Affirmative Defenses Ex post facto laws exam with 100% correct answers already graded A+.

What the two ex pos facto clauses of the constitution prohibits? The 2 ex pos facto laws on the constitution prohibits congress and state legislature from retroactively altering the definition of criminal conduct that occurred before the law became effective. How the retroactive penal laws violate the ex post facto clauses of the constitution? Retroactive criminal laws are prohibited by a PIED: P - The law made past conduct a crime, which at the time occurred was not a crime. I - The law increased the punishment for a past crime. E - The law altered the rules of evidence after the crime was committed by requiring less evidence for a conviction. D - The law eliminated defenses that were available on the date was committed. What would happen if the statute of limitation has expired? If the statute of limitation has expired then the state cannot retroactively revive it by extending the time period because such a new law violates the ex post fact clause. What would happen if the statute of limitation has not expired? If the statute of limitation has not expired for the defendant's prior criminal acts then the legislature can lengthen and it would be applied to a defendant. Does a court decision retroactively abolishing the 1 year and 1 day causation rule in homicide violate the Ex post facto clause? No because the Ex post facto clause applies only to legislature acts and not judicial decisions. Do the ex post fact clause applies to new civil or regulatory sentences? The ex post fact clause does not apply to new civil or regulatory sentences imposed for a criminal defendant past crimes or past conducts. What are some examples of new civil or regulatory sentences that the ex post fact clause does no apply? Examples: (a) Making a past crime a new basis for deportation (b) Disqualifying prior felons from obtaining professional licenses (c) Requiring all prior convicted sex offenders to register with the police because this law was essential regulatory in nature to promote public safety, and was not intended as criminal punishment. (d) Statutory extending the length of stay a way order of protection from five to six year for crimes committed before the statute's enactment, because its intent was to promote greater protection to victims and not to punish defendants. What requires the defense of renunciation? This defense requires prove that the defendant voluntarily abandon a criminal crime prior to its commission. How must reflect the defendant's withdrawal? The defendant's withdrawal must reflect a true abandon and not simply discontinuing the plan because a co-conspirator fled, or the circumstances indicated that it was most difficult to complete the crime. How the defendant must withdraw from the crime when he has accomplices? When the defendant has accomplices, he must effectively announce his withdrawal to all accomplices in time for them to effectively abandon the crime Is this defense available for the crime of conspiracy? In UBE and majority of statutes this defense is not available for the anticipatory crimes of conspiracy, the crime of attempt or the crime of solicitation, however a renunciation is an effective defense for all post crime committed by other conspirators. What view follows the minority of states? A minority of states follow the MPC and allow a renunciation of anticipatory SAC crimes but the defendant must actually prevent the success of the crime by accomplices. How a defendant can assert a Mistake of fact? A defendant's mistake of fact is a criminal defense if the mistake negates the crim-k mens rea required to commit the crime. If the defendant could be guilty of another crime base in his mistake of fact then he can be convicted of that crime. Can a mistake in the identification of the victim a defense? A mistake on the identification of the victim is not a defense. D saw P walk out of a restaurant and D mistakenly thought that P was wearing a D's coat. D followed P to his home, waited for P to go out to open a window and climbed in to get his coat. D discovered that was not her coat but decided to keep it any way. Is D guilty of Larceny? Burglary? Larceny? Yes because of TIP Burglary? no because the D did not break and enter P's dwelling with a specific intent to commit a crime. Her mistake in fact negates that intent. Is mistake of fact a defense for the crime of attempt? No mistake of fact is not a defense to a crime of the crime of attempt. Problem: D knowingly received stolen property thinking the sealed boxes contained watches, but they contained stolen cigarettes. Is a mistake a defense? The Defendant's mistake of fact did not negate the mental element of knowingly r