Basics of Criminality

Question 1

Theories of Criminal Liability

Answer 1

Deterrence
Retributivism
Rehabilitation
Incapacitation
Expressivism

Question 2

Deterrence

Answer 2

A defendant’s punishment is an example to the rest of society not to break the law
Specfic- deter specific criminal because they don’t want to go back to jail
General- deters society to stay away from crimes

Question 3

Retributivism

Answer 3

Punishment is permitted because wrongdoers should be punished for what they did. Madoff

Question 4

Rehabilitation

Answer 4

Helping defendants get back on track will help them not commit more crimes

Question 5

Incapacitation

Answer 5

Keep defendants in prison and away from society

Question 6

Expressivism

Answer 6

Punishment allows society to express its disapproval to the defendants criminal conduct

Question 7

Basic Elements of Criminality

Answer 7

Actus Reus (Culpable Act) and;
Mens Rea (Culpable Mind) and;
Causation

Question 8

Common Law Actus Reus

Answer 8

Wither a voluntary act or an omission to act when there is a legal duty

Question 9

Common Law Voluntary Act

Answer 9

A willed bodily movement [including insanity]
Not: An act committed while unconscious

Question 10

Common Law Omission to Act

Answer 10

Can only be punished if there was a legal duty to act
Duty can be established by statute, relationship, contract, voluntary assumption of care, or creation of risk

Question 11

Common Law Bystander Standard

Answer 11

Mere bystanders cannot be convicted of a crime

Question 12

MPC Section 2.01 Requirement of Voluntary Act; Omission as Basis of Liability; Possession as an Act

Answer 12

(1) A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable.
(2) The following are not voluntary acts within the meaning of this Section:
(a) a reflex or convulsion;
(b) a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep;
(c) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion;
(d) a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.
(3) Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless:
(a) the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or
(b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.
(4) Possession is an act, within the meaning of this Section, if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.

Question 13

Common Law Mens Rea

Answer 13

The criminal intention to commit the action that is illegal
Several terms for mens rea- maliciously , wantonly, wickedly, etc

Question 14

MPC Hierarchy of Mens Rea

Answer 14

Purposely
Knowingly
Recklessly
Negligently
Strict Liability

Question 15

MPC 2.02(2)(a) Purposely

Answer 15

Purposely. A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:

(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and

(ii) if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.

Question 16

MPC 2.02(2)(b) Knowingly

Answer 16

Knowingly. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:

(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and

(ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.

Question 17

MPC 2.02(2)(c) Recklessly

Answer 17

Recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.

Question 18

MPC 2.02(2)(d) Nelgigently

Answer 18

Negligently. A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.

Question 19

“But for” Causation

Answer 19

Whether the defendant’s behavior was a “cause in fact” of the prohibited result.
2 tests when there is ambiguity: Substantial Factor or Acceleration Test

Question 20

Substantial Factor Test for “But for” Causation

Answer 20

Whether the defendant’s actions were a substantial factor in producing the result, regardless of whether the event might have occurred anyway
1. Where there are multiple concurrent causes of a person’s death, a defendant is criminally liable for such death so long as his conduct was a substantial factor in causing the death.
2. This substantial factor rule replaces the but-for test, which provides that the defendant’s conduct is a proximate cause of death if the death would not have occurred but for that conduct.

Question 21

Acceleration Test for “But for” Causation

Answer 21

Whether the defendant’s actions accelerated the result. Contribution or aggravation without acceleration insufficient to establish causation. Oxendine v State

Question 22

Proximate Cause Causation

Answer 22

If the result was reasonably foreseeable, the defendant’s actions are a proximate cause
Must not be coincidental or abnormal
Proximate cause is satisfied if the intervening cause was (1) intended or reasonably foreseeable and (2) not too remote or accidental as to fairly hold the defendant responsible.

Question 23

Intervening Causes Test

Answer 23

1. When dealing with intervening causation, start with determination of whether the intervening cause was a mere coincidence or in response to the accused prior conduct
2. It is a coincidence when the defendant act merely places the victim at certain place at a certain time
3. It is responsive when it involves a reaction to the condition created by the defendant
4. However to break the chain of causation it must be both abnormal and unforeseeable
5. Preexisting condition does not break the chain of causation
6. An accused need not foresee the precise consequences of his conduct to be actionable it only necessary that the result is within the natural and logical scope of the risk created by conduct

Question 24

MPC SECTION 2.03. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF CULPABILITY

Answer 24

(1) Conduct is the cause of a result when:

(a) it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred; and

(b) the relationship between the conduct and result satisfies any additional causal requirements imposed by the Code or by the law defining the offense.

Question 25

MPC 2.03(2) Purposely or Knowingly Causation

Answer 25

(2) When purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose or the contemplation of the actor unless:

(a) the actual result differs from that designed or contemplated, as the case may be, only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the injury or harm designed or contemplated would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused; or

(b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of his offense.

Question 26

MPC 2.03(3) Recklessly or Negligently Causation

Answer 26

(3) When recklessly or negligently causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the risk of which the actor is aware or, in the case of negligence, of which he should be aware unless:

(a) the actual result differs from the probable result only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the probable injury or harm would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused; or

(b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of his offense.

Question 27

Common Law Mistake of Law

Answer 27

Relevant if the mistake negates a required mental element of the offense or (in some jurisdictions) if the defendant relied on an official interpretation of the law

Question 28

Analysis of Mistake of Law

Answer 28

First examine the mental requirements for the offense. Structure your analysis in the following way.
1. Determine the elements of the offense.
2. Determine whether one of the attendant circumstances includes a legal status.
3. Determine the range of the mental requirement. Which elements of the offense does it apply to?
4. More specifically determine whether the mens rea requires knowledge of the legal status referred to in the offense (which is rare).
5. If yes, ask yourself whether the defendant’s mistake negates the required mens rea.

Question 29

Common Law Mistake of Fact

Answer 29

For specific intent of crime, a mistake of fact crime is a defense if it was made in good faith even if it was not reasonable
Mistake of fact is a claim that the defendant did not have the necessary mens rea for the crime because the defendant made a mistake or was ignorant of a fact she had to know to be guilty of the charged offense
If the crime is labeled a specific intent offense, it is much more likely that the defendant will be entitled to a mistake of fact defense than if the crime has been labeled a general intent offense.