Elements of a Crime Flashcards
What are the essential elements of every crime?
(1) actus reus - physical act
(2) mens rea - mental state
(3) concurrence of the act and mental state (e.g., had intent to kill + did at same time/wrt same event)
Note: some crimes also require causation & result
What is required of the actus reus?
D must have performed a voluntary physical act. I.e., not reflexive, unconscious, etc.
When is an omission sufficient to qualify as an actus reus? (5 cases)
Failure to act may give rise to criminal liability when: (a) there is a legal duty to act (b) the D was aware of the circumstances that gave rise to that duty and (c) it is reasonably possible for D to act.
Legal duties are found in 5 cases:
- statutory
- by contract
- relationship (e.g. parent duty to care for child)
- voluntary assumption of care (e.g. babysitter)
- D created the peril
NO general good samaritan law req’ing ppl save others. UNLESS one of the above applies.
What is req’d to show “possession” as an actus reus?
As long as D had control of item for long enough to terminate possession. Can have constructive possession (if located in D area, presume possession).
Note: D must be aware of the possession but not necessarily that it was illegal. BUT may not consciously avoid becoming aware of possession.
What are the categories of intent/mens rea under the common law?
(a) crimes of specific intent
(b) crimes of general intent
(c) crimes req’ing malice
(d) strict liability crimes
Under c/l, what are the 11 specific intent crimes?
Specific intent crimes are:
- solicitation
- conspiracy
- attempt
- 1st degree murder
- assault
- larceny
- embezzlement
- false pretenses
- robbery
- burglary
- forgery
Note: these will be subject to specific defenses. Way act was performed can function as circumstantial evidence of intent.
Note: dif between needing intent for attempt to murder vs. certain murders not needing intent to do so.
What crimes at c/l require malice, rather than specific intent? What is the malice standard?
murder and arson
malice = reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that the particular harmful result will occur
What is the standard of mens rea for a general intent crime? How do you tell if a crime is a general intent crime?
If not a specific intent, malice, or strict liability crime – then crime is general intent (look for words like “knowingly”).
General intent means D had awareness of all factors constituting the crime or aware of high likelihood that they would occur.
What is the standard for a strict liability crime?
Only actus reus is req’d. e.g. statutory rape, selling liquor to minors.
Note: if statute is re some morality/regulatory area + no intent related words. then = strict liability
What are the categories of mens rea under the MPC?
(1) purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly - assessed by subjective standard
- purposefully = conscious object is to cause a certain result/engage in certain act
- knowingly =
(a) knowingly wrt conduct = aware that conduct is of a particular nature of that certain circumstances exist OR aware of high probability that they exist + deliberate avoidance
(b) knowing wrt result of conduct = know conduct will necessarily or very likely cause result - recklessly = conscious disregard to substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that result will follow, that is a gross deviation from stancard of care (note: both objective - unjustifiable risk- and subjective - aware)
(2) negligence= fail to be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk, failure is a substantial deviation from standard of care
Note: objective standard, higher standard than tort negligence
When can corporation be criminally liable?
At c/l, never. Under MPC, if act is performed by (a) an agent of the corp acting within the scope of thei r office of employment OR (b) a corporate agent high enough in hierarchy to presume their acts reflect the corp policy
What is the doctrine of transferred intent? To which crimes does it apply?
Under the doctrine of transferred intent, a D may be held liable when they intend a certain result but the result happens to someone they did not intent it for. E.g., intent to kill A but accidentally kills B as result of same act. Then D can be charged with attempted murder to A and actual murder to B.
Doctrine applies to homicide, battery, arson.
What is the “concurrence of mens rea and actus reus” req?
This requires that the D had the intent necessary for the crime at the time they committed the actus reus, i.e. intent prompted the act.
E.g., A drives to B’s house to kill B but hits C on the way - has specific intent to kill + actus reus of killing C, but no concurrence between the two wrt C.
What element is additionally req’d to be shown if crime statute req’s specific result occurred?
Causation - i.e. that D’s conduct was the cause-in-fact and proximate cause of the result.
