Basic Principles Flashcards
Felony
a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year
misdemeanor
crime punishable by imprisonment for no more than 1 year or by a fine only.
malum prohibitum
refers to criminal conduct that is wrongful only because it violates a statute
malum in se
refers to conduct that is deemed to be inherently wrongful
elements of a crime
- Actus Reus (voluntary, physical act);
- Mens Rea (mental state);
- Concurrence (requisite mens rea must exist at the time of the actus reus); and
- Causation (cause-in-fact/actual + proximate cause) (usually needed, but not always, e.g. attempted murder)
what is the burden of proof for each element of a crime for the prosecution?
beyond a reasonable doubt
actus reus
voluntary conscious act; OR
omission to act when D had legal duty to.
are habitual acts considered voluntary?
yes
examples of involuntary acts
-Reflexes;
-Bodily movements during unconsciousness or sleep;
-Actions during hypnosis; or
-A bodily movement that is otherwise not the product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual
omission to act
- There was a legal duty to act;
- D was aware of such duty; and
- D could have reasonably performed the act
circumstances where there is a legal duty to act
- Status relationship (ex. parent/child);
- Statutory or contractual duty (ex. firefighter or lifeguard); or
- Voluntary undertaking to rescue that is abandoned
- Failing to help after creating the risk (hit and run)
Mens Rea
D acted with a guilty mind
types of mens rea
- purposely: person acted with a conscious motivation or desire to bring about the specific result
- knowingly: when person knows, with almost absolute certainty, that the act will produce the prohibited result
- recklessly: person is aware that the conduct creates an unjustifiable risk, but ignores that risk and engages in the conduct anyways.
- criminally negligent: when a person acts in a manner that the person should have known creates a high degree of risk.
Specific intent
requires proof that the D intended to bring about a specifically prohibited harm.
includes acts done purposefully or knowingly
when can specific intent be nullified?
by an honest but unreasonable mistake of fact, or by voluntary intoxication
ex. Someone brings an umbrella to a restaurant that was pink, put it in the umbrella holder, and then left and grabbed a black one. This person honestly believed the black one was theirs, even if it was unreasonable to a normal person since their umbrella is pink, but they honestly believe black is theirs so they lack the specific intent of intending to deprive.
common specific intent crimes
Burglary
Robbery
Assault
Murder
Attempt
Conspiracy
Theft crimes (embezzlement, larceny, false pretenses, forgery)
Solicitation
“BRAM-ACTS”
general intent
only requires a desire to do the prohibited act.
includes reckless and negligent states of mind.
when can general intent be nullified?
by an honest and reasonable mistake of fact.
5 main general intent crimes
Battery
Rape
Kidnapping
False imprisonment
Manslaughter
Strict liability
has no mens rea element. a voluntary act = guilt.
mistake of fact is never a defense.
transferred intent
occurs when the D intends to produce a criminal result against one party, but harms another instead.
The intent transfers from the intended victim to the unintended victim.
concurrence
requires prosecution to prove that the criminal act was the result of the criminal state of mind.
connection between act and mens rea.
causation
both actual cause and proximate cause are required
actual cause
(cause in fact)
satisfied by ANY of the 3 tests:
1. But-For Causation
2. Substantial Factor Test
3. Acceleration
But-For causation
the result would not have occurred but for D’s conduct
substantial factor
D’s acts were a substantial factor in causing the criminal result
(when there are multiple parties/causes)
acceleration
the D’s conduct speeds up an inevitable death, even if briefly
proximate cause
requires the resultant harm to be within the risk created by the defendant’s conduct in crimes involving criminal negligence or recklessness, or sufficiently similar to that intended in crimes requiring intent.
intervening events cutting off proximate cause
if intervening event is foreseeable, it will NOT break the chain. D is still responsible.
if intervening cause is unforeseeable, it normally will break the chain. Relieves D of responsibility and breaks the causal connection to the criminal result.
