Criminal Law Principles Flashcards
Actus Reus
- The act required to commit a given crime
- A required component of every common law crim along with mens rea
Requirement: voluntary physical act
-To satisfy the actus reus requirement, D must perform a voluntary physical act; a voluntary bodily movement
Omission as actus reus: a failure to act can constitute actus reus if:
1. D had specfic legal duty to act;
2. D had knowledge of facts giving rise to the duty; and
3. It was reasonably possible for D to perform the duty
Mens Rea
The mental element required at the time a crime was committed; a required element of common law crimes, along with actus reus
Forms of mens rea
Intent requirements differ by crime:
1. Specific intent
2. General intent
3. Malice
Specific Intent
D must have specific intent or objective to commit the given crime
-Specific intent must always be proven; never inferred
-Mistake of fact and voluntary intoxication are defenses
General Intent
D must be aware of his actions and any attendant circumstances
-May be inferred from the act itself
-Note: most crimes are general intent crimes
Malice
D acts with reckless disregard or undertakes an obvious risk, from which a harmful result is expected
-Applies to arson and common law murder
Strict Liability
No intent or awareness required for strict liability crimes
-i.e., no mens rea requirement
-Arises with statutory rape, regulatory, or morality crimes
Vicarious liability
Person without fault is held liable for another’s criminal conduct
-(like respondeat superior in Torts)
-Often arises with employment or business associations
Model Penal Code Mens Rea Standards
- Purposely (subjective standard): a person acts purposely when his conscious objective is to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result
- Knowingly (subjective standard): 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 (subjective standard): a person acts recklessly when he knows of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and consciously disregards it
- Negligence (objective standard): a person acts negligently when he fails to become aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Note: MBE generally tests common law, unless otherwise instructed
General intent crimes
- Battery
- Rape
- Kidnapping
- False imprisonment
Specific intent crimes
- Attempt
- Larceny
- Robbery
- Forgery
- False pretenses
- Embezzlement
- Conspiracy
- Assault
- Burglary
- First-degree murder
- Solicitation
Malice crimes
- Common law murder (malice aforethought)
- Arson
Strict liabilty crimes
- Statutory rape
- Regulatory crimes
- Administrative crimes
- Morality crimes (bigamy, polygamy)
Concurrence requirement
D’s criminal act and the requisite intent (i.e. mens rea) for the crime must occur simultaneously
E.g., D plans on murdering victim at her home
-D is not guilty of murder if he accidentally runs over victime with his car before reaching her house
Causation requirement
D’s conduct must be both the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of the crime committed
1. Cause in fact: but for D’s conduct, the result would not have occurred
-Homicide and manslaughter: any act by D that hastens the victim’s death is a cause in face, even if death is already inevitable
2. Proximate cause: the actual result is the natural and probable consequence of D’s conduct, even if it did not occur exactly as expected
-Superseding factors: break the chain of causations
-Intervening acts: must be entirely unforeseeable to sheild the D from liabilty (e.g. the victim’s refusal of medical treatment, third party medical negligence: both are foreseeable and D is liable)
Note: causation issues often arise in homicide crimes on the MBE
Transferred intent doctrine
D may be held liable if he intents the harm caused, but causes it to a different victim or object than intended
-Often applies to homicide, battery, and arson: does not apply to attempt
-Defenses and mitigating circumstances may also be transferred
Effect: under transferred intent, D is usually charged with 2 crimes:
1. Attempt (to commit the originally intended crime); and
2. The actual resulting crime
-E.g. D intends to shoot A, but kills B; D can be charged with the attempted murder of A and the actual murder of B
-Note: merger does not apply because there are different victims
Merger
Under the merger doctrine, two or more offenses merge, prohibiting D from being prosecuted separately for each crime
Merger concerns the relationship between either
a) an inchoate offense and its completed substantive offense, or
b) an offense and its lesser included offense
Note: crimes with different victims never merge
Inchoate offenses
Only applies to solicitation and attempt
-Merger prevents D from being conviced of both solicitation/attempt and the target offense
E.g. D completes a burglary after attempting it; D cannot be convicted of both attempt and burglary
-Does not apply to conspiracy (i.e. D can be convicted of conspiracy to commit a given crime and the crime itself)
Lesser included offenses
D cannot be convicted of a target crimes and a lesser included offense
-Lesser included offense: consists of the same but not all elements as the greater crime
-E.g. D robs V, but during the robbery D’s accomplice kills V; D can be convicted of felony murder but not the lesser included robbery offense
-Note: also barred by double jeopardy
Accomplice liability
Requirements: to be liable as an accomplice, one must:
1. Aid, counsel, or encourage principal before or during the crime
2. With the intent
a) to assist the principal; and
b) that the principal commit the crime
Scope of liablity: accomplice is liable for the crimes he committed or counseled and any other probably or foreseeable crimes committed
Accomplice liability-Defenses and exceptions
Accomplice liability does not apply where:
- Withdrawal: accomplice can avoid liability by withdrawing from a crime before the principal commits it; accomplice must:
-Repudiate prior aid or encouragement;
-Do all that is possible to counteract the prior aid; and
-Do so before the chain of events is in motion and unstoppable - Member of a protected class: those protected by a criminal statute are not liable as accomplices (e.g. minor-victims statutory rape cases are not liable as accomplices to statutory rape)
- Parties not provided for in the statute: e.g. a purchaser of drugs cannot be an accomplice to the seller
Accessory after the fact
Different than accomplice liability
-Involves helping a known felon escape arrest, trial, or conviction
-Gives rise to a separate, lesser charge of obstruction of justice
Solicitation
Inciting, urging, or otherwise asking another to commit a crime with the intent that they commit the crime
-No affirmative response from the solicited party is required
Merges with the target offense: solicitation is complete when D asks solicitee to commit the felony
-If solicitee agrees, it gives rise to conspiracy and the soliticitaion merges with the conspiracy (i,e. the only crimes remaining is conspiracy)
-Does not matter if the solicited party is convicted or if the solicited crime was impossible to commit
Defenses: very few defenses apply to solicitation
-Refusal by the solicitee is not a defense
-Impossibility and withdrawal are not defenses
-MPC allows renunciation as a defense, but common law does not
-Most jurisdictions follow the common law approach
Conspiracy
An agreement between 2 or more people to commit a crime or unlawful objective
Required elements:
1. An agreement between 2 or more people
-I.e. a “meeting of the minds”; express agreement not required
-Parties do not need to know of each other’s existence
2. Intent to enter into the agreement
3. Intent to commit the target crime or pursue the unlawful objective
4. An overt act in furtherance of the target crime besides mere preparation (not a requirement at common law)
Termination: conspiracy ends upon completion of the target crime
Conspiracy-Unilateral vs. bilateral
At common law, 2 or more people must have criminal intent, but MPC allows only one party
-E.g. under MPS, D may be convicted of conspiracy with another party who was an undercover police officer
-Unless otherwise instructed, apply common law rule
Conspiracy-Defenses
Impossibility is not a defense to conspiracy
-Withdrawal is generally not a defense to conspiracy but may be a defense to liability for co-conspirators’ subsequent crimes
Co-conspirator liability
Each conspirator is liable for co-conspirators’ crimes that are:
1. Foreseeable; and
2. Committed in furtherance of the conspiracy
Co-conspirator withdrawal
-Under common law, one cannot withdraw from the conspiracy itself: MPC allows withdrawal if the withdrawing party thwarts the conspiracy (e.g. by stopping it or notifying the police)
-Subsequent crimes: one can withdraw from co-conspirators’ subsequent crimes, including the target offense of the conspiracy
-Affirmative act required: withdrawal is effective when the withdrawing party makes an affirmative act that notifies his co-conspirators he is withdrawing
-Must be timely: withdrawal must give enough time for co-conspirators to abandon plans for the target offense
-The withdrawing party must attempt to neutralize the effect of any assistance he provided to the original conspiracy
Attempt
An act, done with the specific intent to commit a crime, that constitutes an overt or substantial step towards committing the crime but falls short of completing the crime
i.e. An incomplete act that would be a crime if completed
Intent: D must specifically intend to commit a particular crime
Attempt-Overt act
D must commit an act beyond mere preparation
-D must take a substantial step towards committing the target crime
-Under common law, attempt requires an act that is dangerously close to success
Attempt-Defenses
Legal impossibility is a defense to attempt
-Factual impossibility is not a defense
-Abandonment is not a defense: under majority rule, liability for attempt arises once D commits an overt act concurrently with the specific intent to commit a crime (i.e, D is liable for attempt beore he can abandon the crime)
