Description

Criminal Law And Procedure An Overview 4th Edition by Ronald J. Bacigal – Study Guide – Test Bank

 Sample Questions

Instant Download With Answers

CHAPTER 2: ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CRIMES

While criminal law can be categorized in different ways such as punishment, mental state, and harm, crimes can be defined by society’s conceptions of three basic elements: mental state, physical act, and social harm. Combining these three elements gives us the “working definition of crime.” This definition can be used to determine the legal requirements of any crime. This chapter looks at each of these elements in depth and shows how they come together to define crime.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Once you have finished this chapter, you should be able to:

• Define key terms such as mala in se, mala prohibita, malice, specific intent, and general intent.
• Analyze fact patterns by looking at mental state, physical acts, and social harm.
• Establish what mental state is required for the crime charged.
• Identify which, if any, facts identify the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the alleged crime.
• Determine what physical acts must take place, or fail to take place, for the crime to occur.
• Identify what harm is prohibited by the crime.
• Establish what, if any, facts prove that the prohibited harm occurred.
• Identify the types of punishments available for different types of crimes.

OUTLINE

• Crime Categories

o   Punishment

• Capital offense—death penalty may be imposed
• Felony—one year or more of incarceration
• Misdemeanor—less than one year of incarceration

o   Mental state (mensrea)

• Crime mala in se—inherently evil without denouncement by a statute
• Crime mala prohibita—crime only because of the existence of a statute or regulation
• Specific intent crime—focus on what the defendant intended at the time of the offense
• Scienter crime—based on defendant’s subjective knowledge
• General intent crime—may include accidental harm caused by recklessness or negligence
• Strict liability crime—focus on defendant’s physical state and does not require any form of mensrea

 

o   Harm

• Crime against property
• Crime against habitation
• Crime against people
• Crime against the public peace
• Crime against public moral

1. A Definition of Crime
2. Mental state (mensrea)
3. Physical act (component of actusreus)
4. Social harm (another component of actusreus)
5. Social Harm
6. Society classifies what is considered to be a social harm; it is created by statute or prior cases
7. Social harm encompasses harm to all of society rather than harm to one individual (civil law);in criminal law, the case is brought by the state or the United States rather than by an individual
8. Social harm can change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from period to period

III.   The Physical Act

1. A physical act is a deliberate body movement; the criminal law may also punish for an omission or failure to act when the law imposes a duty to act
2. Categories of affirmative physical acts
3. Evil thought—when one makes a purely mental decision to commit a crime; society does not punish people for their evil thoughts, only for their conduct
4. Express thought—when one verbalizes an evil thought to another; punishment of express thoughts may conflict with the right to freedom of speech; in most cases, a physical act beyond a mere verbal statement is required for a crime; however, in some instances, the mere utterance of words can be a crime, i.e., perjury
5. Request—when one asks another to join in a criminal plan, the crime of solicitation is complete when the request is made
6. Agreement—when two or more persons agree that they will jointly commit a crime, this is sufficient for the crime of conspiracy; however, many statutes require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to complete the crime of conspiracy
7. Attempt—often requires an overt act (a substantial step toward the commission of the crime) for an attempted crime
8. Mere preparation—attempted crimes require that the defendant move beyond preparation and begin consummation of the offense
9. Consummation—when one commits all the physical acts required of the crime
10. Mental State (Mens Rea)
11. Specific intent—a subjective desire or intent to bring about a social harm (premeditation, malice, aforethought for criminal homicide); the most blameworthy category
12. Wanton (extremely reckless)state of mind—constitutes a disregard of the safety of others; the second most blameworthy category
13. Willful state of mind—the actual knowledge of the threat to another’s safety; this, along with wanton state of mind, is the second most blameworthy category
14. Reasonablyprudent person standard—measures the defendant’s actual conduct against that of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances
15. Recklessness (criminal negligence)—a gross deviation from a law-abiding person’s conduct; the third most blameworthy category
16. Simple or civil negligence—when one fails to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances (civil, noncriminal); the fourth most blameworthy category
17. Strict liability crimes—when one commits an act that causes a prohibited harm, regardless of the actor’s state of mind or reasonableness of actions; always created by statute; the least blameworthy category
18. Causation
19. Factual cause (“but-for test of causation”)
20. To determine factual cause, ask “but for” the person’s act, would the social harm have occurred
21. Apply objective scientific principles of cause and effect
22. This is a starting point; does not determine whether to punish the defendant
23. Legal cause
24. The legal cause is determined by an assessment of the social purposes to be served by the criminal law
25. Conviction requires a finding that a person’s actions have been both the factual cause and the legal cause of the social harm
26. Summary
27. Motive—the reason a person does something

KEYTERMS

 

actusreus

deliberate bodily movement

factual cause

legal causation

mensrea

mere preparation

motive

omission

overt act for a conspiracy

overt act for an attempted crime

reasonably prudent person standard

recklessness (criminal negligence)

simple or civil negligence

specific intent

strict liability crimes

wanton state of mind

willful state of mind

 

HELPFUL WEB SITES

Law.com

http://www.law.com

Daily updates on national and regional legal developments.

Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu

Provides access to an extensive collection of downloadable data. Its National Archive of Criminal Justice Data is in a computer-readable format.

The Oyez Project

http://www.oyez.org

Provides a variety of multimedia-based Supreme Court sources as well as audio archives of oral arguments.

REVIEW QUESTIONS

Fill-in-the-Blank

1. The three elements of the “working definition of crime” are ____________________, ____________________, and ____________________.
2. The two fundamental principles that underlie criminal law’s requirement for a physical act are ____________________and____________________.
3. The crime of ____________________ has been committed when one person requests that another person join in a plan to commit a crime.
4. The crime of ____________________ has been committed when two or more persons agree to a plan to commit a crime and then take a step in furtherance of the agreement.
5. When the defendant subjectively intends or desires to bring about the prohibited social harm, the mensrea is called ____________________.
6. A ____________________ state of mind is an extremely reckless disregard for the safety of others; a ____________________ state of mind is an actual knowledge of the threat to another’s safety.
7. The ____________________ standard is an objective evaluation of the defendant’s conduct.
8. ____________________crimes occur when the defendant commits an act that causes a prohibited harm, regardless of the defendant’s state of mind or reasonableness of actions.

Essay

1. Explain how harm is classified differently in criminal law than in civil law.
2. Kenny Martin is watching a detective story on television in which a man commits a burglary of a convenience store. The man is eventually caught and punished. Kenny decides that he could commit the same crime, only not make the same mistakes, and therefore not get caught. He stays up all night thinking about how to carry out his plan. Has Kenny committed a crime? Why or why not?
3. Explain the difference between negligence (noncriminal) and recklessness (criminal negligence).
4. Explain the difference between a factual cause and a legal cause. Try to come up with an example of a situation where a person’s actions were the factual cause but not the legal cause of the harm.

Answers are on the following page.

NOTES

 

 

ANSWERS

Fill-in-the-Blank

1. mental state;physicalact;socialharm
2. deliberate bodilymovement; omission
3. solicitation
4. conspiracy
5. specificintent
6. wanton;willful
7. reasonablyprudentperson
8. Strictliability

Essay

1. Criminal law encompasses harm to all of society. Civil law encompasses harm to one member of society.
2. Kenny has an evil thought. People are not punished for thoughts, only for their conduct. There must be an affirmative act toward the commission of the crime.
3. Negligence occurs when one fails to act as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. Recklessness is a gross deviation from a law-abiding person’s conduct.
4. Factual cause means “but for” a person’s act, the social harm would not have occurred. Legal cause is the assessment of the social purposes to be served by the criminal law.

CHAPTER 4: DEFENSES

Therearetwogeneralcategoriesof defenses:acase-in-chiefdefenseandanaffirmativedefense.Thischapter distinguishes betweenthosetwoclassificationsofdefenses,andthenitexaminesthedifferentdefensesthatmay beraisedbyadefendantaswellastheburdenofproofrequiredatthetimeoftrialregardingthesedefenses.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Once you have finished this chapter, you should be able to:

• Determine if a defense qualifies as a case-in-chief defense or an affirmative defense.
• Identify the difference between the two types of mistake as defenses.
• Examine when intoxication applies as a defense to a crime.
• Outline the justifiable use of force defenses available to a defendant.
• Determine when insanity defenses are applicable.

OUTLINE

• Terminology

o   Alibi—aclaimthat thedefendantwasnotinaposition tocommit thecrimecharged

o   Case-in-chiefdefense—challenges theprosecution’s versionofthefactsbutdoesnotintroduceanindependent legalclaimintothecase

o   Affirmativedefense—thedefendantadmits committingtheactscharged butseekstojustifyorexcusethe defendant’s conduct byestablishing additionalfacts

1. Compulsion, Necessity, and Duress (Affirmative Defenses)
2. Compulsion andnecessity—excuse a violation of criminal law if:
3. The defendant reasonably believed the threat of harm was imminent
4. The only way to prevent the threatened harm was to violate the law
5. The harm that was caused by violating the law is less serious than the harm the defendant sought to avoid
6. Duress—an unlawful threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, which induces a person to commit a crime; may be used as a defense except in the case of murder
7. Mistake as a Defense (Case-in-Chief Defense)
8. Mistake of fact—a lack of knowledge of a particular piece of information may be a defense if it negates a material element of the offense
9. Mistake of law—a lack of knowledge of a particular law may be a defense if it negates the mensrea required for the crime

 

III.   Intoxication—caused either by drugs or alcohol

1. Voluntaryintoxication(case-in-chiefdefense)—maybeadefenseifitproduces clouded mental facilitiesthat negatethemental staterequired foraparticularcrime
2. Involuntaryintoxication(case-in-chieforaffirmative defense)—maybeadefenseifthedefendantdid notknow oftheingestedsubstance’s intoxicatingeffectorifsomeone forcedortricked thedefendant intoingestingtheintoxicatingsubstance
3. Insanity—can arise at different stages of criminal proceedings
4. Competency to stand trial—the defendant must be rational, possess the ability to testify coherently, and be able to meaningfully discuss the case with defense counsel
5. Mental illness at the time of punishment
6. Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment clause) prohibits execution of a person who has become insane after being sentenced to death
7. Persons may be transferred to medical facilities within or outside the penitentiary or may be forced to accept antipsychotic medication
8. Insanity as a defense
9. May be a complete defense to all charges
10. Legal tests for insanity
11. M’Naghtentest—determines whether the defendant is able to distinguish right from wrong
12. Irresistible impulse test—determines whether the defendant acted from an uncontrollable impulse
13. Diminished capacity test—recognizes that defendants may lack “substantial” but not total mental capacity
14. Federal test—uses the M’Naghten“right-from-wrong” standard but requires that the defendant prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence
15. Guilty but mentally ill
16. Defendant is sentenced as any other defendant would be; defendant is immediately committed in an appropriate facility for treatment
17. Justifiable Use of Force
18. Some jurisdictions require the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the use of force was permissible
19. Some jurisdictions require the prosecution to disprove the justification or excuse once it has been raised by the defendant
20. Self-defense—actions in a situation in which:
21. The defendant was not the aggressor
22. The defendant reasonably perceived an immediate threat of bodily harm
23. The defendant reasonably believed that defensive force was necessary to avoid the harm
24. The amount of defensive force used was reasonable
25. Retreat—an avenue of safe escape; a prerequisite to self-defense in some jurisdictions
26. Defense of others—the act of protecting another from harm, which may excuse or justify the defendant’s use of force
27. Alter-ego theory—a defendant acts to protect a person who has a lawful right of self-defense
28. Reasonable perception theory—the defendant acts upon a perception that the aided person has a right to use defensive force, even when the perception is erroneous
29. Defense of property and habitation
30. The law places a higher value on life than on property
31. Defendants are prohibited from using deadly force to protect property
32. Forcible arrest and force used to resist arrest
33. An arresting police officer may use only “reasonable” force to apprehend a suspect
34. Deadly force is constitutionally permissible only when an arresting officer reasonably believes that a suspected felon poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the police officer or to others
35. Most jurisdictions prohibit any resistance to an arrest by a law enforcement officer
36. A citizen may use defensive force against anyone, including a police officer who improperly threatens the citizen’s life
37. Entrapment (affirmative defense)
38. Focuses on whether the defendant was induced to commit the crime by a government agent, usually an undercover police officer, and whether the defendant would have committed the offense without the inducement
39. Subjective approach—prohibits police officers from instigating criminal acts by people not predisposed to commit the crime
40. Objective approach—focuses on whether the government’s conduct in inducing the crime was beyond judicial toleration

KEYTERMS

 

affirmative defense

alibi

alter-ego theory

case-in-chief defense

competency to stand trial

defense of others

diminished capacity test for insanity

duress

federal test for insanity

guilty but mentally ill

involuntary intoxication

irresistible impulse test for insanity

M’Naghten test for insanity

mistake of fact

mistake of law

necessity

objective approach to entrapment

reasonable perception theory

retreat

self-defense

subjective approach to entrapment

voluntary intoxication

 

HELPFUL WEB SITES

National Legal Aid and Defender Association

http://www.nlada.org

Provides access to defender resources such as a forensics library.

National Center for Victims of Crimes

http://www.ncvc.org

Provides information on training institutes and various forms of help for crime victims.

The Oyez Project

http://www.oyez.org

Provides a variety of multimedia-based Supreme Court sources as well as audio archives of oral arguments.

REVIEW QUESTIONS

Fill-in-the-Blank

1. The defense of ____________________ is an unlawful threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury that induces a person to commit a crime.
2. If a defendant claims that he was not in Pittsburgh, the scene of the crime for which he is accused, but was in Seattle at the time the crime was committed, he has a(n) ____________________.
3. The ____________________ test for insanity focuses on whether the defendant acted from an uncontrollable impulse.
4. One can never use deadly force to protect ____________________.
5. Lisa slips some alcohol into Juan’s soda without Juan’s knowledge. Juan drinks the soda and later commits a crime. Juan may claim ____________________ as a defense to the crime.
6. The ____________________ theory of self-defense requires that the defendant stand in the shoes of the person she was defending and allows the defendant to use the same force that person would be able to use in defending herself.
7. ____________________ is an avenue of safe escape and is a prerequisite to self-defense in some jurisdictions.

 

 

Essay

1. Explain why the Court in United States v. Calley found that Lieutenant Calley had the mensrea for murder.
2. List and explain the elements of the defense of necessity.
3. Explain the difference between a mistake of fact and a mistake of law and give an example of each.
4. Explain the difference between an objective approach to entrapment and a subjective approach to entrapment, and give an example of each.

Answers are on the following page.

NOTES

 

 

ANSWERS

Fill-in-the-Blank

1. duress
2. alibi
3. irresistible impulse
4. property
5. involuntary intoxication
6. alter-ego
7. Retreat

Essay

1. Even if Calley was ordered to kill those people, he was still required to know that the order was illegal.
2. The defendant reasonably believed the threat of harm was imminent; the only way to prevent the threatened harm was to violate the law; and the harm that was caused by violating the law was less serious than the harm the defendant sought to avoid.
3. Mistake of fact is a lack of knowledge of a particular piece of information, which may be a defense if it negates a material element of the offense. Mistake of law is a lack of knowledge of a particular law, which may be a defense if it negates the mensrea required for the crime.
4. The objective approach to entrapment focuses on whether the government’s conduct in inducing the crime was beyond judicial toleration. The subjective approach prohibits police officers from instigating criminal acts by people not predisposed to commit the crime.