Criminal Law Flashcards
Actus Reus
Physical act over which defendant has control, or the failure to act that is actionable by law
Action has to be voluntary
Actus Reus requirements (Voluntary Act)
Defendant commits a voluntary act; and
Defendant has physical control over the act, or committed a voluntary act with knowledge of the risk
Actus Reus requirements (Failure to act)
Defendant fails to act; and
Defendant had a legal duty to act; and
Failure to act caused a social harm
When do you have a legal duty to act?
Special relationship Contract Statutory duty Creation of risk Assumption of care
Mens Rea
Culpable mental state required for conviction
4 Mental States (MPC)
- Purposefully/Intentionally
(Acts with the purpose/intention to cause harm) - Knowingly
(Have actual knowledge or awareness of a required material fact) - Recklessly
(conscious disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk) - Negligently
(should have known of substantial and unjustifiable risk)
Two other ways knowledge can be met
Yermian: Constructive knowledge (if a person should have known the material fact)
Jewell: Willful blindness (being deliberately ignorant to the material fact; you knew but chose to look the other way)
Statutory Interpretation
- Look at plain language of the statute first
- Look at legislative history if plain language is not clear
- Apply rule of lenity is language is ambiguous/unclear
(We must adopt the interpretation of the statute that is most favorable to the defendant; in other words, the interpretation that is more likely to lead to the defendant being found not guilty)
Specific intent Crimes
Beyond intent to commit the prohibited act
General Intent Crimes
Just the intent to do the act
Strict Liability Crimes
Crimes that have no intent requirement
Under common law, when a statute is silent to the mens era, it may or may not be a strict liability crime. Courts look to the text of the statute and the legislative history
Natural and Probable Consequence
A criminal defendant’s intent to kill may be presumed if the natural and probable consequence of his wrongful act is to cause death.
Transferred Intent
Common Law: D’s guilt is the same if attempts to kill one person but actually kills another instead
CA incorporated Common Law: If intend to kill A and kill A and B, cant transfer intent to B, b/c intent to kill 2 people is different than intent to kill 1
Mistake of fact (Defense)
Specific intent crimes: mistake of fact may negate mens rea requirement is mistake is honest. Does not need to be reasonable.
General intent crimes: mistake of fact must be honest and reasonable in order to negate the mens rea requirement
Strict liability crimes: Mistake of fact will not affect culpability because there is no mens rea requirement
Mistake of Law
Is not a defense under common law
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Three Basic Theft Crimes
- Larceny
- Embezzlement
- False Pretenses
Elements of Larceny
- Wrongful taking and
- Carrying away
- Personal property of another
- With the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property
Elements of Larceny by Continuing Trespass
Same elements as Larceny. Only difference is that the intent to permanently deprive is developed later on
Elements of Larceny by Trick
Same elements as Larceny. Rule emerged to capture cases where “taking” occurs by deceit
When possession, but not owner ship or title is taken
Victim only intends to convey possession (rental car and dry cleaning example)
The trick or deceit must be the reason the victim transferred possession (victim believes the lie)
Elements of Embezzlement
- Intentional conversion
- Of the property of another
- By someone who is already in lawful possession of it (or by someone who has been entrusted)
False Pretenses
- False statement of facts that
- Causes the victim
- To pass title to defendant, and
- Defendant must know statement was false, and
- Defendant must have intended to defraud the victim
(money counts as title)
Elements of Robbery
- Felonious taking and
- Carrying away
- Of personal property of another
- By threat or force of threat
- Taken from victim’s person or in immediate presence of victim
Common Law Elements of Burglary
- Breaking (intruding within a building, no matter how slight)
- And entering
- Of the dwelling of another
- At night
- With the intent to commit a felony therein (had to enter with the intent to commit Crim inside)
Modern Changes Elements of Burglary
- Breaking (half of the states)
- And entering
- Of the building/structure of another
- With the intent to commit a felony therein
Majority rule: entry only satisfied without consent
Minority rule: entry satisfied even if the person has right/license to enter with intent to commit a crime
California Elements of Burglary
- Entering
- Any structure or any room within a structure
- With the intent to commit a felony or theft crime therein
Entering satisfied when entering a commercial building with intent to commit a felony or a theft. (shoplifting statute (only for commercial establishment, not a home): theft > $950)
Entry element may be satisfied if enter with intent to commit theft/felony even if invited/allowed to enter
(Any part of body counts)
Entry by Instrumentality
When an instrument other than a part of a defendant’s body enters for purpose of committing target crime
Actual (“But for”) Causation
Determines whether D’s voluntary act or omission is a causal factor
“But for” test: but for D’s voluntary act/ omission, would the social harm have occurred when it did? If no, then D is an actual cause.
Proximate Cause
When the defendant’s conduct is the direct cause of the social harm (when there are no intervening causes) it would be fair and just to hold the defendant criminally liable
Dependent (or responsive) intervening cause
Dependent upon D’s voluntary act
D is the proximate cause unless the intervening cause is extremely unusual or bizarre
Independent (or coincidental) intervening cause
Independent of D’s voluntary act
D is generally relieved of criminal liability (not the proximate cause) unless the intervening cause is foreseeable.
Intervening act is independent if it would have occurred regardless of the D’s voluntary act.
Good Samaritan Laws
Imposes an affirmative duty on ordinary people to assist others in need
Theories of Punishment
Retribution: Justice, “eye for an eye”
Incapacitation: Protect the rest of the society form a person
Deterrence: Others don’t want to face the punishment; preventative
Rehabilitation: resolving the underlying issue that drive that crime
Yermian
When a statute is unclear or ambiguous, courts consider the plain language of the statute and the legislative intent behind the statute to interpret the statute’s meaning. If the meaning is ambiguous based on a review of the plain text and the legislative intent, courts default to the rule of lenity and interpret the statute in the manner that is most advantageous to the defendant.
Jury Nullification
Jury acting against the rule of law, and determining guilt based on personal sense of justice
CA Law Robbery
felonious taking property of another from person or immediate presence accomplished by force or fear - Concurrence goes form time of taking up until robber gets into point of relative safety - all one act
