Crim Law Flashcards
Actus Rea
The criminal act must be a voluntary, affirmative act that causes a criminally punishable result
The act requirement may also be satisfied by an omission or failure to act under circumstances imposing a legal duty to act
What are the elements of a criminal defense
- Mens rea: the guilty mind (except in strict liability cases)
- Actus rea: the bad or unlawful act
- Causation
Actus Rea: Voluntary Act
The criminal act must be physical and voluntary and actions during unconsciousness, sleep, or hypnosis are not voluntary
Reflexive or convulsive acts as well as conduct that is not the product of the actor’s determination is also not voluntary
Actus Rea: failure to act when a duty exists
A legal duty to act and the failure to do so results in criminal liability when the duty is imposed by a statute, the duty is imposed by a contract, there is a special relationship, there is a detrimental undertaking (leaving a victim in a worse condition then when you found him), and if the defendant caused the peril and fails to aid the victim
Imposed by statute Contract Special relationship Detrimental undertaking Causation
Defendant must have knowledge of the facts giving rise to the duty to act and it must have been reasonably possible for the defendant to perform the duty
Mens rea element
the requirement of a guilty mind or legally proscribed mental state that the defendant must possess to commit a crime
a criminal act is committed when an actus rea is coupled with a mens rea
Strict liability cases do not have a mens rea requirement
Mens rea: specific intent crimes
Specific intent crimes require that the defendant posses a subjective desire, specific objective, or knowledge to accomplish a prohibited result
Mens rea: what are the specific intent crimes
First degree murder Inchoate defenses (attempt, solicitation, conspiracy) Assault with intent to commit a battery Theft offenses (larceny, larceny by trick, false pretenses, embezzlement, forgery, burglary, robbery
FIAT
Look for “intent to” in the fact pattern
Mens rea: malice crimes
Crimes requiring malice, a reckless disregard of a high risk of harm
Malice only requires a criminal act without excuse, justification, or mitigation
Mens rea: what are the malice crimes
common law murder
arson
Mens rea: general intent crimes
General intent crimes require only the intent to perform an act that is unlawful
acts done knowingly, recklessly, or negligently under the Model Penal Code are generally general intent crimes
Battery, rape, kidnapping, and false imprisonment are some examples
Mens rea: transferred intent
When a defendant acts with an intent to cause harm to one person or object and that act directly results in harm to another person or object, the defendant can be liable for the harm caused under the doctrine of transferred intent
Usually confined to homicide, battery, and arson
Any defenses that the defendant could assert against the intended victim may also transfer to the unintended victim
What is the minority view on mens rea
The Model Penal Code
It has levels of culpability: Purposely, Knowingly or willfully, recklessly, and negligently
This is not the approach to take on the MBE unless told to do so. I am not going to explain the four categories. Found on page 3 of outline
Strict liability crimes
a strict liability crime does not require a mens rea, rather, proof of the actus reas is sufficient for a conviction
Statutory rape, bigamy, regulatory offenses for public welfare, regulation of foods drugs and firearms, and selling liquor to minors
Crim Law: Mistake of fact
Mistake of fact may negate criminal intent but it must be an honest mistake and it applies differently to specific intent and general intent crimes and does not apply to strict liability crimes since it does not have a mens rea requirement
Mens rea: reasonable of mistake of fact
A mistake of fact is a defense to a specific-intent crime, even if the mistake is unreasonable but for general intent and malice crimes, the mistake of fact must be reasonable in order to be a defense
Mens rea: mistake of fact-MPC
Under the MPC, a mistake of fact that negates the required state of mind for a material element of a crime is a defense
Mens rea: mistake of law
Mistake or ignorance of the law generally is not a valid defense, except when there is reliance on the decision of a court, administrative order, or official interpretation of the law determined to be erroneous after the conduct, a statute defining a malum prohibitum crime (i.e. a crime for engaging in conduct not obviously wrong, such as failure to obtain a license) was not reasonably made available prior to the conduct, and an honestly held mistake of law negates the required intent
Incorrect or bad legal advice from an attorney is not a valid mistake of law defense
State authority to prosecute a person for a crime
A state has the authority to prosecute a person for a crime committed within the state and for a crime that is only partly committed within the state if an element of the crime is committed within the state
A state may also prosecute conduct outside the state that constitutes an attempt to commit a crime within the state, conduct outside the state that constitutes a conspiracy to commit an offense within the state when an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurs within the state, conduct within the state to commit attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy of a crime in another jurisdiction when the state and the other jurisdiction recognize the crime, and the failure to perform outside the state a duty imposed by the state
Who can be a party to a crime
The principal
Accomplice (an accessory before the fact or a principal in the second degree)
An accessory after the fact
Parties to a crime: the principal
A principal is the person whose acts or omissions are the actus reus of the crime
The principal must be actually or constructively present at the scene of the crime
If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they are joint principals
How can a principal be constructively present at the scene of a crime
A principal is constructively present when some instrumentality he left or controlled resulted in the commission of the crime
Who is an accomplice
A person who, with intent that the crime be committed, aids or abets a principal prior to or during the commission of the rime
What are the two types of accomplices
Accessory before the fact
Principal in the second degree
Who is a principal in the second degree
An accomplice who is physically or constructively present during the commission of the crime is a principal in the second degree
Example: a get away driver
Who is an accessory before the fact
An accomplice that is neither physically nor constructively present during the commission of the crime, but who, with the requisite intent to encourage or assist in the commission of the crime, provided verbal encouragement, financial assistance, or physical assistance to the principal prior to the commission of the crime is an accessory after the fact
What criminal liability can an accomplice face
An accomplice is responsible for the crime to the same extent as the principal
An accomplice is responsible for any crime committed by the principal if the crimes are the natural and probable consequences of the accomplice’s conduct if the accomplice provided encouragement or assistance
Even if an accomplice cannot be a principal, the accomplice can still be criminally liable
Accomplice withdrawal
To legally withdraw ( and therefore avoid liability for the substantive crime), the accomplice must repudiate prior aid, do all that is possible to countermand prior assistance, and do so before the chain of events is in motion and unstoppable
Who is not an accomplice
a person who is a member of the class protected by a statute cannot be an accomplice
When the crime requires another party, the other party is not, simply by engaging in the criminal act, guilty of the crime as an accomplice
-the buyer of drugs is not guilty of the crime of distributing drugs simply by purchasing the drugs
Who is an accessory after the fact
An accessory after the fact is a person who aids or assists a felon in avoiding apprehension or conviction after commission of the felony
An accessory after the fact must know that a felony was committed, act specifically to aid or assist the felon, and give the aid or assistance for the purpose of helping the felon avoid apprehension or conviction
What criminal liability does an accessory after the fact face
An accessory after the fact is not subject to punishment for the crime committed by the felon, but instead has committed a separate crime, frequently labeled “obstruction of justice” or “harboring a fugitive”
What are the four tests for insantiy
The M’Naugten test
The irresistible-impulse test
the Durham rule
The MPC test
Insanity: The M’Naugten test
The defendant is not guilty if because of a defect of reason due o a mental disease the defendant did not know either the nature and quality of the act or the wrongfulness of the act
Without knowing the act was wrong, a defendant could not have formed the requisite criminal intent
Insanity: Irresistible-impulse test
the defendant is not guilty if he lacked the capacity for self-control and free choice because mental disease or defect prevented him from being able to conform his conduct to the law
Loss of control does not need to be sudden
Insanity: Durham rule
a defendant is not guilty if he unlawful act was the product of the defendant’s mental disease or defect and would not have been committed but for the disease or defect
but-for test
Insanity: MPC test
The defendant is not guilty if, at the time of the conduct, he, as a result of a mental disease or defect, did not have substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to conform his conduct to the law
Combination of the M’Naugten and irresistible-impulse tests
What is voluntary intoxication
the intentional taking of a substance known to be intoxicating
Actual intoxication need not be inteneded
Voluntary intoxication: specific-intent crimes
Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific-intent crimes if the intoxication prevents the formation of the required intent
When is voluntary intoxication not a defense
When the intent was formed before intoxication or when the defendant becomes intoxicated for the purpose of establishing the defense of voluntary intoxication
It is not a defense to crimes involving malice, recklessness, or negligence, or for strict-liability crimes
When is involuntary intoxication a defense
When the intoxication serves to negate an element of the crime, including general as well as specific-intent and malice crimes
When is intoxication involuntary
To be considered involuntary, the intoxicating substance must have been take without knowledge fo the intoxicating nature of the substance, including substances taken pursuant to medical advice or under duress
Involuntary intoxication can give rise to an insanity defense
Can an infant be convicted of a crime
At common law, a child under the age of seven could not be convicted of a crime, A child at least seven years old but less than 14 was rebuttably presumed to be incapable of committing a crime. A child at least 14 cold be charged with a crime as an adult
Modern statutes have modified the common law rule and provide that no child can be convicted of a crime until a certain age is reached, usually between 11 and 14
Homicide: actual causation
Actual cause is found for a homicide if the victim would not have died but for the defendant’s act
Actual cause can be found when there are multiple causes and the defendant’s act was a substantial factor in causing the death
A victim’s preexisting condition that predisposes him to death does not break the chain of causation
A mercy killing can be homicide
Homicide: proximate cause
Proximate cause exists only when the defendant is found legally responsible; meaning that the death was foreseeable
A defendant’s conduct is deemed foreseeable if death is the natural and probable result of the conduct
