Components of a crime

Question 1

Result crime

Answer 1

Looking for a tangible harm
Law punishes because of an unwanted outcome
Most crimes are result crimes

Question 2

Conduct crime

Answer 2

Law prohibits specific behavior
Law punishes even when a crime causes no tangible harm
Most common example: DUI

Question 3

Attendant circumstance

Answer 3

A fact or condition that exists at the time of the offense and is something that has to be proven in addition to the actus reus and mens rea in order for it to constitute that crime

Question 4

(1) Actus Reus

Answer 4

The act that caused the harm
The physical part of the crime
Voluntary act - must be a willed muscular action

Question 5

Omissions

Answer 5

Failure to act when you have a legal duty to

Generally speaking, no legal duty to act
Not every moral duty creates a legal duty, BUT putting someone in peril is very different than observing and not acting

There IS a legal duty to act in certain situations:

1. Special relationships (spousal, parent/child)
2. Duty imposed by contract (employer/employee)
3. Statutory created duties (mandatory reporters)
4. When a person creates a risk of harm to another (puts someone in peril, or when others are discouraged from helping)

Question 6

Policy for why the law generally does not impose a duty to act

Answer 6

1. Stakes are higher in criminal law as opposed to tort law
2. Line-drawing problems (bystander effect)
3. A bystander stepping in could make matters worse
4. Omissions are inherently more ambiguous than wrongdoings (increases risk of convicting morally innocent persons)
5. Freedom (need to be cautious about creating legal duties to act)

Question 7

(2) Mens Rea

Answer 7

Mental state or the intent of the actor when the actor is committing the actus reus (social harm)
4 mental states
1. Purposely: conscious object to cause the result or perform the act
2. Knowingly: aware that the result is virtually certain to occur (for result crimes), or actor is aware of his conduct (conduct crime)
3. Recklessly: consciously takes a substantial and unjustifiable risk in causing a particular result (would a reasonable person take the same risk?)
4. Negligently: inadvertently creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk for which they were not aware, but that they ought to be aware (gross deviation from standard of care)

Question 8

Knowingly and the willful blindness doctrine

Answer 8

A mechanism of the law to impute knowledge to D who is deliberately shielding himself from knowledge of an attendant circumstance (material fact/condition)

Requires:

1. D must subjectively believe there is a high probability that the fact exists, AND
2. D must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact(s)

MPC adopted this, but common law depends on jurisdiction

Question 9

Strict liability crimes

Answer 9

Crimes that do not have a mens rea; only actus reus needs to be satisfied
Very few crimes are strict liability crimes because we need mens rea to assign punishment

Examples of offenses that are strict liability crimes (public welfare offenses)

1. Environmental violations
2. Food and drug law violations
3. Traffic offenses, such as speeding
4. Statutory rape

Malum Prohibitum: Conduct that is not necessarily morally wrong, but nevertheless could negatively impact health and safety

Question 10

Malum in se

Answer 10

“Inherently wrongful”
Most crimes
Require a mens rea

Question 11

Specific intent crime

Answer 11

Contains a specific mental element in addition to the mental state required for the crime

Examples:

1. Knowingly in possession of a controlled drug with the intent to distribute – acting with the intent to commit some future act
2. Purposely causing offensive contact to another with intent to cause humiliation – special motive or purpose (ex: hate crime)
3. Knowingly receiving stolen property with the knowledge that it is stolen – having knowledge of a particular fact/condition (attendant circumstance)

Question 12

General intent crime

Answer 12

Having only one mental state and it relates solely to the social harm of the crime

Examples:
Battery - The intentional unprivileged physical contact upon another
Rape - Intentional sexual penetration by one person without the other person’s consent

Question 13

Mistake of Fact

Answer 13

Specific intent crimes: Only requires a determination of whether the belief was genuine – a genuine mistake of fact negates the specific intent element of the crime

General intent crimes: Must show mistake was reasonable under the circumstances

Question 14

(3) Causation (generally)

Answer 14

Link between D’s conduct, or omission, and the social harm that occurred

Question 15

Actual (factual) causation

Answer 15

Two Tests

1. But-for test: But for D’s voluntary act or omission, would the social harm have occurred when it did?
   - D does not have to be the only cause
   - Acceleration theory: If D speeds up the social harm by any length by his actus reus, D is a but-for cause of the social harm
2. Substantial factor test: Two people who are not acting together who commit two independent acts at the same time, each of which by itself is sufficient to bring about the result (alternative to when but-for doesn’t work)

Question 16

Proximate causation (common law)

Answer 16

Determining if the person should be on the hook for the social harm
Only a question if there is an intervening act that occurs AFTER D’s voluntary act but BEFORE the social harm occurs

Intervening cause typically:

1. A third party
2. An act of nature
3. Act or omission of the victim that assists in bringing about the harm

Tests:

1. Foreseeability test
   - - Responsive intervening act: Act is a response to situation D created (presumably foreseeable)
   - - Coincidental intervening act: D’s act merely puts victim in a place/position for them to be acted on by the intervening cause (presumably unforeseeable)
2. Intended consequences test
3. Apparent safety doctrine
4. Free, deliberate, informed human intervention test

MPC does not adopt proximate cause as identifying whether D caused the harm; only as how it relates to culpability

Question 17

MPC proximate cause analysis

Answer 17

Examines whether the actual result (social harm) diverged from what the actor intended or designed or risked

1. What was the actual result?
2. Was the actual result within the purpose of the actor? (if yes, then prox cause; if no, move to 3)
3. Did the actual result involve the same kind of injury or harm as that designed? (If no, then not prox cause; if yes, move to 4)
4. Was the actual result too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability? (if yes, then not prox cause; if no, then prox cause)