Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Criminal Law and Procedure - Coggle Diagram

- - - - The heart of conspiracy is agreement. When two or more people have a meeting of the minds to commit a crime, they have formed a conspiracy. Under MPC and most modern statutes, conspirators must engage in an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy for the conspiracy to form. An overt act is not required at common law.
    - - Attempt is a specific intent crime. Under the common law, you had to take an act with a dangerous propensity toward completion of the crime. Under the MPC, you must take a substantial step beyond mere preparation. Impossibility is not a defense to attempt. If I am successful at completing the crime, attempt will merge into the crime.
    - - Solicitation is encouraging someone else to commit a crime with the intent that they will follow through and commit the crime. The crime of solicitation is complete upon requesting the other person to commit a crime for you. If the other person agrees with you, solicitation merges with conspiracy and only the conspiracy crime is left. If the other person does not agree, you are still guilty of solicitation. The common law (and most modern statutes) permits renunciation as a defense to solicitation. The MPC does not.
  - - - Common law murder
        
        unlawful killing
        
        malice aforethought
        
        intent to inflict serious bodily injury
        
        gross recklessness (depraved heart)
        
        Intent to kill
        
        felony murder-killing during course of felcony. Intent not required
  - - - Principle in the second degree
        
        Present at the scene but did not commit any elements of the crime.
      - Accessory before the fact
        
        Not present at the scene but assisted beforehand.
      - Principle in the first degree
        
        Present at the scene of the crime and committed at least 1 element of the crime.
      - Accessory after the fact
        
        Not at the scene but helped after.
  - - - Taking and carrying away without consent and with intent to permanently deprive
    - - the fraudulent conversion of another's personal property by one who is in lawful possession of it
    - - larceny plus violence
    - - trick involving telling lies to obtain possession
    - - trick involving lies to obtain title
    - - similar to robbery except it does not require the taking to be in the victim's presence and the threat is of future harm
    - - Gaining possession and control of property that you know was illegally obtained with intent to permanently deprive the true owner
    - - creating or altering a written document with purported legal significance to be false with intent to defraud
    - - requires the breaking and entering of a dwelling of another
  - - - The mens rea of a crime is the culpable mental state required for the act to be criminal.
    - - Statutory law
        
        If you need to use statutory law, it will give you the statute
      - Model Penal Code
        
        Four categories
        
        Knowingly (subjective)
        
        You are aware that conduct is of a certain nature or that certain circumstances exist. An act is knowing when conduct will necessarily or very likely cause a certain result.
        
        Recklessly (subjective)
        
        A gross deviation from the standard of care and a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Recklessly is different from knowingly because knowingly is a higher level of certainty. Knowing is certain result will occur, reckless is result might occur
        
        Purposely (subjective)
        
        You have a conscious object to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result.
        
        Negligently (objective)
        
        Failure to be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk. Negligently is different from recklessly because in recklessly it is a conscious disregard.
      - Common law
        
        Four categories
        
        Strict liability
        
        no mens rea is required. If you do the actus reus, you committed the crime. Strict liability crimes tend to be less serious crimes with one notable exception being statutory rape.
        
        General Intent
        
        actor is aware of all factors constituting a crime are present even if actor did not intend to commit a crime.
        
        Specific Intent
        
        not only did you do the act, you did it with the specific intent of committing the crime. Some common specific intent crimes are solicitation, attempt, conspiracy, first degree premeditated murder, assault, larceny and robbery, burglary, forgery, false pretenses, and embezzlement.
        
        Malice
        
        Malice applied to common law murder and arson. Malice is substantially the same as specific intent, but the common law created an additional category so that defenses to specific intent crimes would not apply. To show malice, you need to show reckless disregard or high risk of a particular result.
    - - This is the actual physical act you do or the failure to act when you have a duty to do so.
  - - - The bar exam uses the Rule of 7’s for the infancy defense. From 0-7 years, a minor cannot have criminal liability. From 7-14, there is a rebuttable presumption against criminal liability. For 14 and older, the infancy defense is not available in most instances.
    - - Mistake of law is never a defense
      - Mistake of fact is a defense to specific intent crimes but is never a defense to strict liability crimes. Mistake of fact may be a defense to a general intent crime if the mistake is reasonable.
    - - Involuntarily
        
        complete defense
      - Voluntarily
        
        Limited to specific intent crimes
    - - Self-defense is appropriate when you reasonably believe that force is necessary to defeat an immediate and unlawful force.
      - You may only use deadly force when encountered with deadly force.
      - If the initial aggressor retreats, and the threat is gone, use of self-defense must cease
      - Defense of others is allowed under the same circumstances as self-defense
    - - Irresistible impulse test
        
        a person is not able to conform their conduct to the law. Unlike the M’Naughten test, the person may know what they are doing is wrong, but just cannot control themselves.
      - MPC
        
        combines the M’Naughten and irresistible impulse tests. Under the MPC test, a person will have a defense of insanity when they either don’t appreciate the criminality of their actions or cannot conform their actions to the law.
      - M'Naughten test
        
        a person could use the insanity defense when they had a mental illness that prevented them from knowing right from wrong or understanding the nature and quality of their act.
      - Durham Test
        
        (Rejected in every jurisdiction except NH) a person can use the insanity defense if their conduct was a product of their mental illness.
    - - the idea to commit the crime came from a law enforcement official and you were not predisposed to commit the crime otherwise.
- - - - Maximum authorized sentence and any statutory minimum
      - Right to plead not guilty and to have a trial
      - Nature of charge
      - Defendant waiving right to trial
    - - Defective plea-taking colloquy
      - Ineffective assistance of counsel
      - Prosecutor fails to fulfill his side of plea bargain
      - Jurisdictional defect
  - - - During any custodial interrogation, a police officer must advise the detained individual that they have the right to remain silent, any statement that they make can be used against them, they have the right to counsel, and that counsel will be appointed if they cannot afford one
        
        An individual is free to waive the Miranda rights. If an individual invokes the right to remain silent, the police officer must immediately cease the interrogation.
        
        If the individual invokes the right to counsel, the police officer may not resume questioning until counsel is provided. However, the individual must make the request for counsel unambiguous and unequivocal.
      - If there was a defect in the Miranda rights, the exclusionary rule will keep the evidence out.
      - Police officers must give the Miranda rights prior to any custodial interrogation. An individual is considered in custody any time when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. The individual does not need to be under arrest.
  - - - Search or seizure
        
        A seizure is the meaningful interference with possessory interest or arrest of a person.
        
        A search is the physical intrusion into an area where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
      - Warrant or exception
        
        To be valid, a warrant must be based on probable cause that a crime has or is being commitment or that evidence of a crime is in a place to be searched. Remember, probable cause is not a high bar. Hearsay and anonymous tips can be enough.
        
        the warrant also must describe with particularity the persons and places to be seized or searched. This description must be in the warrant or clearly itemized in documents incorporated by reference and shown at the time of the search or seizure.
        
        must also be supported by the police officer’s oath or affirmation. In securing the warrant, the officer must swear that they are not making a knowingly or intentionally false statement.
        
        A neutral magistrate must issue the warrant
        
        Exceptions
        
        Plain view
        
        If the officer moves the item around or inspects it before recognizing it as evidence or contraband, then the plain view exception does not apply
        
        If a police officer is on the premises lawfully and they see something in plain view, they may seize it without a warrant if they immediately recognize it as evidence or contraband
        
        Consent
        
        You have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. You can waive this right though.
        
        Guests in your home might be able to consent on your behalf
        
        Automobile search
        
        individuals have a lower expectation of privacy in their automobile than in their home.
        
        If a police officer has probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is in the automobile, they may search the area of the automobile where they have probable cause the evidence or contraband might be found.
        
        Search incident to arrest
        
        Following the valid arrest of an individual, the police officer may search what is on the person and anything within the person’s reach.
        
        If the individual was in an automobile at the time of arrest, the police officer may only reach the automobile areas that are in reach of the individual at the time of arrest.
        
        The police officer may also search the automobile if they have a reasonable belief that the automobile contains evidence of the crime for which the individual was just arrested.
        
        If the individual was arrested at home, the police officer may perform a protective sweep of the home.
        
        Inventory search
        
        After impounding property of the arrested individual, the police officer may perform an inventory search. The purpose of an inventory search is to catalog the contents to protect against claims of lost or stolen property.
        
        The purpose of an inventory search is NOT to find evidence or contraband. If evidence or contraband is present during an inventory search, however, it can be used.
        
        Terry stop and frisk
        
        A police officer is permitted to stop an individual if they have reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal activity.
        
        Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause. This reasonable suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts. A hunch is not enough
      - State Actor
      - Executing warrant
        
        Execution must be reasonable
        
        The officer must knock and announce unless they have reasonable belief that doing so will allow the evidence to be detroyed
      - Standing and exclusion
        
        If any of these requirements is not met, the evidence is excluded. Likewise, any evidence that the police officer obtains through the excluded evidence will also be excluded unless they can show they would have found that evidence even without the excluded evidence.