Essential Elements of a Crime

Question 1

Elements of a Crime

Answer 1

• (1) Actus Reus
  
  • (a) voluntary physical act, or
  • (b) unlawful omission
• (2) Mens Rea
  
  • state of mind or intent of D at the time of his act
• (3) Concurrence
  
  • 1 and 2 existed at the same time
• (4) Attendant Circumstance
  
  • external factors that must exist at time of act in question
    
    • time of day in burglary
    • age in statutory rape; status of person
• (4) Harmful Result
  
  • Homicide — victim dies
  • Receipt of Stolen Property — property received was in fact stolen
• (5) Causation
  
  • “But For” D’s act, the result would not have occurred.
  • Prox and factual.
• ————
• (6) Affirmative Defenses
  
  • justifications or excuses
  • take away responsibility for act

Question 2

Actus Reus

Answer 2

For there to be criminal liability, D must have either:

• (a) Performed a Voluntary Physical Act, or
• (b) Failed to Act Under Circumstances Imposing a Legal Duty to Act

(a) VOLUNTARY PHYSICAL ACT
Act = Bodily Movement.

• No Thought Crimes
  
  • A thought is not an act. Therefore, bad thoughts alone cannot constitute a crime.
  • Note, however, that speech, unlike thought, is an act that can cause liability (e.g., perjury, solicitation)
• No Status Crimes
  
  • Cannot criminalize a status / condition
  • CA law — being “addict” law = unconstitutional
    
    • But — crime caused by addiction = still voluntary
• Possession
  
  • D must have control of item long enough to have opportunity to terminate possession
  • If D brings drugs into jail, still guilty, bcas opportunity to discard

__________________________________________

(b) UNLAWFUL OMISSION

Failed to Act Under Circumstances Imposing a Legal Duty to Act

• (1) Existence of Legal Duty — to Act Under the Circumstances
• (2) Awareness of Facts Creating the Duty to Act
• (3) It is Reasonably Possible for D to Perform the Duty — or, Obtain Help of Others in Performing It
  
  • Parent doesn’t have to jump into pool to save drowning child if he can’t swim

(1) Existence of Legal Duty to Act Under Circumstances

D must have a legal duty to act under the circumstances.

A legal duty to act can arise from the following sources:

(a) Statute

• filing an income tax return
• reporting an accident

(b) Contract — K obligating D to Act
* Lifeguard, Nurse, Daycare
(c) (Status) Relationship

• Sufficiently close relationship btwn D and V
  
  • Parent to Child
  • Spouse to Spouse

(d) Voluntary Assumption of Care By D of V — (and V Secluded)

• No CL duty to help someone in distress
• But once aid is rendered, the Good Samaritan may be held criminally liable for not satisfying a reasonable standard of care
  
  • Undertaking rescue, but unreasonably abandoning rescue effort
    
    • If A began to swim out toward B and only after reaching B decided that B was someone not worth saving, A would have violated his duty to act by unreasonably abandoning a rescue effort that was voluntarily undertaken.

(e) Creation of Peril by D
* Believing that B can swim, A pushes B into a pool. It becomes apparent that B cannot swim, but A takes no steps to help B. B drowns. A’s failure to attempt a rescue an “act” on which liability can be based.

(2) Knowledge of Facts Giving Rise to Duty

• As a general rule, the duty to act arises when D is aware of the facts creating the duty to act
  
  • e.g., the parent must know that his child is drowning before his failure to rescue the child will make him liable
• Exception — in some situations the law will impose a duty to learn the facts
  
  • e.g., a lifeguard asleep at his post would still have a legal duty to aid a drowning swimmer.

Question 3

Unlawful Omission

as Actus Reus

Answer 3

Failed to Act Under Circumstances Imposing a Legal Duty to Act

• (1) Existence of Legal Duty — to Act Under the Circumstances
• (2) Awareness of Facts Creating the Duty to Act
• (3) It is Reasonably Possible for D to Perform the Duty — or, Obtain Help of Others in Performing It
  
  • Parent doesn’t have to jump into pool to save drowning child if he can’t swim

(1) Existence of Legal Duty to Act Under Circumstances

D must have a legal duty to act under the circumstances.

A legal duty to act can arise from the following sources:

(a) Statute

• filing an income tax return
• reporting an accident

(b) Contract — K obligating D to Act
* Lifeguard, Nurse, Daycare
(c) (Status) Relationship

• Sufficiently close relationship btwn D and V
  
  • Parent to Child
  • Spouse to Spouse

(d) Voluntary Assumption of Care By D of V — (and V Secluded)

• No CL duty to help someone in distress
• But once aid is rendered, the Good Samaritan may be held criminally liable for not satisfying a reasonable standard of care
  
  • Undertaking rescue, but unreasonably abandoning rescue effort
    
    • If A began to swim out toward B and only after reaching B decided that B was someone not worth saving, A would have violated his duty to act by unreasonably abandoning a rescue effort that was voluntarily undertaken.

(e) Creation of Peril by D
* Believing that B can swim, A pushes B into a pool. It becomes apparent that B cannot swim, but A takes no steps to help B. B drowns. A’s failure to attempt a rescue an “act” on which liability can be based.

(2) Knowledge of Facts Giving Rise to Duty

• As a general rule, the duty to act arises when D is aware of the facts creating the duty to act
  
  • e.g., the parent must know that his child is drowning before his failure to rescue the child will make him liable
• Exception — in some situations the law will impose a duty to learn the facts
  
  • e.g., a lifeguard asleep at his post would still have a legal duty to aid a drowning swimmer

_________________________________________

For there to be criminal liability, D must have either:

• (a) Performed a Voluntary Physical Act, or
• (b) Failed to Act Under Circumstances Imposing a Legal Duty to Act

(a) VOLUNTARY PHYSICAL ACT
Act = Bodily Movement.

• No Thought Crimes
  
  • A thought is not an act. Therefore, bad thoughts alone cannot constitute a crime.
  • Note, however, that speech, unlike thought, is an act that can cause liability (e.g., perjury, solicitation)
• No Status Crimes
  
  • Cannot criminalize a status / condition
  • CA law — being “addict” law = unconstitutional
    
    • But — crime caused by addiction = still voluntary
• Possession
  
  • D must have control of item long enough to have opportunity to terminate possession
  • If D brings drugs into jail, still guilty, bcas opportunity to discard

Question 4

Mens Rea

(Mental State)

Answer 4

• Mental element required at the time a crime was committed
• Required component of every CL crime, along with Actus Reus
  
  • Apply CL as Default — MPC if Q tells you to
• Modern statutes include strict liability offenses — no mens rea required

Specific Intent — BAFFLE SCARF

• Burglary
• Assault (attempted battery)
• Forgery
• False Pretenses
• Larceny
• Embezzlement
• Solicitation
• Conspiracy
• Attempt
• Robbery
• First Degree Premeditated Murder

Malice

• CL Murder
• Arson

General Intent

• Battery
• Rape
• Kidnapping
• False Imprisonment

Strict Liability

• Statutory Rape
• Selling Liquor to Minors
• Bigamy (some jurisdictions)

Question 5

What Do These CL Levels of Intent Require?

Specific Intent
General Intent
Malice
Strict Liability

Answer 5

• Specific Intent
  
  • Intent to engage in proscribed conduct
• General Intent
  
  • Awareness of acting in proscribed manner
• Malice
  
  • Reckless disregard of a known risk
• Strict Liability
  
  • Conscious commission of proscribed act

Question 6

2 Implications of

Specific Intent

Answer 6

• If Specific Intent
  
  • Intent must always be proven; never inferred
  • Available Defenses
    
    • Unreasonable Mistake of Fact
    • Voluntary Intoxication

Need for Proof

• Existence of a specific intent cannot be conclusively imputed from the mere doing of the act — there must be some evidence tending to prove the existence of the specific intent
• Manner in which an act was done may provide circumstantial evidence of intent
• A shoots B. The fact that A shot B does not show that A had the intent to shoot and kill B. However, if A bought a revolver and ammunition shortly before shooting B, carefully loaded the revolver, took careful aim at B, and fired several times, that evidence may circumstantially prove A’s intent to kill B

Applicability of Certain Defenses

• Some defenses apply only to specific intent crimes
  
  • Voluntary Intoxication
  • Unreasonable Mistake of Fact

Specific Intent — BAFFLE SCARF

• Burglary
• Assault (attempted battery)
• Forgery
• False Pretenses
• Larceny
• Embezzlement
• Solicitation
• Conspiracy
• Attempt
• Robbery
• First Degree Premeditated Murder

Malice

• CL Murder
• Arson

General Intent

• Battery
• Rape
• Kidnapping
• False Imprisonment
• Strict Liability
• Statutory Rape
• Selling Liquor to Minors
• Bigamy (some jurisdictions)

Question 7

Malice

Answer 7

Standard

• D acts with Reckless Disregard, or
• Undertakes an Obvious Risk, from which a Harmful Result is Expected

Inapplicability of Defenses

• Defenses to specific intent crimes (e.g., voluntary intoxication) don’t apply

CL Crimes

• Murder
• Arson

Question 8

General Intent

Answer 8

Standard

Negligence / Recklessness
Awareness of all factors constituting the crime
D must be aware of:
(1) his actions; and
Is of that nature
(2) any attendant circumstances
Need not be certain that these attendant circumstances exist — it is sufficient that she is aware of a high likelihood that they exist.

Proof Needed

• General Intent May Be Inferred from Act Itself
• Jury can infer the required general intent merely from the doing of the act
  
  • It is not necessary that evidence specifically proving the general intent be offered by the prosecution

Crimes
Almost all crimes require at least “general intent”

• Battery
• Forcible Rape
• False Imprisonment
• Kidnapping

False Imprisonment
To commit the crime of false imprisonment, D must be aware that:

• (1) he is confining a person, and
• (2) the confinement has not been
  
  • (i) specifically authorized by law, or
  • (ii) validly consented to by the person confined

Question 9

Strict Liability

Answer 9

• No mens rea / intent or awareness is required
• D can be found guilty from the mere fact that he committed the act.

Defenses

• Defenses that negate state of mind are NOT available
  
  • Mistake of Fact
  • Voluntary Intoxication
  • Consent of Victim irrelevant

Offenses

• Administrative, Regulatory, or Morality crimes
• Selling Liquor to Minors
• Statutory Rape
• Morality Crimes
  
  • Bigamy — (some jxds)
  • Contributing to the delinquency of a minor
• Look for No Adverbs (knowingly, etc)

Question 10

MPC Analysis of Fault

Answer 10

Subjective Standards
When a subjective standard is applied — Q is what was actually going on in D’s mind

Purposefully

• It must be D’s conscious objective (intent) to
  
  • (a) engage in certain conduct, or
  • (b) cause a certain result

Knowingly

• D must
  
  • (a) be aware that his conduct is of a particular nature, or
  • (b) know that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause a particular result

Recklessly

• D must
  
  • (a) know of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and
  • (b) consciously disregard that risk

Objective

Negligence

• D must
  
  • fail to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
  • where such failure is a substantial deviation from the standard of care

Question 11

Possession

Answer 11

Actus Reus

• D must have control of item long enough to have opportunity to terminate possession
  
  • If D brings drugs into jail, still guilty, bcas opportunity to discard
• Non-Exclusive Possession
  
  • Possession doesn’t need to be exclusive to one person
• Constructive Possession
  
  • Actual physical control need not be proved when the contraband is located in an area within D’s “Dominion & Control”

Mens Rea

• Absent a state of mind requirement in the statute, D must be aware of his possession of the contraband, but need not be aware of its illegality or true nature
• MPC — adds a “knowingly” state of mind element to possession crimes.
  
  • Under this req, D ordinarily must know the identity or nature of the item
  • But — Wilful Blindness — D can’t consciously avoid learning the true nature of the item possessed — knowledge may be inferred from a combination of suspicion and indifference to the truth