Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
126 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Knowingly
|
-sometime "willfully"
∆ is aware that his conduct is of that nature OR aware that certain circumstances exist. |
|
4 common law mental states
|
1. Specific Intent
2. Mailce 3. General Intent 4. Strict Liability |
|
Specific Intent Crime
|
a specific intent includes an actual subjective intent to cause the proscribed result.
|
|
Major Specific Intent Crimes?
|
BAFFLE PACK RV?
Burglary **ATTEMPT and SOLICITATION Forgery False Pretenses Larceny [by trick] Embezzlement Premeditated [intent to kill] Murder Assault **CONSPIRACY Robbery Voluntary Manslaughter |
|
Describe a malicious
crime. |
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 |
|
Describe a general intent
crime. |
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 |
|
Specific intent v. General Inent
|
(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 |
|
Strict Liability Crimes
|
Actus Reus is enough--no mens rea requirement.
e.g. statutory rape; speeding; bigamy; adultery |
|
Strict Liability--Mens Rea?
|
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?
|
|
Strict Liability--Defenses
|
Entrapment; involuntary actus reus; mechanical failure.
"Good Faith" |
|
Strict Liability--Vicarious Liability
|
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
|
|
Elements of a crime
|
1. Actus Reus
2. Mens Rea 3. concurrence of 1 and 2 4. causal connection 5. harm |
|
Actus Reus--basic definition
|
voluntary criminal act
can be a positive act or an omission usually results in social harm [or intending to cause harm] |
|
Actus Reus--Voluntary Affirmative Acts
|
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? |
|
Actus Reus--Omissions--generally
|
-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
|
|
Actus Reus--Omissions--when is there a duty to act?
Execptions |
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 "∆" |
|
Actus Reus--Status Crimes
|
unconstitutional unless acting illegally i.e. an alcoholic arrested for public drunk.
under 8th amendment clause against cruel and unusual punishment. |
|
Causation
|
State must prove that ∆'s act was:
1. cause in fact of the result 2. criminal proximate cause of the result |
|
Cause in Fact/Actual Cause
|
courts apply a but for test.
would the same result have happened in the exact same way without ∆'s conduct? |
|
Criminal Proximate cause
|
An act is the criminal proximate cause of all the natural and probable consequences of the act.
- |
|
Causation--Intervening Causes--Factors
|
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 |
|
Describe the requirements
of concurrence of the mens rea and actus reus elements of a crime. |
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. |
|
IC and medmal
|
doctor must be reckless or intentional in order break the chain of causation
|
|
Hom--Common Law Homicide--definition
|
unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought
|
|
Hom--Elements--actus reus
|
to kill or can be an omission i.e. allowing a child to starve to death.
|
|
Murder--Premeditated--def
|
any willful murder; if ∆ had a cool moment of thought, even for a sceond then purposely kills victim, ∆ is guilty of premeditated killing
|
|
Hom--Elements--when does death occur?
|
when the brain ceases to function or when respiratory system/heart stops?
|
|
First Degree Murder
|
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 |
|
Second Degree Murder
|
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 |
|
Types of Murder
|
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 |
|
Hom--Depraved Heart--elements
|
1. ∆ must realize that conduct poses risk to human life
2. ∆'s recklessness is particularly extreme or gross. |
|
Felony Murder--Def
|
∆ 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. |
|
Felony Murder--felonies that typically lead to it
|
BARKRM
Burglary Arson Rape Kidnapping Robbery Mayhem |
|
Felony Murder Rule--Limitations
|
-∆ 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 |
|
FMR--Proximate Cause theory
|
∆ 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 |
|
FMR--Agency Theory
|
felon only responsible for death of a victim if the death is directly caused by one of the felons--Majority approach
|
|
FMR--killing by a non felon
|
1. Who did the killing?
2. Who was killed? 3. Did it further the felony? 1. Agency Theory 2. Proximate Cause Theory |
|
Unlawful Act Doctrine/Misdemeanor Murder--def
|
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 |
|
Manslaughter--def/types
|
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 |
|
VM--when applied
|
1. provocation (heat of passion)
OR 2. Extreme emotional disturbance OR 3. imperfect self-defense |
|
Vm--Heat of Passion--def examples
|
1. ∆ acted in actual heat of passion
2. legally adequate provocation 3. inadequate time for ∆ to "cool off"--this time is loosely defined. |
|
VM--legally adequate elements (categorical approach)
|
1. aggravated assaults
2. observations of adultery by a spouse 3. illegal arrest 4. mutual combat 5. attacks against a close family member |
|
VM--legally adequate elements (Reasonable person approach)
|
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
|
|
VM--inadequate cooling off time
|
1. long smoldering reaction
2. rekindling doctrine |
|
VM--inadequate cooling off time--long smoldering reaction
|
delayed response still acceptable if ∆ can show his emotions continued to smolder for hours or even days
|
|
VM--inadequate cooling off time--rekindling doctrine
|
∆, 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
|
|
VM--EED
|
extreme mental or emotional disturbance
1. ∆ must have acted under influence of extreme emotional disturbance 2. must be a reasonable explanation or excuse |
|
VM--EED--reasonable explanation or excuse
|
determined from the viewpoint of the person under the circumstances as he believes them to be.
|
|
IM--basically
|
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 |
|
Voluntary Act v. Mens Rea
|
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 |
|
Doctrine of Transferred Intent
|
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 |
|
Accomplice Liability--Generally
|
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 |
|
Accomplice Liability--MBE tips
|
-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. |
|
Aiding and Abetting
|
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 |
|
Accomplice Liability--Exception
|
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. |
|
Accomplice Liability--Withdrawal
|
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. |
|
Crim--Accomplice Liability--labels
|
1. Principal in 1st degree
2. Principal in 2nd degree 3. Accessory before the fact 4. Accessory after the fact |
|
Crim--Accomplice Liability--labels--Principal in 1st degree
|
actual perpetrator of the crime--bank robber
|
|
Crim--Accomplice Liability--labels--Principal in 2nd degree
|
aided and abetted principal by being present or nearby[constructively present]
-lookout man |
|
Crim--Accomplice Liability--labels--Accessory before the fact
|
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 |
|
Crim--Accomplice Liability--labels--Accessory after the fact
|
person who knowingly assists a felon in avoiding arrest, trial, or conviction.
--someone offers to hide loot |
|
Crim--Accomplice Liability--using innocent as an instrument
|
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 |
|
Crim--Accomplice Liability--Mens Rea
|
∆ 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 |
|
Crim--Accomplice Liability--Mens Rea--Negligent or reckless crimes
|
∆ must have purpose to assist and must be negligent regarding the results
|
|
Theft--Larceny
|
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. |
|
Theft--Larceny--Trespassory taking
|
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. |
|
Theft--Larceny--property that is in possession of another
|
must be tangible personal property
abandoned property not personal |
|
Theft--Larceny--Intent to permanently deprive the person of their property
|
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 |
|
Theft--Larceny--grades of offense CL v. MPS
|
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 |
|
Theft--Larceny by Trick
|
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 |
|
Theft--False Pretenses Def--elemtents and distinction v. Larceny
|
∆ 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 |
|
Theft--Embezzlement--def and elements
|
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 |
|
Theft--Robbery
|
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 |
|
Theft--Receiving stolen goods
|
∆ 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
|
|
Burglary
|
1. Breaking and entering
2. of the dwelling place of another 3. at night 4. With the intent to commit a felony inside |
|
Burglary--Breaking
|
open a closed door or window with force or otherwise
**-constructive breaking if it occurs by means of fraud |
|
Burglary--Entry
|
cross plane of house or dwelling no matter how slight
|
|
Burglary--dwelling place
|
includes vacation homes or temporarily vacated homes
-extends to curtilage |
|
Burglary--Nighttime
|
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. |
|
Burglary--Intent to commit felony
|
must exist at time of ENTRY
|
|
Arson
|
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 |
|
Inchoate crimes--defined
|
∆ has not actually completed the crime/ target offense
|
|
Doctrine of Merger
|
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. |
|
Inc--Attempt--definition
|
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 |
|
Inc--Attempt--Complete v. Incomplete
|
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 |
|
Inc--Attempt--defense --renunciation
|
CAV
Complete Renunciation Abandon efforts before the crime is completed voluntarily abandon his criminal efforts |
|
Inc--Solicitation--def
Exactly the same in TN |
whenever a ∆ recruits, encourages, directs, counsels, or encourages another person to commit a crime.
-doctrine of merger applies; specific intent crime |
|
Inc--Solicitation-actus reus
|
-purely verbal
|
|
Inc--Solicitation--mens rea
|
SI crime. ∆ must have purpose to promote or facilitate commission of crime. basically can't be joking...
|
|
Inc--Solicitation v. Attempt
|
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. |
|
Inc--Solicitation-Defenses
|
1. Renunciation
2. First Amendment Defense |
|
Inc--Solicitation-Renunciation Defense
|
-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. |
|
Conspiracy--Def/Elements
|
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. |
|
Conspiracy--Actus Reus
|
to agree to commit the crime
-can be express or implied -can be liable for acts committed by the conspiracy before "joining" |
|
Conspiracy--Mens Rea
|
1. intent to form an agreement
2. with the purpose to commit a crime |
|
Conspiracy--Pinkerton Rule
|
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.
|
|
Conspiracy--Wharton Rule
|
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 |
|
Conspiracy--Bilateral v. Unilateral***
|
CL--bilateral [2 guilty minds]
MPC--unilateral, one of the conspirators can be a feigned conspirator i.e. undercover agent. |
|
Affirmative Defenses--Types
|
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. |
|
Aff Defenses--Justification
|
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 |
|
Justification defenses--types
|
1. Self-Defense
2. Defense of Others 3. Defense of Property/Home 4. Law enforcement 5. Necessity? |
|
Self Defense
|
-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. |
|
Use of Deadly Force to Effectuate Arrest
|
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 |
|
Imperfect SD
|
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.
|
|
Defense of 3P
|
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 |
|
Defense of Property
Exactly the same in TN |
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.
|
|
Necessity--elements applied
|
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 |
|
Excuse defenses--types
|
1. Duress
2. Intoxication [voluntary v. involuntary] 3. Insanity 4. Diminished capacity 5. Imperfect Self-Defense 6. Mistake of Law 7. Infancy 8. Entrapment |
|
Aff Defenses--Excuse
|
defense focuses on the actor whose conduct is socially undesirable but ∆ is not criminally responsible.
|
|
Excuse Defenses--Duress v. Necessity
|
different from necessity in that the duress excuse is based on human threats/coercive circumstances and necessity is based on non-human/natural circumstances
|
|
Duress--Elements
|
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 |
|
Excuse--Intoxication--Voluntary
|
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. |
|
Excuse--Intoxication--Involuntary--types applied
|
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 ∆ |
|
Excuse--Status Defenses
|
A person cannot be prosecuted for merely being an addict or alcoholic
|
|
Insanity--MPC
|
Did ∆ lack the substantial capacity to either:
1. appreciate wrongful nature of conduct OR 2. conform conduct to the law |
|
Insanity-Common Law--M'Naughton--
|
Did ∆ know right from wrong?
|
|
Insanity---Competency to stand trial
|
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 |
|
Mistake of Fact--Definition and applied
|
∆ 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. |
|
Mistake of Fact--SI Offense
|
applied--Despite the ignorance or mistake, did the ∆ know enough to be guilty of the crime?
|
|
Mistake of Fact--GI Offense
|
∆ is not guilty of GI crime if his mistake of fact was reasonable.
|
|
Mistake of Law
|
NO DEFENSE even if it is REASONABLE
|
|
Entrapment
Exactly the same in TN |
∆ must establish:
1. Criminal Plan originated with Law Enforcement officer AND 2. ∆ was not predisposed to commit the crime. |
|
Assault v. Battery
|
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 |
|
statutorily described state of mind
|
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 |
|
Forgery
|
1. making or altering
2. of a false instrument 3. with intent to defraud |
|
Receiving Stolen Property
|
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. |