This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Oklahoma Bar Bundle Outlines

Criminal Law Bar Exam Outline

Updated Criminal Law Bar Exam Notes

Oklahoma Bar Bundle Outlines

Oklahoma Bar Bundle

Approximately 261 pages

I entirely handwrote my notes for each subject of the bar exam and then used my notes to create my outlines for each subject. I passed the exam in 2012 on the first attempt. ...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Oklahoma Bar Bundle Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Criminal Law

GENERAL MATTERS

  • Jurisdiction

    • Which State can prosecute a crime?

      • Key ?: Where did the significant portion occur

        • Easy Problem: Robbery in bricktown, OK has jursidiction cause all took place here

        • Complex: each state that can show a significant portion occurred in it can prosecute, and no issue w/ double jeopardy

  • Oklahoma Jurisdictional Issue: Indian Land

    • Indian Commits Crime on Indian Land= Federal or Tribal can prosecute

    • Non Indian on Indian Land= State can prosecute

  • Merger

    • Lesser included offenses become subsumed by or MERGE into the greater offense

      • A lesser included offense is merged into the greater offense

        • Lesser included offense=

          • One consisting of some but not all of the elements of the greater one

            • Ex. Possession of narcotics + "intent to sell"

              • Can be charged w/ both

              • Can be prosecuted for both

              • Can only be Punished for the greater if that one if guilty

  • Special Considerations: Inchoate Crimes

    • Attempt merges into the completed crime

    • Solicitation merges into the completed crime

    • Conspiracy does NOT merge into the completed crime

  • Burden of Proof

    • BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

      • Always on the government

      • Never shifts; never reduced

        • CANT MAKE DEFENDANT DISPROVE ANY ELEMENT

ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME

  • Actus Reus- Physical Act

    • Must be voluntary:

      • A conscious exercise of will

        • Watch out for repeat offender: would define the act differently: "getting in the car knowing condition which could cause the act" is the actus reus

  • Failure to Act:

    • Generally no affirmative duty to act,

    • Failure to act may result in criminal liability where had LEGAL DUTY to act

      • By statute: child abuse reporting statutes

      • Contract: K as lifeguard- must save swimmer safely

      • Relationship: Spousal or parent

      • Voluntary Assumption of care: if stop rescue

      • Creation of Peril

  • Mental State

    • Model Penal Code States of Mind

  • Common Law States of Mind

    • Specific Intent

    • Malice

    • General Intent

  • Specific Intent

    • Highest state of mind

    • Certain defenses apply only to specific intent crimes

      • Voluntary intoxication; mistake of fact

    • Specific Intent Crimes

      • Inchoate Crimes: attempt, solicitation, conspiracy

      • Crimes against person: 1st degree murder, assault

      • Property Crimes: larceny, robbery, forgery, false pretenses, embezzelment

      • Crimes against Habitation: Burglary

  • Malice

    • Murder

    • Arson

  • General Intent: aware of all factors constituting crime

    • Rape

    • Battery

    • Kidnapping

  • Strict Liability- Exception to state of mind requirement:

    • No mental state required; proving the act proves the crime

    • Constitutional: Yes, but look for serious penalty: ?

    • What if statute silent on state of mind:

      • NO, presume against strict liability & read into statute a state of mind

    • Ex. Crime:

      • Statutory Rape

  • Transferred Intent

    • Scenario: D shoots as X, misses X but hits and kills Y

    • Valid Murder charge against D for Y death: Yes, cause intent to kill transferred to Y

    • What is it as to X: attempted murder

    • Does the attempt MERGE: No cause 2 distinct victims

    • Good intent transfers to establish a defense also

  • Temporal Requirement: Concurrence

    • Simultaneous act & state of mind

    • Rule:

      • Gov must show Defendant had the necessary state of mind either before the crime was committed or simultaneous w/ the crime, NOT AFTER

        • Hard case: mistake of death

          • Think dead but not, but die a different way when dispose of body

            • Assume kill when thought they did= single transacton w/ common intent

PARTIES TO THE CRIME- ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY

  • Modern Rule: Oklahoma

    • Individuals can be held responsible for crimes of others if government shows:

      • Individual provided assistance/aid

      • Provided Intentionally (knowledge not usually enough)

        • Intended to provide aid

        • Intended for crime to occur

    • If both met, then treated as Principal

  • Common Law- 4 Parties

    • These three establish liability for crimes- they are not crimes themselves

      • Principal in 1st degree: Present as scene & engage in at least 1 element of crime

      • Principal in 2nd degree: Present at scene, but only aid or encourage (driver or lookout)

      • Accessory Before the Fact: Not at scene, but provide assistance ahead of time

  • This IS A CRIME

    • Accessory AFTER the fact: not there but assist after the fact

      • Treated separately & lower punishment

  • Significance of Parties

    • Can be joined together in single prosecution: co-defendants

    • Each party held responsible for FORESEEABLE crimes of others-- even if not agreed upon

INCHOATE OFFENSES

  • Solicitation

    • Asking or encouraging another to commit a crime

    • Crime complete when words/act spoken-- no withdrawal

    • Specific Intent-- intend the crime actually be committed

    • Solicitor can be held responsible for completed crime

      • Because encouragement becomes the "aid" required for accomplice liability

      • Oklahoma: held criminally liable as Principal

    • Solicitor can be held liable for attempted crime

    • BUT, if pull off the crime that was solicited, the solicitation merges and can't be held liable for both (but can be charged for both)

  • Conspiracy

    • Punishes the AGREEMENT to commit other crimes

    • Objective must be unlawful

  • Conspiracy Requires

    • Agreement between 2 or more people (must have capacity to agree) with:

      • Intent to enter into the agreement

      • Specific Intent: Intent to achieve the unlawful objective

      • IN Oklahoma: Need overt act in furtherance of the objective

        • Mere preparation is enough

  • So, is an agreement w/ an undercover cop to commit a crime a conspiracy?

    • Unilateral Approach (modern trend)

      • Allow conviction if D believes other person (undercover cop) is agreeing

    • Bilateral Approach

      • Parties need capacity & intent

  • Scope of Liability:

    • Liable for crimes of all...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Oklahoma Bar Bundle Outlines.