Actus Reus, Mens Rea, and Causation

Question 1

Actus Reus

Answer 1

The physical act of the crime

Question 2

Two Elements of Actus Reus

Answer 2

a. voluntary act
i. involuntariness as a defense

b. legal omission

Question 3

a. voluntary act

Answer 3

Unless explicitly stated, statutes only intend to punish for actus resus that are voluntarily performed
- do not want to punish for pure “thought crimes”

Question 4

i. involuntariness as a defense

Answer 4

Either . . .
1) action was unwilled (MARTIN)
2) mental disorder
3) automatism (DECINA)
4) habit
- NO defense in common law

Slight Exception . . .
5) self-induced intoxication (UTTER)

Question 5

b. legal omission

Answer 5

Does NOT apply to moral duties (BEARDSLEY)

Either . . .
1) imposed by statute
2) based on status toward victim
3) contractual
4) voluntarily assumed
5) based on creation of risk for harm

Question 6

Attendant Circumstance

Answer 6

A condition that must be present, in conjunction with the prohibited conduct/result, to constitute a crime
- similar to actus reus elements
- does not have to be stated in the statute - i.e., weather conditions

Question 7

Mens Rea Definition

Answer 7

The mental state of the defendant

Question 8

Objective VS. Subjective

Answer 8

Objective: what a reasonable person would think [“a reasonable belief”]

Subjective: what the defendant personally believe [“a honest belief”]

Question 9

General VS. Specific Intent

Answer 9

General: regular culpability term
- whether the defendant intended the act’s result is irrelevant
(REGINA)

Specific: heightened mens rea element
- defendant intended to cause a particular result
Either . . .
1) motive
2) intent to commit some future act
3) awareness of an attendant circumstance
(CONLEY)

Question 10

Transferred Intent

Answer 10

Where defendant intended harm to one person but caused it to another

Question 11

Mens Rea Terms in CL

Answer 11

1. intentionally/willfully
2. subjective fault
3. objective fault

Question 12

1. intentionally/willfully

Answer 12

• includes both MPC purposely and knowingly
• defendant had a conscious objective to cause the result
  OR
• defendant knew that the harm was virtually certain to occur as a result of their conduct

Question 13

2. subjective fault

Answer 13

• acting maliciously
• similar to MPC recklessly
• have the intent to cause harm to another person
  OR
• are acting with reckless disregard for the consequences of one’s actions

Question 14

3. objective fault

Answer 14

• similar to MPC negligently
• defendant should be aware that their conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm
• failed to act like a reasonable person

Question 15

Mens Rea CL Application

Answer 15

• each actus reus element should be covered by the mens rea requirement proceeding it
• when no mens rea is given determine if it is strict liability

Question 16

Mens Rea Terms MPC

Answer 16

1. purposely
2. knowingly
3. recklessly
4. negligently

Question 17

1. purposely

Answer 17

• subjective standard
• defendant has a conscious objective to cause the result

Question 18

2. knowingly

Answer 18

• subjective standard
• defendant is aware that the result is “particularly certain” to occur from their conduct

Question 19

3. recklessly

Answer 19

• subjective standard
• defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk [ignored]

Question 20

4. negligently

Answer 20

• objective standard
• defendant should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk

Question 21

Mens Rea MPC Application

Answer 21

• each actus reus element should be covered by some mens rea requirement!
• when no mens rea is given assume “recklessness”

Question 22

Willful Blindness MPC

Answer 22

Does NOT outwardly recognize “willful blindness”
- (ii) includes not just deliberate awareness but also a high probability for existence of fact (NATIONS)

Question 23

Willful Blindness CL

Answer 23

• potential substitute for mens rea element of “knowledge”
  Ostrich Rule: people deliberately avoiding the acquirement of unpleasant knowledge is comparable to ostrich burying their head in the sand (MILES)

Question 24

Strict Liability CL mainly

Answer 24

The focus on the act itself rather than the mental state of the defendant
- usually applies to public welfare offenses
(MORISSETTE and STAPLES)
- outlier is statutory rape! (GARNETT)

Question 25

Causation Overview

Answer 25

The defendant has to satisfy both . . .
1. cause in fact [actual cause]
2. proximate/legal cause

• NOT every statute has a causation requirement! [look to see if there is a statute first and what it says]
• link between actual and proximate
• direct and natural consequence (ROSE)

Question 26

1. actual cause

Answer 26

Three ways to satisfy actual cause -
a. but for
b. acceleration
c. substantial factor

Question 27

a. but for

Answer 27

But for the defendant’s conduct, the negative consequence would not have occurred

Question 28

b. acceleration

Answer 28

Emphasizes the speed at which the harm occurred
- victim must have already been actively dying
(OXENDINE)

Question 29

c. substantial factor

Answer 29

When two independent acts would each have brought about the result
- emphasizes the contribution to the harm itself

Question 30

2. proximate cause

Answer 30

Defendant’s conduct was the direct and natural consequence of an injury UNLESS and intervening cause broke the chain [multiple people can be the proximate cause]
Intervening causes MUST be weighed by -
a. foreseeability (VELASQUEZ)
- ^^ and significance are the most IMPORTANT to consider
* coincidental intervening cause cuts against foreseeability = less likely to be proximate cause
* reactive intervening cause is something that is expected as the immediate result of an action (e.g., people dying from a stampede while trying to leave a burning building) = likely to be proximate cause

b. voluntary human intervention [look at nature of intervention] (VELASQUEZ again)
- garden variety medical negligence does not count as voluntary human intervention; has to be gross negligence

c. small or insignificant conduct
* e.g., uber driving making you miss your flight

d. intended consequence
* e.g, mother wants to poison her child with tampered medication, but before she can give the child the pills, they accidentally get into it themselves = does NOT break the proximate cause chain

f. prior safety (RIDEOUT)

• omissions by other parties generally do NOT break the chain, including victims not seeking medical care

Question 31

Concurrence

Answer 31

Causation related problem
- to prove causation, the defendant’s state of mind when causing the result NEEDS to be the same as the mens rea listed in the statute