Gilbert Law Summary on Criminal Law
Author:
Dix, George E.
Edition:
19th
Copyright Date:
2016
22 chapters
have results for Gilbert Law Summaries
Exam Strategies 5 results
- With this in mind, approach Criminal Law questions using the following basic analytical framework. And don’t forget to review the more detailed approaches to specific topics in the Key Exam Issues sections at the beginning of each chapter and the Exam Tips found throughout the Summary.
- a. Under the law of complicity, did the defendant render the sort of assistance or encouragement that would make him, in common law terms, a
- The ultimate issue in a Criminal Law examination question is whether the defendant’s conduct creates criminal liability. This involves consideration of three main issues: (i) whether the conduct, on its face, to conviction and punishment. Sometimes a statute defining the crime will be presented in the question, and often there will be statutes relating to possible defenses. However, these statutes may explicitly or implicitly incorporate common law rules and therefore even these questions require you to have a thorough understanding of the common law crimes and defenses.
- that must have existed at the time of the defendant’s act, can they be shown? (For example, if the defendant is charged with common law rape, it must be established that the victim was not his wife.)
- required for the crime? Consider mistake of fact, mistake of law, intoxication, or a mental defect short of insanity that negates intent under the diminished capacity rule.
- Open Chapter
Chapter Five. Scope of Criminal Liability 34 results (showing 5 best matches)
- those who would be principals in the first degree under common law terminology) is the subject of this whole Summary. But the liability of those who may be responsible for crimes perpetrated by another because of their involvement in that offense presents special problems. This section considers the issues presented by the liability of those participants in a crime who, at common law, would be principals in the second degree or accessories before the fact. For simplicity, these participants are often collectively called “accomplices.”
- The law of parties has considerable procedural significance at common law.
- Those who aid or incite the commission of a misdemeanor are, of course, liable for the resulting crime at common law. However, no distinction is made between principals and accessories or between the degrees of principals. [ 8 S.E.2d 735 (Ga. 1940)] Moreover, as will be seen, there is no common law liability at all for aiding a misdemeanant
- At common law, corporations and associations could not be convicted of criminal offenses. This position was, in part, traceable to various conceptual problems in holding corporations liable. Basically, since a corporation is not a person, it could not personally participate in the trial or be imprisoned if convicted. To some extent, however, it is likely that the common law rule was based on policy considerations militating against such liability;
- law of parties (e.g.,
- Open Chapter
Chapter Three. Basic Legal Limits upon Criminal Law 16 results (showing 5 best matches)
- detailed discussion in Constitutional Law Summary]
- detailed discussion in Criminal Procedure Summary] It also provides some—but limited—protection against overlapping criminal liability when the prosecution seeks multiple convictions in a single proceeding.
- a. Modern Law—No Common Law Merger
- The doctrine of merger as it was known and applied at common law is no longer applied in American jurisdictions. [J. Miller, Criminal Law 51 (1943)—afterwards cited as “Miller”]
- The following examples illustrate the impact of the right of privacy on substantive criminal law:
- Open Chapter
Capsule Summary 110 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Capsule Summary
- In some jurisdictions, a defense is also established by reasonable reliance upon an interpretation of the law by an official with responsibility for interpreting that law. However, reliance upon support a mistake of law defense.
- At common law, homicides are categorized as (those authorized by law), (murder or manslaughter). At common law, murder is not divided into degrees.
- The definition of the basic crimes and defenses are taken from the English common law. Criminal matters are now largely governed by statute, but the interpretation of statutes often refers to the common law cases.
- At common law, if the same act was both a felony and a misdemeanor, the misdemeanor merged into the felony and there could be
- Open Chapter
Chapter Four. Elements of Crimes 46 results (showing 5 best matches)
- (3) Summary
- Torts Summary.) However, civil and criminal negligence differ in the degree of deviation from socially accepted conduct that is required. Thus, criminal negligence is not established simply by the fact that the defendant failed to exercise due care; rather, the negligence must involve a
- Courts seldom require that the defendant have knowledge that the law imposes the duty to act, the general rule being that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” ( ). However, if a statute requires a “willful” failure to act, courts may require knowledge of the law creating the duty on the theory that ignorance of the existence or scope of the duty negates the requisite mental state. [
- Although traditional criminal law required mens rea, the precise demands that this imposed were sometimes unclear. Modern criminal statutes, usually based on the Model Penal Code, define culpable mental states more carefully and comprehensively than traditional criminal law. Often, therefore, it is necessary to separate and distinguish traditional mens rea analysis from the analysis necessary under modern criminal statutes.
- Federal law requires certain financial institutions to report all cash transactions exceeding $10,000. In addition, that law makes it a crime to willfully “structure” a transaction—to break it up into several smaller transactions—for the purpose of avoiding the reporting requirement. But many people may for quite “innocent” reasons seek to avoid having their transactions reported, and thus the crime creates a high risk of convicting persons who did not act in a blameworthy manner. Therefore, in this crime “willfulness” requires that the defendant know that the “structuring” constituting the offense is unlawful; the defendant must know that federal law prohibits structuring and that breaking up the transaction violated that prohibition. [
- Open Chapter
Summary of Contents 4 results
Chapter Seven. Preliminary or Inchoate Crimes 41 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Evidence Summary), a showing of a conspiracy often increases the evidence that can be used against a defendant.
- The law’s view on what objectives of agreements justify making those agreements criminal by means of conspiracy law has undergone considerable change from common law.
- Sometimes a defendant sets out to do things (or to cause a particular result) that he believes would, if completed, constitute a crime but which were not in fact made criminal by the law. The person’s only
- At common law, the crime of conspiracy is complete when the agreement is made and no act is required beyond the making of that agreement. Many jurisdictions still adhere to the common law rule. Some modern statutes, however, impose an additional requirement of an “overt act.” [
- All modern statutes depart from the common law position. Some limit criminal conspiracies to agreements to commit Cal. Penal Code § 182—criminalizing conspiracies to “commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws”].
- Open Chapter
Chapter One. Introduction 15 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The English common law is a major source of modern criminal law. Definitions of the basic crimes and defenses were developed in the decisions of the English courts and became part of the common law adopted in early America. Even where criminal law matters are now covered by statute, the meaning given language in these statutes is often determined by reference to the common law cases.
- The ultimate issue in your Criminal Law examination question is whether the accused’s conduct creates criminal liability. Criminal liability is to be distinguished from other forms of liability: It is liability arising from the commission of a “crime.” Although at common law crimes were defined by case law, today criminal law is almost entirely a statutory matter. Your decision as to whether the accused’s conduct creates criminal liability necessarily involves consideration of the
- The Model Penal Code is a proposed penal code developed and approved by the American Law Institute. Final approval to the Model Penal Code was given in 1962. The Code does not itself constitute “law,” since the Institute has no authority to promulgate law. However, the Code has
- At common law, misdemeanors were those offenses not classified as felonies. Felonies are those offenses punishable by total forfeiture of land, goods, or both. Common law felonies include murder, manslaughter, rape, sodomy, mayhem, robbery, arson, burglary, and larceny.
- A crime is an act or omission prohibited by law for the protection of the public, the violation of which is prosecuted by the state in its own name, and punishable by fine, incarceration, other restrictions upon liberty, or some combination of these. [Model Penal Code § 1.04(1)]
- Open Chapter
Chapter Two. The Criminalization Decision 6 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Moreover, there are those who feel so strongly that persons who violate criminal statutes should be punished that they will inflict punishment themselves if the law does not. Therefore, it is urged that punishment pursuant to law is necessary to prevent others from committing additional criminal offenses by taking the law into their own hands.
- Clearly, when specific conduct is made a crime, criminal punishment can be imposed upon those who engage in the proscribed behavior. But what are the justifications for subjecting those who violate the criminal law to punishment?
- Punishing the offender can have a “general deterrent” effect, by indirectly warning others to anticipate similar punishment should they violate the criminal law.
- Some argue that social order requires a widespread consensus that criminal behavior is wrong and that subjecting offenders to punishment will maintain this consensus. Otherwise, it is felt, the “social solidarity” encouraged by criminal punishment will dissolve and people will regard themselves as free to violate other criminal laws. [
- costs of law enforcement, prosecution, imprisonment, etc.). Besides direct costs, the costs of criminalization are reflected to a large extent in terms of the impact upon those who commit the acts. For instance, criminalization may not only subject offenders to physical discomfort but may also stigmatize them in such a way as to produce a long-term disability.
- Open Chapter
Exam Questions and Answers Part 2 5 results
- Mistake of Law:
- several months. On August 14, Tubb suggested to Winters that the two of them enter into a common law marriage after eloping. Winters agreed, with reservations. That night, the two left their homes about 8:00 p.m. and went to a nearby park where they exchanged rings. Tubb assured Winters that they were then married. They then went to Tubb’s apartment where he began making sexual advances to Winters. She tells the officers that they ultimately had intercourse and that “I didn’t want to, and I told him so. But he made me do it.” When asked if she fought him, she responds, “I was afraid. He just said we had to do it because we were married.” Tubb, on the other hand, tells the officers that he never specifically represented to Winters that the exchange of rings was a legal marriage. He also denies compelling her to engage in intercourse. “I had to urge her on,” he says, “but you always have to guide her. She’s not too smart, you know.” The jurisdiction has no common law marriage doctrine...
- ...she hired a manager, Clark Lent, to assume general operating responsibility for the shop. Under the law of State X, it is a misdemeanor to sell a handgun to any person with an unexpunged felony conviction. On June 14, while Kane is in another state tending to her earthworm farm there, Lent is in charge of the shop. Mary Parks enters the store and tells Lent that she would like to purchase a small revolver, but that she has been unsuccessful in other stores because everybody knows about her five-year-old conviction for armed robbery. Lent indicates that he cannot sell her a gun either and informs her of the statutory prohibition. Parks then tells Lent that she and her three-year-old son are forced by financial considerations to live in an undesirable area of the city, that on two occasions persons have attempted to break into their apartment, and that her son’s safety depends upon her being able to secure a weapon for use in self-defense. Lent, with tears running down his cheeks...
- ...a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the support he was not paying was required by law. If Linin believed Shyster’s advice, a judge or jury could reasonably conclude that Linin was unaware of a risk that the support was in fact legally required. On the other hand, the facts do not necessarily preclude a finding of recklessness. Linin may not have believed Shyster fully and, in light of Holden’s claims, might still have been aware of a high enough risk that Shyster was wrong and that the support was legally required. Moreover, in light of the difficulty of proving that defendants charged under the statute were aware of the legal situation, the legislature might have intended to impose strict liability in regard to the element of “lawfully required support” (in which case even a complete and honest mistake by Linin as to his duty to pay the support is totally irrelevant). Or, perhaps negligence should suffice, in which case the prosecution can rely on Holden’s claim and...
- ...have violated the statute even though Lent mistakenly believed that it would have. But this means that the case presents a classic example of “legal impossibility”: Lent could not have committed the crime by completing the course of conduct which he began. The question is whether this does or should prevent his having committed attempt. Under traditional rules, this does prevent liability, and it can be argued that this is an appropriate position because Lent and others like him have not demonstrated a willingness to engage in conduct that in fact creates a social danger. On the other hand, a number of courts have abandoned the traditional rule and have held that even legal impossibility does not prevent conviction for attempt. It can be argued that Lent and others like him have demonstrated a willingness to break the law and therefore are both dangerous and culpable; the fact that fortuitously their conduct would not have constituted a violation if completed does not negate this...
- Open Chapter
Chapter Six. Defenses 83 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Federal tax laws make it a crime to “willfully” fail to file a return as required by the tax law or to “willfully” evade a tax due under that law. As used in this statute, “willfully” requires that the defendant have known of and understood the legal duty to file the return or pay the tax and nevertheless have intentionally failed to do so ( ). D was prosecuted for failing to file returns and evading tax due on wages received. D testified that he believed that “income” as used in federal tax law did not include wages and that the entire federal tax system was unconstitutional and hence unenforceable. ...he believed the law defined “income” as excluding wages tends to negate the required awareness that tax was due on the wages and that because he received wages he was required to file a return; (ii) the jury must be instructed that if D’s testimony raises a reasonable doubt whether he acted “willfully,” it must acquit D; (iii) the jury is not to be told that it may give effect...
- This defense must ordinarily be based on more than passive unawareness that the law makes the conduct a crime. Rather, it must be based on evidence that the defendant addressed the matter mistakenly believed—that the law did not make the conduct a crime. Thus, “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” even under this rule.
- There is a split of authority as to whether reliance on an interpretation of the law by a person or agency with responsibility for administering or enforcing that law will prevent liability. Arguably, the better view would uphold such a defense if there was no superior source of advice reasonably available. [Model Penal Code § 2.04(3)(b)—defense available if defendant reasonably relied on “an administrative order or grant of permission” or “an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense”]
- law
- Some aspects of this body of law distinguish between two types of claims by defendants: (i) some defendants claim they were simply and regarding certain matters of law; (ii) some defendants claim not passive ignorance but rather that they addressed the matter and reached an
- Open Chapter
Chapter Eight. Homicide Crimes 32 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Because of the traditional tendency of courts to treat some situations as insufficient “as a matter of law” to reduce a killing to voluntary manslaughter, the law has tended to categorize situations presented in these cases. The resulting rules are probably of less importance in modern analysis than they were traditionally, but courts still often invoke them.
- At common law, homicides are classified as justifiable, excusable, or criminal. homicides are those commanded or authorized by law; they are not punishable.
- Modern statutes tend to abandon the common law scheme above. Excusable homicides are no longer punished, and so the justifiable-excusable distinction is of no significance. Modern statutes often add to homicide law the additional offense of
- of the defendant, however, at least some courts would hold that the provocation may still be adequate. The case law suggests that this rule would not be applied if the subject of the provocation were a distant relative or a mere friend, but modern courts, reluctant to hold offered provocation inadequate as a matter of law, might well permit such cases to go to the jury. [LaFave, 826]
- In the absence of a statute, do not worry about degrees of murder. Common law murder is not divided into degrees.
- Open Chapter
Chapter Thirteen. Offenses Against the Administration of Justice 12 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Perjury is still a crime under modern law. However, modern statutes have sometimes modified the common law definition:
- the law authorizes the administration of an oath. Thus, perjury can be committed before a legislative or administrative committee or board, if that body has authority by law to administer an oath to witnesses who appear before it. [Cal. Penal Code § 118]
- Under common law “party” rules, one who assists a known felon in escaping arrest, prosecution, or conviction can incur liability for the felony committed as an accessory after the fact [
- 1. Common Law
- At common law, one who
- Open Chapter
Chapter Ten. Crimes Against the Habitation 17 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Modern statutes based on the Model Penal Code require no impact on the structure and thus do not require a “burning” in the technical sense of common law arson. Even modern statutes requiring damage to a structure do not require that this damage meet the common law definition of a burning.
- protect a citizen’s security in her habitation. The common law crimes are rather limited in scope (
- of the common law.
- 1. Was the structure or place one protected by the statutory or common law definition of the crimes? (Traditionally, it must be the
- 1. Common Law
- Open Chapter
- Under federal law and the law of many states, conviction for treason requires either (i) the testimony of
- of the known treason of another. It is punishable under federal law and the law of some states. [18 U.S.C. § 2382; Cal. Penal Code § 38]
- Treason and related offenses are of limited applicability on criminal law exams. But where they may apply, watch especially for two considerations:
- Under ancient English law, it was “high treason” to kill the king, promote revolt in the kingdom or armed forces, or counterfeit the great seal. “Petit treason” consisted of a killing of a husband by his wife, a master or mistress by a servant, or a prelate by a clergyman. Treason was neither a felony nor a misdemeanor but a crime in a separate class by itself.
- It is also a violation of federal criminal law to knowingly or willfully advocate the overthrow or destruction of the government of the United States or any state. [18 U.S.C. § 2385]
- Open Chapter
Chapter Eleven. Crimes Against Property—Acquisition Offenses 23 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Under New York law, a defendant charged with larceny by extortion committed by instilling fear in the victim that he would be charged with a crime may assert an affirmative defense consisting of proof that (i) the defendant reasonably believed the threatened charge to be true; and (ii) the defendant’s sole purpose was to induce the victim to make good the wrong that was the subject of the threatened charge. [N.Y. Penal Law § 155.15(b)]
- of property. At common law, the “acquisition offenses” have detailed technical requirements which reflect a begrudging expansion of the crimes by the early courts to cover more and more situations. The important distinctions between the offenses can be summarized as follows:
- Under the common law definition, it is questionable whether electricity is sufficiently tangible to be “taken,” and therefore it might not be the subject of larceny. Nevertheless, courts tend to hold that larceny is committed when electrical power is “taken,” as when it is diverted by improperly hooking up to a transmission line. [
- Whether natural gas can be the subject of common law larceny is uncertain. But it has been held to constitute “property” under a modern larceny statute. [
- Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 266, § 30(2)—property that can be the subject of larceny includes “electronically processed or stored data, either tangible or intangible” and “data while in transit”]
- Open Chapter
Chapter Nine. Other Crimes Against the Person 28 results (showing 5 best matches)
- As criminalized under modern statutory provisions, battery is somewhat different than it is under traditional law.
- At common law, battery is a misdemeanor, and “simple” battery is generally a misdemeanor under modern statutes. Most modern statutes also make certain
- Common law criminal assault was apparently limited to attempts to commit a battery. Virtually all jurisdictions now recognize this form of assault. [Perkins and Boyce, 159–161]
- states (although not under the common law definition), assault requires proof that the defendant had the actual
- Assault is a misdemeanor at common law, and “simple” assault remains so today. However, modern statutes often make certain
- Open Chapter
Half Title 1 result
Index 35 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Publication Date: October 30th, 2015
- ISBN: 9781634593854
- Subject: Criminal Law
- Series: Gilbert Law Summaries
- Type: Outlines
- Description: The topics discussed in this criminal law outline are elements of crimes (including actus reus, mens rea, and causation), vicarious liability, complicity in crime, criminal liability of corporations, and defenses (including insanity, diminished capacity, intoxication, ignorance, and self-defense). Also included are inchoate crimes, homicide, other crimes against the person, crimes against habitation (including burglary and arson), crimes against property, offenses against the government, and offenses against the administration of justice.
