Criminal Law (bar exam) Correct 100%

bilateral conspiracy (majority/common law) - ANSWER both parties to agreement must have intent to achieve target objective (both are criminals) Conspirators may be liable for: - ANSWER 1) the conspiracy itself; 2) completed target crime (no merger); AND 3) ALL foreseeable crimes by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy withdrawal from conspiracy (common law) - ANSWER -voluntary withdrawing + notifying co-conspirators in time for them to abandon plans: 1) still NOT a defense against the conspiracy itself 2) NOT a defense against completed crimes of co-conspirators 3) IS a defense against further crimes of co-conspirators withdrawal from conspiracy (MPC) - ANSWER voluntarily withdrawing + thwarting success of conspiracy IS a defense against conspiracy itself impossibility - ANSWER NOT a defense (example: Peter and Quagmire agree to rob a sleeping figure in the park; turns out to be a statue) actus reus for attempt - ANSWER -Common Law → DANGEROUS PROXIMITY toward completion of crime -MPC → SUBSTANTIAL STEP beyond mere preparation, toward completion of crime -NOTE: no hard and fast formula for actus reus, but the more actions make clear the specific intent to engage in criminal activity, the more likely there has been an attempt mens rea for attempt - ANSWER INTENT to commit a crime liability for attempt - ANSWER a) MERGES into completed target offense b) IMPOSSIBILITY --1) factual impossibility is NOT a defense --2) legal impossibility IS a defense battery - ANSWER -Actus Reus → UNWANTED TOUCHING of another person -Mens Rea → GENERAL INTENT (greater than, or equal to, criminal negligence; awareness of acting in a proscribed manner) -injury NOT required aggravated battery - ANSWER battery + 1) deadly or dangerous weapon; 2) serious bodily injury; OR 3) child or police victim assault - ANSWER -Actus Reus → attempted battery OR putting someone in REASONABLE APPREHENSION/FEAR of an imminent battery -Mens Rea → SPECIFIC INTENT -assault MERGES into battery once unwanted touching occurs (attempts merge into completed offenses) aggravated assault - ANSWER assault + 1) deadly weapon, OR 2) with intent to rape, maim, or murder murder - ANSWER Actus Reus → unlawful killing of another person Mens Rea → MALICE AFORETHOUGHT malice aforethought (murder) - ANSWER 1) intent to kill; 2) intent to inflict serious bodily injury 3) gross recklessness in risking human life ("depraved heart" or "implied malice"); OR 4) felony murder felony murder - ANSWER Actus Reus → killing during the course of a felony Mens Rea → none (strict liability) liability limitations for felony murder - ANSWER (a) killing --common law: by anyone (e.g., crime victim or police) --modern: by (co)defendant (b) during → to and from scene (c) felony → proven beyond a reasonable doubt (d) foreseeability → broadly applied; intent irrelevant voluntary manslaughter - ANSWER Actus Reus → MURDER (intentional killing) and Mens Rea → HEAT OF PASSION heat of passion (voluntary manslaughter) - ANSWER i) sudden and intense reaction ii) adequate provocation --(a) inflame ordinary person --(b) words alone INSUFFICIENT --(c) not enough time for reasonable person to cool off --(d) ▵ lost control iii) NO cooling off period Recklessness or Negligence Involuntary Manslaughter - ANSWER Actus Reus → unlawful killing of another person Mens Rea → mere recklessness OR negligence NOTE: gross recklessness = depraved heart murder Strict Liability Involuntary Manslaughter - ANSWER -Actus Reus → killing during course of MISDEMEANOR (OR felony not included in felony murder) -Mens Rea → NONE (strict liability) First-Degree Murder (two kinds) - ANSWER -Premeditation + Deliberation First-Degree Murder -First Degree Felony Murder Premeditation + Deliberation First-Degree Murder - ANSWER Actus Reus → unlawful killing of another person Mens Rea → with PREMEDITATION and DELIBERATION NOTE: this is the ONLY specific intent homicide first-degree felony murder - ANSWER Actus Reus → killing during course of SPECIFIED FELONY Mens Rea → NONE (strict liability) second-degree murder - ANSWER -catch-all for murders -includes every other common law murder → intentional, serious bodily injury, depraved heart, felony murders not specified as first-degree) rape - ANSWER Actus Reus → sexual intercourse (i.e., penetration) by force or threat of force w/o consent Mens Rea → GENERAL INTENT (≥ negligence) regarding consent MISTAKE: reasonable mistake as to consent exculpates statutory rape - ANSWER Actus Reus → sex with a minor (defined by state law) Mens Rea → NONE (strict liability) MISTAKE: mistake as to age is NOT a defense false imprisonment - ANSWER Actus Reus → UNLAWFUL CONFINEMENT of victim against will Mens Rea → GENERAL INTENT (≥ negligence) kidnapping - ANSWER Actus Reus → MOVEMENT ("asportation") of victim against will Mens Rea → GENERAL INTENT (≥ negligence) regarding consent NOTE: some courts require movement beyond that incident to other crimes, such as robbery or rape larceny - ANSWER -Actus Reus → taking away another's property by trespass (without valid consent) -Mens Rea → intent to permanently deprive (SPECIFIC INTENT) -brief dispossession suffices -thief doesn't have to keep -personal property -title NOT given (contrast with false pretenses) embezzlement - ANSWER Actus Reus → CONVERSION of property HELD in trust (property ▵ is currently holding) Mens Rea → intent to defraud (SPECIFIC INTENT) false pretenses - ANSWER Actus Reus → taking title to property by MISREPRESENTATION (about present OR past fact) Mens Rea → intent to defraud (SPECIFIC INTENT) larceny vs. embezzlement - ANSWER Difference: POSSESSION Larceny → OWNER originally in possession Embezzlement → CRIMINAL originally in possession robbery - ANSWER -larceny by force or threat of force Actus Reus → taking another's personal property from his or her presence by force or threat of force Mens Rea → intent to permanently deprive (SPECIFIC INTENT) extortion - ANSWER Actus Reus → seeking to obtain another's property by future threat Mens Rea → intent to permanently deprive (SPECIFIC INTENT) distinguishing extortion from robbery - ANSWER victim's presence → not necessary harm → need not be immediate or imminent receiving stolen propety - ANSWER Actus Reus → receiving another's personal property Mens Rea → KNOWLEDGE it has been stolen AND intent to permanently deprive (SPECIFIC INTENT) forgery - ANSWER Actus Reus → making or altering a writing to make it false Mens Rea → intent to defraud (SPECIFIC INTENT) uttering - ANSWER Actus Reus → offering as genuine a forged document Mens Rea → intent to defraud (SPECIFIC INTENT) NOTE: you can be liable for BOTH forgery AND uttering malicious mischief - ANSWER Actus Reus → damaging property of another Mens Rea → MALICE (≥ recklessness) burglary (common law) - ANSWER -AR → breaking and entering the dwelling of another at night ---breaking = any force, or by threat or fraud --entering = any part of body, or any object for committing felony ---dwelling = someone sleeps -MR → intent to commit a felony within (SPECIFIC INTENT) burglary (MPC) - ANSWER AR → breaking and entering dwelling (can be any structure) of another at night MR → intent to commit a felony within (same as common law) arson (common law) - ANSWER AR → burning the dwelling of another --burning = FLAME damaging structure (NOT smoke or heat) MR → with malice (≥ recklessness) arson (MPC) - ANSWER AR → burning (can be any structure, including your own) MR → with malice (same as common law) Houseburning (common law) - ANSWER maliciously burning own house in city, town, or so near other houses as to pose danger criminal trespass - ANSWER AR → entering or remaining on property w/o authorization MR → knowledge it is w/o authorization possession offenses - ANSWER AR → POSSESSION of a prohibited item MR → KNOWLEDGE of possession of item (not that it is prohibited) possession - ANSWER 1) actual → physically has item 2) constructive → controls access to item (e.g., in safe or storage unit) 3) joint → more than one person may possess item at same time (e.g., joint occupants of houses or cars) actual cause - ANSWER -("cause in fact") → but for defendant's conduct, prohibited result would not have occurred -homicides → defendant's conduct shortened victim's life (by any amount of time) causation - ANSWER -relevant for RESULT CRIMES (e.g., homicides) -criminal liability requires BOTH actual cause and proximate cause proximate cause - ANSWER -foreseeable, i.e., natural and probable consequence of defendant's conduct -intervening acts may defeat proximate cause IF: i) sufficiently coincidental, ii) free and independent, OR iii) unforeseeable insanity defenses - ANSWER -M'Naughten (common law, majority) -Irresistable Impulse -Durham -MPC M'Naughten (common law, majority) - ANSWER TEST → mental illness precluded: 1) knowing right from wrong OR 2) understanding nature and quality of act Irresistable Impulse - ANSWER TEST → mental illness precluded ability to control actions or conform conduct to law Durham - ANSWER TEST → crime was the product of the mental illness MPC (insanity defense) - ANSWER TEST → mental illness resulted in lack of SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY to: 1) appreciate wrongfulness of conduct OR 2) conform conduct to law defenses - ANSWER -insanity -intoxication -infancy -diminished capacity -mistake -necessity -self-defense -defense of property -duress -entrapment involuntary intoxication defense - ANSWER -Elements: w/o knowledge or against will -Defense Against: All crimes → apply insanity test (it substitutes for mental illness) voluntary intoxication defense - ANSWER -Elements: knowingly self-induced -Defense Against: Specific Intent crime if it negates mens rea infancy defense (common law) - ANSWER -UNDER 7 → NO liability -UNDER 14 → NO liability, rebuttable by clear showing that the defendant appreciated the nature and quality of the act -14 or OVER → liability as an adult infancy defense (MPC) - ANSWER -UNDER 16 → juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction for "delinquency" -16-17 → juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction for "delinquency" UNLESS juvenile court approves for trial as adult in criminal court mistake of FACT as defense to specific intent crimes - ANSWER -elements → ANY mistake that negates mens rea, however unreasonable -Example: Took tools from construction site, implausibly believing abandoned mistake of FACT as defense to general intent and malice - ANSWER -elements → reasonable mistake that negates mens rea -Example: Reasonably though mistakenly believed sex was consensual mistake of FACT as defense to strict liability - ANSWER NOT a defense mistake of LAW - ANSWER -generally, NOT a defense → Example: smoking pot not knowing it is illegal -EXCEPTION: relied on interpretation of official responsible for interpreting or enforcing the law at issue (Example: State AG gave opinion on reach of criminal law, which state court later contradicts) -EXCEPTION: mens rea of crime includes KNOWLEDGE of relevant law (Example: Criminal tax evasion requires knowledge of legal duty to pay taxes in question) aggressor's right to self-defense - ANSWER NO right to self-defense UNLESS: a) Withdrawal + communication OR b) Escalation from non-deadly force to deadly force by victim defense of others - ANSWER may use such force to defend others (non-deadly or deadly) as reasonably believed others may use to defend themselves