Defining Criminal Conduct - Culpability

Question 1

What is the general process for using a statute?

Answer 1

Read the statute, identify the actus reus elements, identify any explicit mens rea terms (if the statute is silent or ambiguous as to the mens rea of an element, then interpretation comes into play)

Question 2

What are the two major components of culpability?

Answer 2

Actus reus and mens rea

Question 3

In general terms, what kinds of conduct can satisfy actus reus?

Answer 3

Affirmative action or omissions where there is a legal duty

Question 4

Must an action be voluntary to satisfy actus reus elements?

Answer 4

Yes…some acts that are involuntary can be a defense to conviction

Question 5

Must a defendant commit some type of conduct to be convicted of a crime?

Answer 5

Yes, actus reus requires that a defendant commit some conduct, whether affirmative or omission (cannot convict for thoughts alone)

Question 6

In terms of requiring a voluntary action, what is the major issue with handling this requirement?

Answer 6

Time framing —> a defendant arguably did some previous action to end up in the situation, so at what point in time does the voluntariness attach?

Question 7

What does MPC §2.01(2) say about the voluntary requirement?

Answer 7

A person is not guilty of an offense unless unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable

Question 8

In terms of a defense based on an involuntary act, what does the MPC not consider to be voluntary?

Answer 8

A reflex or convulsion (NOT an “irresistible impulse” which IS voluntary), a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep, conduct during hypnosis, actions during an epileptic seizure

Question 9

What is the caveat of epilepsy being involuntary?

Answer 9

One can be convicted of a voluntary decision to engage in a dangerous activity knowingly having epilepsy

Question 10

What are two specific actions that the MPC designates as voluntary?

Answer 10

Habitual actions and conduct done under threat (but duress may be available)

Question 11

What two instances can criminal liability for an omission arise?

Answer 11

1. When a statute specifically requires a certain action OR 2. When a duty is otherwise imposed by law (such as tort law)

Question 12

In Jones, what were the exceptions to the general no duty to act rule?

Answer 12

Where a statute imposed a duty, where a status relationship existed from tort law (parent to child, husband to wife, etc.), a contractual duty, the actor voluntarily assumed care for another and so secluded that person to prevent others from rendering aid

Question 13

For offenses involving children, what are the general categories of a duty to act?

Answer 13

Parent, adoptive parent, in loco parentis, responsible for the supervision of a minor child

Question 14

What is the American position on Good Samaritanism?

Answer 14

In general, American law does not criminalize one who fails to render help to a person in peril (except the duty requirement)

Question 15

What 3 states make it a criminal offense to refuse to render aid to a person in peril?

Answer 15

Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont

Question 16

In terms of a duty to act for family members, who qualifies as a spouse or parent?

Answer 16

Mistress (no legal duty), live-in boyfriend (no legal duty), stepmother (legal duty)

Question 17

What is a major exception to the no duty to act rule?

Answer 17

One who creates another person’s peril has a duty to rescue

Question 18

In additional to culpable conduct, what is also required?

Answer 18

Mens rea —> requirement of a culpable mental state that accompanies the actus reus

Question 19

Does transferred intent exist in criminal law?

Answer 19

Yes, an intent to commit a crime can be transferred from one intended target to an unintended target

Question 20

How did the common law approach mens rea?

Answer 20

Used a variety of meaningless terms (maliciously, wantonly, etc.) and assumed that each crime could be defined in terms of one mental state

Question 21

What was the common law’s debate over negligence?

Answer 21

Some courts demanded the level of “criminal negligence” that was a higher standard than ordinary civil negligence —> criminal negligence would require a “gross deviation” from the standard of care of an ordinary person

Question 22

What are the 4 mental states sets forth under the MPC for mens rea?

Answer 22

Purpose, knowledge, recklessness, negligence

Question 23

How does the MPC requirement for mens rea differ than the common law?

Answer 23

The common law only assumed one mens rea for the entire offense, whereas the MPC requires a showing of mens rea for each material element of an offense

Question 24

What are the 3 types of material elements under the MPC?

Answer 24

Conduct, attendant circumstances, result

Question 25

Does the MPC allow for strict liability?

Answer 25

No

Question 26

MPC —> purpose —> conduct or result…?

Answer 26

“It is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such result”

Question 27

MPC —> purpose —> attendant circumstance…?

Answer 27

He is aware of the existence of such circumstances or believes/hopes that they exist

Question 28

MPC —> knowingly —> conduct or attendant circumstances…?

Answer 28

He is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist

Question 29

MPC —> knowingly —> result…?

Answer 29

He is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result

Question 30

MPC —> recklessly…?

Answer 30

He consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that it’s disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.

Question 31

MPC —> negligently…?

Answer 31

He should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.

Question 32

What is the MPC’s position on when the statute is silent as to mens rea?

Answer 32

A material element is satisfied if a person acts purposely, knowingly, or recklessly with respect to that element (recklessness is the default standard when the statute is silent)

Question 33

What is the MPC’s position when a statute provides a mens rea term but does not distinguish between the material elements?

Answer 33

The explicit mens rea shall apply to all of the material elements unless a contrary purpose plainly appears

Question 34

What is the difference between specific intent and general intent crimes?

Answer 34

Specific intent crimes are those that requires the defendant to have an additional mental state over and above the mens rea required for the rest of the elements, whereas general intent is just the mens rea required for the acts that underlie the basic elements

Question 35

Where knowledge is required as the mens rea, what if the defendant does not have positive knowledge because the facts indicate that he chose to look away? (Wilfull blindness)

Answer 35

Knowledge can be established, without positive knowledge, if the defendant subjectively believes that there is a high probability that a fact exists and he takes deliberate actions to avoid learning the truth

Question 36

Although the MPC rejects strict liability for criminal conviction, in what instances do some courts still retain strict liability?

Answer 36

Strict liability is still retained sometimes for “public welfare” offenses (regulations designed to protect public safety), but strict liability is rejected for true crimes that are well-established in the common law…just because a statute is silent does not mean that the legislature intended strict liability

Question 37

What is a compromised approach to strict liability?

Answer 37

Where an offense does not require mens rea, the defendant can raise an affirmative defense that he was not negligent and took all reasonable care