal

Back 56

accomplice may withdraw if he:

1. makes a timely repudiation and takes sufficient steps to neutralize any assistance or material he has provided before the commission of the crime can no longer be prevented.

Front 57

Crim--Accomplice Liability--labels

Back 57

1. Principal in 1st degree
2. Principal in 2nd degree
3. Accessory before the fact
4. Accessory after the fact

Front 58

Crim--Accomplice Liability--labels--Principal in 1st degree

Back 58

actual perpetrator of the crime--bank robber

Front 59

Crim--Accomplice Liability--labels--Principal in 2nd degree

Back 59

aided and abetted principal by being present or nearby[constructively present]
-lookout man

Front 60

Crim--Accomplice Liability--labels--Accessory before the fact

Back 60

person who helped to prepare for the crime, but did not participate in the actual commission of the crime.

--cased the bank, but not present during robbery

Front 61

Crim--Accomplice Liability--labels--Accessory after the fact

Back 61

person who knowingly assists a felon in avoiding arrest, trial, or conviction.
--someone offers to hide loot

Front 62

Crim--Accomplice Liability--using innocent as an instrument

Back 62

innocent is not guilty..

but principal is guilty if he willfully causes an act to be done, which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the U.S. is punishable as principal

Front 63

Crim--Accomplice Liability--Mens Rea

Back 63

∆ must
1. intentionally engage in the acts of assistance, and
2. act with the level of culpability required in the definition of the offense in which one assisted.

OR IS IT

when ∆ knows his acts may assist in the commission of a crime

AND

has the specific purpose of having them succeed

Front 64

Crim--Accomplice Liability--Mens Rea--Negligent or reckless crimes

Back 64

∆ must have purpose to assist and must be negligent regarding the results

Front 65

Theft--Larceny

Back 65

1. intentionally taking and carrying away
2. personal property in the possession or presence of another
3. with out consent [trespassory]
4. with the INTENT to permanently deprive the person of the property i,e, INTENT to Steal=mens rea

-it is possible to commit larceny of your own property if another person, such as a bailee, has superior title at the time.

Front 66

Theft--Larceny--Trespassory taking

Back 66

taking personal property of another without their consent

OR

in the absence of a justification for the non-consensual taking

aka "asportation"

You can commit larceny of your own property if the other person i.e… bailee has superior possession at the time.

Front 67

Theft--Larceny--property that is in possession of another

Back 67

must be tangible personal property

abandoned property not personal

Front 68

Theft--Larceny--Intent to permanently deprive the person of their property

Back 68

unauthorized borrowing of a lawnmower i.e. is not larceny

**intending to use the chattel in a manner that involves a SUBSTANTIAL RISK of DAMAGE or LOSS is sufficient for intent to permanently deprive

another example, joyriding

Front 69

Theft--Larceny--grades of offense CL v. MPS

Back 69

Cl--grand or petty depending on OBJECTIVE value of property

MPC--grand if value is greater than or equal to $500; petty of less than $500

Front 70

Theft--Larceny by Trick

Back 70

elements:

1. taking possession of the property of another
2. by knowingly making false representations w.r.t. material facts
3. with an intent to defraud

Front 71

Theft--False Pretenses Def--elemtents and distinction v. Larceny

Back 71

∆ obtains title to goods or money through acts of deceit or misrepresentations

***π must actually rely on the misrepresentation to be actionable. (BUT ∆ can be found guilty of attempted false pretenses where the π calls bullshit)

elements:

1. taking title and possession of the property of another
2. by knowingly making false representations w.r.t. material facts
3. with an intent to defraud

distinguished from larceny b.c involves passing of title

Front 72

Theft--Embezzlement--def and elements

Back 72

fraudulent conversion of another's property by a person in lawful possession of that property.

--i.e.uses the property in a manner that manifests the intention of permanently depriving the person of their property

title does not pass

Front 73

Theft--Robbery

Back 73

LARCENY plus ASSAULT
-thus they are lessor included offenses

1. taking of property
2. from victim's person or presence
3. by force or intimidation
4. with the intent to permanently deprive V of his property

Front 74

Theft--Receiving stolen goods

Back 74

∆ receives possession and control of personal property known to have been stolen 2. by another 3. with the intent to permanently deprive owner of his interest in the property

Front 75

Burglary

Back 75

1. Breaking and entering
2. of the dwelling place of another
3. at night
4. With the intent to commit a felony inside

Front 76

Burglary--Breaking

Back 76

open a closed door or window with force or otherwise

**-constructive breaking if it occurs by means of fraud

Front 77

Burglary--Entry

Back 77

cross plane of house or dwelling no matter how slight

Front 78

Burglary--dwelling place

Back 78

includes vacation homes or temporarily vacated homes

-extends to curtilage

Front 79

Burglary--Nighttime

Back 79

unable to make out ∆'s features by natural light

-not usually tested on MBE unless facts go out of their way to tell you it is/isnt nighttime.

Front 80

Burglary--Intent to commit felony

Back 80

must exist at time of ENTRY

Front 81

Arson

Back 81

Mailicious burning of a dwellinghouse of another

-requires intent or depraved heart/superrecklessness

-need damage by fire, not just smoke

i.e. charring of some kind

Front 82

Inchoate crimes--defined

Back 82

∆ has not actually completed the crime/ target offense

Front 83

Doctrine of Merger

Back 83

Lesser included offenses normally merge into a conviction for a greater offense.

Double Jeopardy does not preclude conviction of lessor crimes.

-solicitation merges into 1. conspiracy and 2. completed offense

-attempt merges into conviction of completed crime

-conspiracy DOES NOT merge into a conviction of the target crime.

Front 84

Inc--Attempt--definition

Back 84

when ∆ with the intent to commit a criminal offense, engages in conduct that:
constitutes the beginning of the perpetration of, rather than mere preparation for, the target offense.

-DOCTRINE OF MERGER APPLIES

-where a person solicited proceeds far enough to constitute attempt, then solicitor is liable for ATTEMPT

-IF ATTEMPT crime is COMPLETED, then can merged into CONSPIRACY

Front 85

Inc--Attempt--Complete v. Incomplete

Back 85

complete--∆ unsuccessful in bringing about desired result i.e. shoots but hits the wrong target

incomplete--∆ does some acts, but then desists or is prevented from continuing by an extraneous factor

Front 86

Inc--Attempt--defense --renunciation

Back 86

CAV
Complete Renunciation

Abandon efforts before the crime is
completed

voluntarily abandon his criminal efforts

Front 87

Inc--Solicitation--def

Exactly the same in TN

Back 87

whenever a ∆ recruits, encourages, directs, counsels, or encourages another person to commit a crime.

-doctrine of merger applies; specific intent crime

Front 88

Inc--Solicitation-actus reus

Back 88

-purely verbal

Front 89

Inc--Solicitation--mens rea

Back 89

SI crime. ∆ must have purpose to promote or facilitate commission of crime. basically can't be joking...

Front 90

Inc--Solicitation v. Attempt

Back 90

1. attempt requires some act be taken toward commission of crime i.e. substantial step, whereas solicitation can occur much earlier

2. Sol involves a 3P

3. Att involves greater sentence b/c ∆ has done more towards actually completed the crime.

Front 91

Inc--Solicitation-Defenses

Back 91

1. Renunciation
2. First Amendment Defense

Front 92

Inc--Solicitation-Renunciation Defense

Back 92

-no ∆ under common law
-under MPC, can renounce if ∆
1. completely and voluntarily renounces her criminal intent, and

2. either persuades the solicited
party not to commit the offense or otherwise prevent him from committing the crime.

Front 93

Conspiracy--Def/Elements

Back 93

SPECIFIC INTENT

-does not merge into the completed offense unlike attempt/solicitation
------------
DEFINITION--an agreement by 2 or more persons to commit a crime.
-i.e. 1 person cant be insane

∆ must:
1. agree to commit a crime
2. with the intent to have the crime succeed
AND
3. OVERT ACT (mere preparation will suffice)

-withdrawal will not get ∆ off hook for conspiracy but may serve as a valid defense to subsequent crimes
PROVIDED THAT requirements of WITHDRAWAL have been met:
1. affirmative act that notifies members of the conspiracy
2. must be done in time for them to have OPPORTUNITY TO ABANDON plas
3. no requirement to go to POLICE on MBE

-usually acquittal of the other party to a conspiracy doe snot apply where other party is charged with a lessor offense or is no longer being prosecuted.

-all conspirators are liable for all FORESEEABLE crimes that occur within the scope of conspiracy.

Front 94

Conspiracy--Actus Reus

Back 94

to agree to commit the crime
-can be express or implied
-can be liable for acts committed by the conspiracy before "joining"

Front 95

Conspiracy--Mens Rea

Back 95

1. intent to form an agreement
2. with the purpose to commit a crime

Front 96

Conspiracy--Pinkerton Rule

Back 96

a conspirator is responsible for all acts of his co-conspirators during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if he is unaware of the other acts.

Front 97

Conspiracy--Wharton Rule

Back 97

if it is impossible to commit the substantive offense without coperative action, the preliminary agreement b/t the parties to commit the offense is not an indictable conspiracy.

therefore bigamy, adultery, dueling would need to include at least three people

Front 98

Conspiracy--Bilateral v. Unilateral***

Back 98

CL--bilateral [2 guilty minds]

MPC--unilateral, one of the conspirators can be a feigned conspirator i.e. undercover agent.

Front 99

Affirmative Defenses--Types

Back 99

Even is π has proven all of the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, there is either (1) a justification or (2) an excuse for the ∆'s behavior, therefore the ∆ is not guilty of the offense charged.

NO BURDEN of PROOF for ∆ wrt element of a crime.

Front 100

Aff Defenses--Justification

Back 100

committing the crime is justified to avoid even greater harm or to further a societal interest, based on the circumstances.

focuses on the act itself

Front 101

Justification defenses--types

Back 101

1. Self-Defense
2. Defense of Others
3. Defense of Property/Home
4. Law enforcement
5. Necessity?

Front 102

Self Defense

Back 102

-person who is WITHOUT FAULT may use such force as reasonably appears necessary to protect himself from IMMINENT use of UNLAWFUL force upon himself

-Deadly force allowed when threatened with IMMINENT DEATH or SERIOUS BODILY HARM

-reasonableness standard(always see it in the answer choice)

DEADLY FORCE:
-retreat if available not required unless ∆ is the initial aggressor
-initial aggressor can rgain his right to SD EITHER:
1. by withdrawing and COMMUNICATING withdrawal to th other person
OR
2. when the other person suddenly escalates a minor fight into one involving deadly force without giving the aggressor opportunity to retreat.

Front 103

Use of Deadly Force to Effectuate Arrest

Back 103

Law Enforcement: only to prevent escape of felon risking human life

Private Citizen: only to prevent escape of person who ACTUALLY COMMITTED felony
AND
THREATENS HUMAN LIFE

Front 104

Imperfect SD

Back 104

if a ∆ has an honest but unreasonable fear that his victim is placing him in imminent danger of deadly force, then might be entitled to get charge reduced from homicide to VM.

Front 105

Defense of 3P

Back 105

Two rules:

1. Majority--If ∆ reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to defend the 3P from imminent, unlawful and deadly force attack.

2. Minority--shoe-stepping
--defense fails unless 3P would have had the right to use SD

Front 106

Defense of Property

Exactly the same in TN

Back 106

typically, must seek judicial redress unless you are in hot pursuit. Still, non-deadly force must be used. Further, some jurisdictions require that the property owner demand that the "aggressor" desist.

Front 107

Necessity--elements applied

Back 107

Lesser of 2 evils defense

1. ∆ faces a choice of evils [usually between immediate physical harm and committing a crime]

2. There are no apparent legal alternatives

3. There is an imminent harm

4. ∆ chooses the lesser evil [usually determined by judge, not the jury]

5. ∆ did not create the necessity

6. No contrary legislative intent i.e. congress can not have ruled that

Front 108

Excuse defenses--types

Back 108

1. Duress
2. Intoxication [voluntary v. involuntary]
3. Insanity
4. Diminished capacity
5. Imperfect Self-Defense
6. Mistake of Law
7. Infancy
8. Entrapment

Front 109

Aff Defenses--Excuse

Back 109

defense focuses on the actor whose conduct is socially undesirable but ∆ is not criminally responsible.

Front 110

Excuse Defenses--Duress v. Necessity

Back 110

different from necessity in that the duress excuse is based on human threats/coercive circumstances and necessity is based on non-human/natural circumstances

Front 111

Duress--Elements

Back 111

1. Imminent threat
2. of serious death or bodily harm
3. against ∆ or close relative/friend
4. creates such fear that a man of ordinary courage and fortitude person would yield
5. ∆ did not create the situation
--cannot be raised in ∆ to homicide

Front 112

Excuse--Intoxication--Voluntary

Back 112

generally no defense
definition--ingestion of any foreign substance that disturbs the actor's mental or physical capacities--to the extent that there is a prostration of the ∆'s facilities--can be sufficient to defend against a hightened mens rea in a SI crime but generally not allowed for GI crimes.

Front 113

Excuse--Intoxication--Involuntary--types applied

Back 113

A complete defense if it causes the ∆ to commit a crime he otherwise would not have committed.
1. unwitting--i.e. rufied
2. coerced--forced to take LSD
3. pathological--effect of drug reaction

can't be foreseeable on part of ∆

Front 114

Excuse--Status Defenses

Back 114

A person cannot be prosecuted for merely being an addict or alcoholic

Front 115

Insanity--MPC

Back 115

Did ∆ lack the substantial capacity to either:

1. appreciate wrongful nature of conduct

OR

2. conform conduct to the law

Front 116

Insanity-Common Law--M'Naughton--

Back 116

Did ∆ know right from wrong?

Front 117

Insanity---Competency to stand trial

Back 117

if ∆ is incompetent at time of trial, then he may not be tried

mentally competent if he has sufficient ability
1. to consult with attorney

AND

2. to rationally understand the proceedings

Front 118

Mistake of Fact--Definition and applied

Back 118

∆ did not have necessary mens rea for the crime because ∆ made a mistake or was ignorant of a fact that he must have known in order to be found guilty of the charge.



much more likely to succeed in a SI crime.

Front 119

Mistake of Fact--SI Offense

Back 119

applied--Despite the ignorance or mistake, did the ∆ know enough to be guilty of the crime?

Front 120

Mistake of Fact--GI Offense

Back 120

∆ is not guilty of GI crime if his mistake of fact was reasonable.

Front 121

Mistake of Law

Back 121

NO DEFENSE even if it is REASONABLE

Front 122

Entrapment

Exactly the same in TN

Back 122

∆ must establish:

1. Criminal Plan originated with Law Enforcement officer

AND

2. ∆ was not predisposed to commit the crime.

Front 123

Assault v. Battery

Back 123

BATTERY=unless statute changing it is a general intent crime
-unlawful or reckless application of force upon another. not intent to injure dont need SI to injure.

ASSAULT=
1. attempted battery
OR
2. intentional creation (other than by mere words) of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the V of IMMINENT bodily harm
-SI and substantial step-->therefore SI rules apply but not to battery

Front 124

statutorily described state of mind

Back 124

when a culpable state of mind is specified by an offense without indicating to which element it applies, the state of mind applies to ALL MATERIAL ELEMENTS of the offense
UNLESS
a contrary purpose appears in the statute

Front 125

Forgery

Back 125

1. making or altering
2. of a false instrument
3. with intent to defraud

Front 126

Receiving Stolen Property

Back 126

1. receiving possession and control
2. of "stolen" personal property
3. known to have been obtained in a manner constituting a criminal offense
4. by another person
5. with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his interest in the property

-once stolen property is recovered by the police on the owner's behalf, it loses its "stolen" status.
-if police know about the sale of stolen property but allow it to happen, then the ∆ can be found guilty.