Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law
Authors:
Berman, Sara J. / Bracci, Steven J.
Edition:
1st
Copyright Date:
2022
18 chapters
have results for criminal law
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Part 7 8 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This Study Guide reviews the most frequently tested criminal law rules and concepts in an order that corresponds with our approach to successfully answering a criminal law question. The Guide focuses on modern majority rules of criminal law, but weaves in mention of the common law distinctions, MPC rules, and other minority trends where significant for testing purposes.
- Generally, criminal law problems tend to follow a similar format: the facts describe actions taken by one or more defendants who are facing charges or trial, and you must identify the relevant crimes and assess the extent of the criminal liability.
- What Is the Step-by-Step Criminal Law Study Guide?
- Introduction to the Criminal Law Approach
- These are the basics of our approach to criminal law. Read actively, asking logical questions as you analyze the facts. Then apply the facts to the relevant legal rules in an organized manner, meshing the checklist queries with the issues posed by particular exam questions, ending in clear and thoughtful exam answers that hit all of the applicable crimes and defenses.
- Open Chapter
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Part 11 13 results (showing 5 best matches)
- At common law the only way to establish a criminal assault was through an attempted battery. The fear of imminent battery criminal assault is a modern development now followed by a majority of jurisdictions. Be mindful of what law (e.g. common law or modern majority) is to be applied in the fact pattern.
- Criminal Negligence.
- A criminal battery is the intentional or reckless application of force to the person of another that results in either physical harm or an offensive touching. In approaching a battery fact pattern, discuss the mental state, then the action element. Lastly be sure to consider any applicable defenses.
- Step 1: Did the defendant act with the requisite intent (intent to cause the actual touching, intent to cause the act substantially certain to result in the touching, or while engaging in behavior that otherwise amounted to criminal negligence)?
- Assault is a specific intent crime. The defendant must actually intend the result (meaning the battery or the placing in fear, depending on the type of assault). Merely being reckless as to whether or not the battery will occur will not meet the intent element for a criminal assault.
- Open Chapter
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Part 17 20 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Substantive Law
- Common Law
- —A claim made by a defendant in order to mitigate or relieve the defendant of criminal liability.
- —A criminal battery is the (1) intentional or reckless, (2) application of force (3) to the person of another, (4) resulting in physical harm or offensive touching.
- —In criminal cases, the requirement that the government (or prosecution) convince the judge or jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant(s) committed the charged crime(s).
- Open Chapter
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Part 10 31 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Some jurisdictions criminalize other forms of homicide, such as killings that occur during traffic accidents (sometimes called “vehicular manslaughter”), but these are statutory offenses and as such they differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Most law school criminal law courses (and most state bar examinations) stick to the more heavily tested forms of criminal homicide offenses listed above. So, unless your professor has specifically covered other offenses, concentrate on learning the elements of (and defenses to) the four basic
- To most effectively analyze a criminal law fact pattern, you first classify each of the potential crimes as a:
- Under the MPC, the defendant is not criminally responsible if at the time of the criminal act and as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked the substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality of the conduct, or conform it to the requirements of the law.
- In order to be convicted of crimes, defendants must be deemed to possess sufficient maturity to be held criminally responsible. At common law, children under seven were irrebuttably deemed not criminally responsible. Between ages seven and fourteen children were presumed incapable of criminal responsibility, but the presumption was rebuttable, for example with specific evidence of subjective maturity. Modern jurisdictions differ as the minimal age requirements for criminal responsibility. This is not a heavily tested issue, but certainly raise and discuss this as a possible defense theory any time the facts indicate a defendant is under eighteen years of age.
- If the defendant is responsible for the death of another human being then there was a homicide. However, in order for that homicide to be criminal, it must be coupled with some criminal intent and it must not be justified or excused. The most serious of the homicidal offenses is murder.
- Open Chapter
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Part 15 17 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Mistake of Law.
- 3. Under the MPC, the defendant is not criminally responsible if (1) at the time of the criminal act and (2) as a result of (3) mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked the (4) substantial capacity to either (5) appreciate the criminality of the conduct, or conform it to the requirements of the law.
- A number of different defenses have been referenced in previous Chapters, as they relate to specific crimes. In this Chapter, we pull all the defense theories together so that you keep in mind that an analysis of most criminal law questions is not complete until you fully address whether or not any applicable defenses negate or mitigate culpability. To effectively do this, you may want to keep in mind the following defense approach.
- The majority rule (subjective view) on the defense of entrapment is that it is a complete defense to a criminal charge if (1) a law enforcement agent (2) actually instigated or induced (3) an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime. Under this view, the defense will not be successful if there is sufficient evidence that defendant was predisposed to commit the crime (thus evidence of the defendant’s character is relevant and admissible). A minority of jurisdictions follow an objective view and hold that the defense applies if (1) a law enforcement agent uses (2) methods which created a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by (3) persons other than those who are ready to commit it. (Note that under the minority view, evidence of this particular defendant’s predisposition is irrelevant.)
- Being too young to be guilty or “infancy” as the defense theory is sometimes called was discussed in connection with homicidal offenses. But, youth can be a defense to any of the other crimes against people, property, or preliminary crimes as well. So, be alert as you read the facts for one or more of the defendants being under the age of 18. Modern jurisdictions all set their own age limits, but at common law, a child under 7 was conclusively presumed incapable of forming criminal intent and those between 7 and 14 were rebuttably presumed incapable of forming such intent. Anyone 14 years or older, however, was presumed to have full adult capacity and therefore could be guilty of any of the crimes discussed earlier.
- Open Chapter
-
Download
- View Details
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Part 5 Your search matches the chapter title
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Part 14 33 results (showing 5 best matches)
- At common law, the unlawful purpose could have been criminal or immoral; most modern jurisdictions require the unlawful purpose to be a crime or another specifically enumerated wrong, e.g., a named tort. To satisfy this requirement the parties must enter into the agreement intending to accomplish the unlawful purpose.
- At common law, there were four categories of criminal actors:
- 16. Yes. At common law, the answer is yes because the criminally punishable action was forming an agreement for an illegal (or immoral) purpose. Even under modern criminal statutes, most of which require that one or more of the defendants take some overt action beyond merely making the agreement, A’s trip to the bank to count the employees would likely satisfy this minimal requirement.
- Most modern jurisdictions define conspiracy as requiring some overt act beyond the mere agreement, though the agreement alone was enough at common law. If you see in a fact pattern two parties agreeing to commit a crime, but there is no follow-through whatsoever, be sure to note that at common law this was a conspiracy and both would be guilty of the crime of conspiracy. The moment they agreed, the crime was completed and criminal liability would attach. You can go on to state, however, that in the majority of modern jurisdictions, they would need to do more, take some overt step toward completion of the crime, in order to be guilty of conspiracy.
- At common law, to be found vicariously (or directly) liable for a crime, the criminal actor had to fall within one of these categories. Most modern jurisdictions group principals in the second degree and accessories before the fact under the accomplice heading, although the person who would have been considered an accessory after the fact is now typically not held to be vicariously liable for the target offense, but rather, guilty of a separate crime often called “obstruction of justice,” or “hindering prosecution.”
- Open Chapter
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Your search matches the chapter title
- Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Late Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus University of California, Hastings College of the Law
- Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus University of California, Berkeley
- Robert A. Sullivan Emeritus Professor of Law University of Michigan
- Open Chapter
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Part 6 7 results (showing 5 best matches)
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Part 8 7 results (showing 5 best matches)
- What Is the Step-by-Step Criminal Law Study Guide?
- Introduction to the Criminal Law Approach
- Appendix A. Selected Criminal Law Essay Questions and Sample Answers
- Appendix B. Glossary of Selected Criminal Law Terms
- Solicitation—Step 1: Did the defendant ask another to commit criminal acts?
- Open Chapter
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Part 12 9 results (showing 5 best matches)
- As discussed at the beginning of this book, the first question you ask when analyzing a criminal law question is:
- Under common law, the intent and the receipt of the property must be simultaneous. Therefore, if a defendant acquired stolen property without knowing it was stolen, later learns it is stolen and decides then to keep it, that defendant would not be guilty of receiving stolen property at common law. Assuming a defendant acquired the stolen property with the intent to return it to its lawful owner with no charge, that defendant would not be guilty of receiving stolen property. Some modern statutes have extended the timing though to those who continue to withhold property with the knowledge that the property is stolen.
- ...rightful possession.). For example, Dave goes to Starbucks, orders a triple latte, and pays for the $5 coffee with a $20 bill. Susan, the server, mistakenly gives Dave a $10 bill and two $5 bills as change. Dave looks at the change and sees the mistake, but decides to keep the extra five for an extra coffee the next day, one he anticipates will be extra busy at work. Dave has committed larceny. Also, if Dave notices the mistake immediately and decides he will return the $5 bill the next day when he buys his coffee, but later that afternoon instead decides to keep the windfall, he will be guilty of larceny. However, if Susan gives Dave the extra five dollar bill, but Dave pockets all the change without looking at it and thus does not notice the mistake, he will not be guilty of any crime for most exam purposes (even if he later notices the mistake and decides to keep the extra money.) This last action might well be criminal under certain modern statutes, but does not fall...
- Though modern jurisdictions tend to consolidate different property-taking crimes under one global umbrella of “theft crimes,” these are often codified differently in different state statutes, and thus bar exams and many law school exams tend to still test on the main crimes of larceny, robbery, extortion, larceny by trick, false pretenses, embezzlement and receiving stolen property.
- The basic premise here is that personal property does not include land or anything affixed to land. This makes sense if you think about the conduct element (carrying away), i.e. the property must be something that can be carried away. This thinking will also make it easy for you to remember that at common law things like documents evidencing property rights and intellectual property were not subject to larceny either (though modern jurisdictions have expanded the definition to include writings and intellectual property). The same is true of services which are not the subject of larceny at common law but modernly often included in theft crimes. So for example, where someone uses a ride share service or takes a taxi ride and does not pay he has likely committed a statutory theft crime.
- Open Chapter
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Part 16 30 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people for an unlawful purpose. Frank agreed to Pete’s request to sign papers for an unlawful purpose. From the facts, however, Frank appears to have not had a criminal purpose in mind—he wanted to know why he was to sign and was assured there was nothing improper by Pete. At common law, a conspiracy required two guilty minds, however modern jurisdictions that accept the “unilateral theory of conspiracy” may find one party guilty of conspiring with another where that other party either feigns or does not know of the criminal purpose. (The policy of criminalizing action in concert being just as important to uphold be prosecuting the one guilty mind.). Here, if this is such a jurisdiction, Pete may be guilty of conspiracy, even though he was a unilateral conspirator.
- Under these facts discussed above, Dan’s intent to wound Vic in the legs and his targeting a victim with a deadly weapon prove that he was acting with far more culpable a mental state that merely criminal negligence. Likely, as discussed above, he was acting with the intent to kill or at the very least a depraved heart. However, in the most unlikely event the prosecution were unable to establish these forms of malice, it is certain that Dan’s actions would amount to criminal negligence.
- Further, while it can be said that Fred’s tackling caused the bullet to be deflected toward Emily, killing her, Fred will not be guilty of a criminal homicide. It does not appear that he intended to kill or seriously harm Bill (or that he acted in any way in reckless disregard for human life). His only apparent intent was to stop Bill, to disarm him to protect his wife Emily and Alice. Because he was acting reasonably, this objectively and subjectively reasonable—Fred saw Bill aiming a gun at Alice who was sitting with Emily. Note that if malice were found, it might be based on the idea that tackling someone holding a gun is reckless, were it not done as here in a manner fully justified under law by the theory of defense of others.
- 1. What criminal charges, if any, should be brought against Art and Ben? Discuss.
- 2. What defenses, if any, do Art and Ben have to the criminal charges? Discuss.
- Open Chapter
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Part 3 10 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Professor of Law University of Houston Law Center
- Dean and Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. Chair of Public Interest Law University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
- Joanne and Larry Doherty Chair in Legal Ethics & Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center
- Professor of Law, Yale Law School
- John Deaver Drinko/Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
- Open Chapter
Sara J. Berman’s Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law Part 13 10 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 4. Yes, if all the other elements are met (intent, structure, nighttime, if applicable), the entering via instrument will suffice if it is used for the criminal purpose.
- At common law, the type of structure involved had to be the dwelling house of another. Typically a “dwelling” is a place where people reside, a structure occupied by people as their home. At common law, burglary extended to those buildings or structures within the curtilage of a home.
- Burglary at common law was the trespassory breaking and entering of the dwelling of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony therein. Modern jurisdictions (and the MPC) have largely eliminated the night requirement and extended the offense to include any protected structure.
- Look in the facts for a defendant attempting to create an opening to enter a structure. At common law, the term breaking meant to create the opening in the structure. Look for facts that suggest that the defendant pushed or pulled some part of the structure so as to allow entry. (For example, Drago smashes the glass on Vince’s front living room window and climbs into Vince’s home.)
- Traditionally, at common law, the nighttime element referred to the time from dusk to dawn when the scarcity of daylight made it difficult to recognize the culprit. Modern statutes have nearly all removed the nighttime requirement and allow for felonious breaking and entering to be prosecuted as burglaries no matter the time of day the crime is committed.
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: November 2nd, 2021
- ISBN: 9781647088026
- Subject: Criminal Law
- Series: Step-by-Step Guides
- Type: Audio
-
Description:
The Step-by-Step Guide to Criminal Law is an interactive workbook designed to effectively prepare students to pass exams. The most heavily tested legal rules are presented in a format that mirrors the way they arise as issues in typical testing fact patterns. Rule statements are set out in easy-to-memorize statements, with a breakdown of the element components and logical steps to take to apply new facts to each legal element.
Fluency with the legal terminology is also essential to exam success, so this Step-by-Step Guide includes fill-in-the-blank spaces to help you learn and memorize definitions of key terms as they are introduced, and a glossary of selected terms at the end for further reference.
In addition to learning the law and memorizing key rules and terms, success in law school also requires the hard work of deep learning, engaging with problems to test your own knowledge, and working toward gaining a strong command of all testable topics. To that end, this Guide contains short-answer Test Yourself questions. Working through these questions and then reading the answers and explanations to determine where your understanding is clear and where you must do additional work will help you master the skill of applying the relevant rules to new and different fact patterns. In addition to the short-answer questions, this Guide also includes numerous full-length essay questions with sample answers —providing further practice to test your knowledge and deepen your learning.
/
| Name | Description | Transcript Text | Launch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inchoate Crimes Interactive Module | View Transcript | Launch |
