Criminal Law & Evidence Flashcards

Under Connecticut law, which mental state distinguishes first-degree manslaughter from second-degree manslaughter?

Answer: First-degree requires intent to cause serious physical injury; second-degree requires criminal negligence

Connecticut first-degree manslaughter requires intent to cause serious physical injury resulting in death, while second-degree manslaughter requires reckless conduct causing death.

A witness testifies consistently with their prior out-of-court statement. The opposing party offers the prior statement to show the witness fabricated their current story after a motive to lie arose. The prior statement is offered as:

Answer: Prior consistent statement to rehabilitate credibility

A prior consistent statement is admissible under FRE 801(d)(1)(B) to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive if made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose.

Which element distinguishes larceny from embezzlement?

Answer: Whether the defendant had lawful initial possession of the property

Embezzlement involves fraudulent conversion of property by someone who lawfully possessed it (e.g., an employee), while larceny involves a trespassory taking from someone who has not entrusted possession.

Police stop a car for a broken taillight. The driver is nervous. An officer asks if he can search the car. The driver says 'I guess so.' The search reveals drugs. Is the consent valid?

Answer: Yes, if under the totality of circumstances consent was voluntary

Consent to search is valid if voluntary under the totality of the circumstances; police are not required to inform suspects of their right to refuse under Schneckloth v. Bustamonte.

A defendant charged with rape raises a consent defense. The prosecution seeks to admit evidence that the defendant raped two other women using the same pattern of luring victims. This evidence is most likely admissible as:

Answer: Evidence of modus operandi under FRE 404(b)

Evidence of prior bad acts showing a distinctive modus operandi is admissible under FRE 404(b) to prove identity or plan, not merely to show propensity.

A defendant is charged with conspiracy. His co-conspirator pleads guilty and testifies against him. Which constitutional right of the defendant is implicated if the co-conspirator is unavailable for cross-examination?

Answer: Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause

The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses who testify against them.

Which doctrine allows a court to admit evidence of a prior crime committed by the defendant to show he had the intent required for the current charged offense?

Answer: Prior acts under FRE 404(b)

FRE 404(b) permits admission of prior crimes or acts to prove intent, knowledge, motive, or absence of mistake—but not to prove character conformity.