Criminal Law Principles

Question 1

Actus Reus

Answer 1

• 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

Question 2

Mens Rea

Answer 2

The mental element required at the time a crime was committed; a required element of common law crimes, along with actus reus

Question 3

Forms of mens rea

Answer 3

Intent requirements differ by crime:
1. Specific intent
2. General intent
3. Malice

Question 4

Specific Intent

Answer 4

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

Question 5

General Intent

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Malice

Answer 6

D acts with reckless disregard or undertakes an obvious risk, from which a harmful result is expected
-Applies to arson and common law murder

Question 7

Strict Liability

Answer 7

No intent or awareness required for strict liability crimes
-i.e., no mens rea requirement
-Arises with statutory rape, regulatory, or morality crimes

Question 8

Vicarious liability

Answer 8

Person without fault is held liable for another’s criminal conduct
-(like respondeat superior in Torts)
-Often arises with employment or business associations

Question 9

Model Penal Code Mens Rea Standards

Answer 9

1. Purposely (subjective standard): a person acts purposely when his conscious objective is to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result
2. 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
3. Recklessly (subjective standard): a person acts recklessly when he knows of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and consciously disregards it
4. 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

Question 10

General intent crimes

Answer 10

1. Battery
2. Rape
3. Kidnapping
4. False imprisonment

Question 11

Specific intent crimes

Answer 11

1. Attempt
2. Larceny
3. Robbery
4. Forgery
5. False pretenses
6. Embezzlement
7. Conspiracy
8. Assault
9. Burglary
10. First-degree murder
11. Solicitation

Question 12

Malice crimes

Answer 12

1. Common law murder (malice aforethought)
2. Arson

Question 13

Strict liabilty crimes

Answer 13

1. Statutory rape
2. Regulatory crimes
3. Administrative crimes
4. Morality crimes (bigamy, polygamy)

Question 14

Concurrence requirement

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Causation requirement

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Transferred intent doctrine

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Merger

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Inchoate offenses

Answer 18

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)

Question 19

Lesser included offenses

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Accomplice liability

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Accomplice liability-Defenses and exceptions

Answer 21

Accomplice liability does not apply where:

1. 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
2. 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)
3. Parties not provided for in the statute: e.g. a purchaser of drugs cannot be an accomplice to the seller

Question 22

Accessory after the fact

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Solicitation

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Conspiracy

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Conspiracy-Unilateral vs. bilateral

Answer 25

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

Question 26

Conspiracy-Defenses

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Co-conspirator liability

Answer 27

Each conspirator is liable for co-conspirators’ crimes that are:
1. Foreseeable; and
2. Committed in furtherance of the conspiracy

Question 28

Co-conspirator withdrawal

Answer 28

-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

Question 29

Attempt

Answer 29

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

Question 30

Attempt-Overt act

Answer 30

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

Question 31

Attempt-Defenses

Answer 31

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)