crim Flashcards
actus reus
Actus reus is established through a voluntary act, omission, or possession.
a bodily movement that is a product of the effort of determination of the actor,
the government examines attendant circumstances—relevant conditions or facts at the time of the act—to determine if the conduct constitutes a criminal offense.
use for application: reflexive movement or unconscious movement; reflex, convulsion, sleepwalking, hypnosis,
omission
- iability based on an omission
- looking for duty to act/failure to act that caused result
law imposes that duty of which can arise through special relationship
BSLICES
possession
- possession is an act if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed was illegal
knowing possession, receipt of, or control over illegal materials provides the requisite voluntary physical act for the crime.
- if person has some knowledge that his or her possession is illegal
mens rea
intention at moment, you committed violation of offenses
common law (actus reus key element in inferring the requisite intent)
- specific
conscious goal to commit an illegal act - defendant intended proscribed outcome as his purpose
highest level requiring proof that defendant had a particular state of mind that involved the commission of the offense
- general
- a blameworthy state of mind which the person is conscious of engaging in the actus reus of the offense: his mental intent, need only be to perform the physical act itself that is the actus reus of a crime he need not possess any intent to violate the law
- but the gov doesn’t need the prove the defendant sought a particular result but only that only that the defendant engaged consciously
- malice
intent to commit the act or extreme recklessness in engaging in conduct
that constitutes the offense/causes the harm
MPC mens rea
purpose (most culpable)
- a person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an often when:
- if the element involves a result, it is his conscious object to cause such result; and (2) if the element involved the attendant circumstance, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or believed or hope they exist
knowledge
A person acts knowingly with respect to a material
element of an offense when:
(i) if the element involves … the attendant
circumstances, he is “aware” … 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
recklessly
(1) consciously disregard (2) of a substantial
and (3) unjustifiable risk that he would (4) cause the death of another.
“whether a risk is unjustifiable must be determined by assessing the
nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct relative to how substantial
the risk is.” = balancing
A “substantial and unjustifiable” risk is “one that is a gross deviation
from the reasonable standard of care
negligently (least culpable)
person acts negligently with respect to a material element of offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result form conduct
failure to percieve involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation
murder mpc
criminal homicide constitutes murder when it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life
murder CL
unlawful killing done with malice aforethought
malice can be found in any of the following states of mind:
- intent (purpose or knowledge) to kill another human being (wdp)
- intent to inflict greviuos bodily harm on another
- extreme reckless disregard for human life (depraved heart)
- intent to commit a felony (felony murder)
murder CL (first degree)
unlawful killing done with malice aforethought
actus rea: voluntary
mens rea: malice including willful, deliberate, and predmeditated
premeditated is:
defendant intended to kill another human being, knew their actions would result in death, and, after forming that intent, reflected on the decision before carrying it out. This reflection—regardless of how long it lasts—is what distinguishes first-degree murder from second-degree murder.
factors:
only in rare cases will direct evidence used; so circumstantial evidence can be used like**
- threats
- pattern of escalating violence
- acquisition of weapon
second degree murder (depraved heart)
extreme reckless disregard for human life (depraved heart)
requires conscious disregard of the risk, sufficent under the circumstances to manifest extreme indifference to the value of human life
-
doubs factors showing recklessness (PFFFINDS)
- speeding
- intoxication
- near or non fatal collisions
- driving on wrong side of road
- failure to aid viticm
- failure to heed traffic signs
- failure to heed warnings about reckless driving
- prior record of driving offense (not propensity)
second degree murder
(intent to inflict grevious bodily harm)
if you purposely or knowingly caused serious bodily harm and they happened to die but you did not want them to, but they did this a considered second degree as well
any intentional (purposefully or knowingly) killing other than first degree or voluntary manslaughter
voluntary manslaughter
a killing that otherwise would be a murder but that has mitigated to manslaughter because it was done upon being reasonably provoked into a sudden heat of passion without cooling off where a reasonable person would not have cooled off
elements:
*heat of passion
- highly inflamed state of mind
- defendant partially lacked capacity to conform to the law
- not every hot tempered individual who flies into a rage at the slightest can claim manslaughter
*adequate provocation → (jury to decide; though judge helps)
- (1)aggravated assault and battery, (2)mutual combat, (3)commission of a serious crime against a close relative, illegal arrest, or (4)observation by a husband of his wife committing adultery, (5)information v. insulting words
provocation suffucient to cause a reasonable person to want to kill or lose control over that desire
*immediate response
- must show a reasonable person would not have cooled off during the time period
- establish that the lack of capacity was direct result of the being adequately provoked!
voluntary manslaughter mpc
- criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when
- it is committed recklessly or
- committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance (elliot case)
extreme refers to the greatest degree of intensity away from the norm for that individual; close to insanity but not there
involuntary manslaughter
reckless killings (provided that it is not the special type of reckless that elevates vase to depraved heart); in other jurisdictions it is called a criminally negligent killing, or a killing done with ordinary tort negligence
mistake of fact (common law)
specific intent:
belief does not have to be reasonable; but it must be in good faith
general intent:
- defendant has good faith belief was legal and belief was reasonable
- requires both good faith and mistake must be reasonable
mistake of law (MPC) (defense harder to prove → mistaken about applicable law)
in general; ignorance of law is no excuse → generally unsuccessful
a belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when
- he acts in reasonable reliance upon official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous,
concurrence
elements of the offense (actus reus, mens rea, and causation) all must occur simultaneously working together
union of criminal act and the criminal intent
cause in fact (common law)
*but for test (actual or factual cause)
- actors conduct is the but for cause of the result if the result would not have occurred when it did but for that conduct
- sometimes called necessary cause test
- counter factual, asking what would have happened if something else had not happened
*substantial factor test
- simultaneous sufficient cause
cause in fact (mpc)
- MPC 2.03 (but for)
- conduct is the cause of a result when it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred
- requires the prosecution to establish, harm would not have occurred in the absence of that is, but for the defendants conduct (Burrage case)
proximate cause (mpc)
consequence of an act that are not reasonable foreseeable to the act relieve the actor of some degree of criminal liability
was the way the result came about “too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actors liability? → time permitting
proximate cause (common law)
ultimate question (must be forseeable to be proximate cause)(if unforseeable then its superceding)
*actors that tend to break casual chain
- the intervening but-for cause was
- unforeseeable
- contributory negligence of victime
- more than a de minimum contribution to the result
- an act (not an omission) (omission tends to preserve chain
- free, deliberate and informed human act
harm
the result of the act, the injury to another or to society
occurs in all crimes
- can be focused on harm only to actor
- victimless crimes
may be physical or mental
felony murder
If a person causes the death of another (1) during the course of a felony (2) an attempt to commit a felony, or (3) flight from a felony, then the killing constitutes felony murder. most statues have outlined by the statute which felonies where this rule is applicable too. otherwise there is 4 liability limiting ways:
