Crime Elements Flashcards
actus reus generally
the act required to commit a given crime
- a required component of every CL crime (along w/ mens rea)
actus reus definition
voluntary physical act or failure to act
EXCEPTION: self-induced state (eg, epileptic driving knowingly)
act
any bodily movement
omission as actus reus
a failure to act can constitute actus reus if:
1. D had a specific legal duty to act,
2. D had knowledge of facts giving rise to duty, and
3. it was reasonably possible for D to perform the duty
legal duty to act
- by statute
- by contract (eg employment k like lifeguard)
- relationship between parties (eg parent)
- voluntary assumption of care (eg failure to finish performance)
- D created peril
mens rea generally
the mental element required at time a crime committed
- required element of CL crimes (along w/ actus reus)
default CL
mens rea definition
culpable state of mind
aka “mental state”
forms of mens rea
intent requirements differ by crime:
1. specific intent
2. general intent
3. malice
specific intent
D must have a specific intent or objective to commit the given crime
- Specific intent must alwasy be proven NEVER inferred
- BUT, manner may provide circumstantial evidence of intent
Special defenses: unreasonable mistake of fact + voluntary intoxication
intent to commit the actus reus + more
general intent
D must be aware of his actions and any attendant circumstances
* may be inferred by act itself
NOTE: most crimes are general intent crimes
intent to commit actus reus only
malice
D acts w/ reckless disregard or understakes an obvious risk, from which a harmful result is expected
- aka depraved heart
- applies to arson and common law murder
no mens rea requirement for
- strict liability
- vicarious liability
strict liability
no intent or awareness required for strict liability crimes
* any defense that negates intent does NOT matter
* Consent is NO defense
strict liability examples
- statuory rape
- regulatory crimes
- morality crimes
vicarious liability
person w/out fault is held liable for another’s criminal conduct
- like respondeat superior
NOTE: often arises w/ employment or business associations
eg, employer liable for employee’s crimes
MPC mens rea standards
- purposely
- knowingly
- recklessly
- negligently (objective standard)
assume CL first unless Q says MPC
purposely
a person acts purposely when his conscious objective is to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result
knowingly
a person acts knowingly when he is aware that his conduct is of a particular nature or knows that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause a particular result
recklessly
consciously disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk
gross deviation from standard of care
negligence
(objective standard) fails to beomce aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
general intent crimes
- battery
- rape
- kidnapping
- false imprisonment
specific intent crimes
- solicitation
- conspiracy
- attempt
- first-degree murder
- assault
- larceny
- embezzlement
- forgery
- robbery
- burglary
- false pretenses
voluntary intoxication + unreasonable mistake of fact are defenses
students can always fake a laugh, even for ridiculous bar facts
malice crimes
- 2nd degree murder (CL murder)
- arson
strict liability crimes
- statutory rape
- regulatory crimes
- administrative crimes
- morality crimes (eg bigamy, polygamy, underage drinking accessory)
concurrence requirement
D’s criminal act and the requisite intent (ie mens rea) for the crime must occur simultaneously
- intent must prompt the act
eg D plans on murdering V at her home. D is not guilty of murder if he accidentally runs over V w/ his car before reaching her house
causation requirement
D’s conduct must be both the cause-in-fact and the promixate cause of the crime committed
ET: causation issues often arise in homicide crimes
cause-in-fact
but for D’s conduct, the result would not have occurred
- or substantial factor
Homicide and manslaughter: any act by D that hastens V’s death is a cause-in-fact, even if death is inevitable
- shortens V’s life
promixate cause
the actual result is the natural and probable consequence of D’s conduct
- even if it did not occur exactly as expected
watch out for superseding factors + intervening acts
superseding factors
breaks the chain of causation
intervening acts
must be entirely unforseeable to shield D from liability
Dependent intervening act: must be abnormal too
NOTE: V’s refusal of medical treatment + 3P medical negligence are foreseeable and D is liable
transferred intent doctrine
D may be held liable if he intends harm caused, but causes it to a different victim or object than intended
- Often applies to homicide (esp. 1st degree murder), battery, and arson NOT attempt
- defenses and mitigating circumstances may also be transferred
transferred intent doctrine effect
D is usually charged w/ two crimes:
1. attempt (to commit OG intended crime), and
2. the actual resulting crime
eg, D intends to shoot A, but kills B; D can be charged w/ attempted murder of A and the actual murder of B
NOTE: merger does NOT apply b/c there are different Vs
