Criminal Law Flashcards

Which of the following is an element of common-law larceny that distinguishes it from embezzlement?

Answer: The property must be taken by trespassory taking from another's possession

Larceny requires a trespassory taking from another's possession, while embezzlement involves a lawful initial possession that is later fraudulently converted.

Under the insanity defense based on the M'Naghten test, a defendant is excused if, as a result of mental disease, the defendant:

Answer: Did not know the nature of the act or did not know it was wrong

The M'Naghten test focuses solely on cognition: the defendant must not know the nature of the act or that it was wrong, not on volitional capacity.

Defendant breaks into a store at 2 a.m. intending to steal jewelry. He is surprised by a security guard and punches the guard, breaking his nose. Defendant is MOST likely guilty of:

Answer: Burglary and battery

Burglary is satisfied by the nighttime breaking and entering with intent to steal; battery occurs when defendant punches the guard, but this is not robbery because the force was not used to accomplish the taking.

Which of the following is the MOST accurate statement regarding the voluntary intoxication defense?

Answer: Voluntary intoxication may negate the specific intent required for a specific-intent crime

Voluntary intoxication is a partial defense that may negate specific intent (e.g., premeditation, intent to steal) but is not available for general-intent crimes.

Under common law, provocation reduces a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter only if the provocation was:

Answer: Sufficient to cause a reasonable person to lose self-control and the defendant actually acted in the heat of passion

Provocation must be legally adequate (e.g., witnessing adultery, mutual combat) and must have actually provoked the defendant before cooling time elapsed.

Tom agrees with Sue to burn down a building. Tom later changes his mind and tells Sue he is withdrawing and does nothing further. The building is subsequently burned by Sue alone. Under common law, Tom is:

Answer: Guilty of conspiracy but not arson

At common law, conspiracy is complete upon agreement (and an overt act in some jurisdictions), so withdrawal does not undo the already-formed conspiracy, though it may limit liability for subsequent crimes.

A defendant who is an accomplice to a crime is generally liable for:

Answer: The crimes he aided and abetted plus any reasonably foreseeable crimes committed by the principal in furtherance of the scheme

Accomplice liability extends to the target crime and any additional crimes that were a natural and probable consequence of the criminal scheme.