FUNDAMENTALS (criminal law) Flashcards
1
Q
What grants the authority to the states and the federal government to enact laws concerning the regulation of crimes?
A
States government have general police power, a broad power to pass laws to provide for the general welfare of the state and its citizens.
The federal government lacks police powers, thus, it can only regulate crimes within the scope of its limited powers granted by the constitution.
2
Q
Jurisdiction: Which state can prosecute?
A
Single jurisdiction → state where a significant portion of the crime occurred can prosecute
Multiple jurisdictions → If a significant portion of crime occurred in two states (e.g., Δ shot across state line, killed a victim in another state), then BOTH states can prosecute
3
Q
A crime may be prosecuted in which states?
A
1) Where the act took place or
2) The result took place
4
Q
Jurisdiction: does “double jeopardy” bar multiple prosecutions in different jurisdictions?
A
No. Double jeopardy is no bar to multiple prosecutions in different jurisdictions
5
Q
Jurisdiction: When does the federal government have jurisdiction over a suit?
A
There is no federal common law of crimes; all crimes are statutory.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is granted power over only a handful of crimes, including treason and currency counterfeiting.
6
Q
Jurisdiction: Who is resposible for regulating federal land or territories?
A
Congress has the power to criminalize conduct occurring over federally owned or controlled territory (national parks or the District of Columbia), conduct by United States nationals abroad, and conduct on ships or airplanes.
7
Q
What is the Burden of proof to prosecute crimes?
A
The prosecution must prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
8
Q
Can the burden of proof be shifted on Defendant during criminal prosecution?
A
No. The burden of proof CANNOT be shifted to Δ
EXCEPT when the defendant is alleging affirmative defenses (e.g., insanity) → Δ CAN be required to prove this by
preponderance, or clear & convincing (federal level), and SC even said BRD for insanity
9
Q
If a Defendant is alleging an affirmative defense, who has the BoP? and what is the standard of proof required?
A
When the defendant is alleging affirmative defense, the Δ is going to be required to prove this by a preponderance or clear & convincing evidence standards.
10
Q
Generally, what are the types of offenses?
A
Generally, offenses are classified as felonies, misdemeanors, or violations (infractions)
11
Q
Felonies vs. misdemenors vs. infractions?
A
1) A felony is a crime punishable by death or imprisonment exceeding one year.
2) A misdemeanor is a crime punishable by imprisonment for less than one year or by a fine only.
3) infractions are minor breaches of law, typically punishable by only a fine.
12
Q
What are general rules regarding the legality of crime laws?
A
1) No criminal penalty may be imposed without fair notice that the conduct is forbidden.
2) In addition, there can be no ex post facto laws.
13
Q
Generally every crime must have these elements?
A
1) actus reus
2) mens rea
3) Concurrence of Act and Intent
4) if a crime is defined by a particular result, then the “causation” element must be proved (both actual and proximate causation)
14
Q
When is the actus reus element of a crime is proved?
A
1) When there is a physical act that is voluntary, or
2) When D fails to act (omission) when there was a duty to act
15
Q
What is considered a “physical voluntary act” under the actus reus element?
A
A physical voluntary act is a bodily movement over which D has control.
16
Q
Are habitual acts (conditioned reactions) considered voluntary acts?
A
Yes.
17
Q
What are acts that are not considered voluntary, that wont meet the element of actus reus?
A
- Movement caused by another,
- Reflexive or convulsive acts,
- Acts performed while the defendant was unconscious or asleep or under hypnosis.
18
Q
If the act was involuntary what is the conculsion?
A
Rule → the act was involuntary, Δ won’t be criminally responsible.
19
Q
When does an involuntary acts satisfy the actus reus?
A
When:
1) D is aware that they have a condition that can result in involuntary actions, and 2) Fails to take reasonable steps to prevent such actions. (i.e. seizures)
20
Q
When is an omission to act satsify the actus reus element?
A
D will satisfy the element of actus reus if:
1) There was a legal duty to act;
2) D was aware of such duty; and
3) D could have reasonably performed the act
21
Q
How is duty created for actus reus pusposes?
A
A duty is created by:
1) Statute (e.g. duty to file income tax return)
2) Contract (e.g. lifeguard or nurse)
3) Special relationship to the victim (e.g. parent or spouse) – Must take reasonable steps
4) Voluntary assumption of care, creates a duty of reasonable care (When Δ affirmatively begins to act)
- Creation of peril by the defendant (some jurisdictions)
- Landowner liability (some jurisdictions)
- Duty to control (some jurisdictions)
22
Q
What if there was a special relationship, but D was incapable of acting?
A
If D was physically incapable of acting, then there is no duty for a failure to act.
(i.e. parent cant swim, so they could not save drowning child)
23
Q
Are acts performed under duress considered voluntary acts?
A
Yes, it satisfies the actus reus element, however, it is a valid defense.
24
Q
Mens rea (guilty mind): What are the Common Law States of Mind?
A
At common law, the level of intent may be of four types:
1) general intent,
2) specific intent,
3) malice, and
4) strict liability
25
What intent do specific intent crimes require?
the defendant (D) HAS the intent (knowledge or objective) to commit the act, combined with an intent to bring about the prohibited result.
26
The elements of a criminal offense include?
1) the mens rea, or guilty mind;
2) the actus reus, the bad or unlawful act; and
3) causation.
With the exception of strict liability crimes, which have no mens rea.
Note: Every statute defining a substantive criminal offense must proscribe a particular mens rea and actus reus that
must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal liability to result.
27
T or F: A bad thought standing alone cannot result in criminal liability.
True.
28
What is this an example of:
Person A pushes Person B into a bystander, injuring the bystander. Can Person B be held criminally liable?
This is an actus reus example of a non-voluntary physical act.
The answer is No. The action was not within B's control.
29
If an epileptic knows of the possibility of a seizure and engages in the voluntary act of driving a car, has a seizure while driving, and causes a fatal
accident, is the epileptic criminally responsible?
Yes. An epileptic may still be criminally responsible if (i) he knows of the possibility of seizure and (ii) the last act was voluntary.
30
What about acts committed while sleepwalking?
liability is not generally imposed under this case.
31
When there is not a duty to act, is a defendant criminally liable because she fails to help others in trouble. i.e. A mere bystander?
No. When there is no duty to act, a defendant is not criminally liable because she fails to help others in trouble. A mere
bystander has no duty to act.
32
What does the concurrance element of a crime means?
the mental and physical elements must exist at the same time as the offense.
33
Does strict liablity crimes require concurrance?
No. Strict liability crimes have no mens rea requirement and require only an actus reus.
34
Do strict liability crimes have a required mens rea?
No, it is sufficient that the act was performed
35
What are the 4 main categories of strict liability crimes?
Remember MARS:
1) Morality crimes (bigamy)
2) Administrative crimes
3) Regulatory crimes
4) Statutory rape
36
When dealing with specific intent crimes, why it is necessary to identify specific intent?
1) First, the prosecution must prove the specific intent in order to prosecute the defendant;
2) second, "certain defenses" (e.g., voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact) are
applicable only to specific intent crimes.
37
The specific intent crimes include?
Remember (FIAT)
1) First-degree murder.
2) Inchoate crimes (attempt, solicitation, conspiracy).
3) Assult with intent to commit battery.
4) Theft offenses (larceny, larceny by trick, false pretenses, embezzlement, forgery, burglary, robbery).
38
What are the Defenses could negate "specific intent"?
(1) voluntary intoxication &
(2) mistake of fact (even an unreasonable one)
These NEGATE the mens rea (intent) requirement
39
If V voluntarily subjects herself to harm (e.g. playing Russian Roulette), does that absolve D of liability?
No, generally not
40
If someone voluntarily participates in an inherently dangerous sport or activity, such as skydiving or rock climbing, and they suffer an injury as a result is the organizer or instructor liable?
D could argue the V has assumed the risk associated with that activity. In such cases, the defendant, such as an organizer or instructor, might argue that the injured person's voluntary participation absolves them of liability.
41
If two individuals willingly engage in a consensual fight or mutually agreed-upon combat, and one person is injured, is the one that caused the injury liable?
the defendant may raise the voluntary assumption of risk defense. The argument could be that both parties consented to the activity, acknowledging the potential for harm, and thus the defendant should not be held fully responsible for the resulting injuries.
42
In cases where a person voluntarily engages in an activity with clear warnings about potential risks, such as signing a liability waiver before participating in an amusement park ride?
The defendant may use the defense of voluntary assumption of risk. They may contend that the injured person was aware of and accepted the dangers associated with the activity by voluntarily participating unless there was a malfunction or D caused the risk.
43
What do general intent crimes require?
D intended to commit the criminal act "only to commit the act itself" (or the specific result)
44
What are the 5 main general intent crimes?
Battery
Rape
Kidnapping
False imprisonment
Manslaughter
45
Is motive the same as intent?
Motive is not the same as intent.
The motive is the reason or explanation for the crime and is immaterial to the substantive criminal offense.
46
what is Transferred intent?
If D intends to harm one party but inadvertently harms another party, D’s original intent is“transferred” to the actual victim.
Note: Transferred intent does not convert the intent to commit one crime into the intent to commit a different crime, except in the Felony Murder Rule.
47
Can you transfer intent to commit one crime, to intent to commit another crime?
Transferred intent does not convert the intent to commit one crime into the intent to commit a different crime, except in the Felony Murder Rule.
Felony-murder rule: D may be convicted of felony murder if the killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony. (malice aforethought is based on the commission of the felony, regardless if D actually wanted to commit the murder or not)
48
Does the doctrine of transferred intent apply if the victim was unforeseeable? (ex. D intends to shoot A but actually shoots B)
Yes. For example, if Max shoots into a car intending to kill Kathy, but a jogger runs in front of the car at the exact moment the shot was fired and is killed, Max will still be liable.
49
Is transferred intent applicable to attempted offenses?
No. The transferred intent doctrine is only used for completed crimes and is not used for attempted crimes.
50
D points a gun at A, intending to shoot and kill A, but accidentally shoots and kills B instead. D is charged of how many crimes?
D is guilty of two crimes:
1) the murder of B under the doctrine of transferred intent, and
2) the attempted murder of A.
51
Does the doctrine of transferred intent applies to cases of mistaken identity?
No. the doctrine of transferred intent applies only to "bad aim" cases and not to cases of mistaken identity
52
If D shoots at A and hits A, although mistakenly believing that A is B, does transferred of intent apply?
the doctrine of transferred intent is unnecessary because D hit the very body he intended to hit; the intent, therefore, does not need to be transferred—D is guilty of shooting A
53
Transferred intent, also known as the unintended victim rule, what crimes it is usually confined to?
Transferred intent is usually confined to homicide, battery, and arson.
54
What about defenses D can bring, during a transfer of intent case?
Any defenses that the defendant could assert against the intended victim (e.g., self-defense) may also transfer to the unintended victim.
55
D shoots at A with the intent to kill him, but D instead shoots B. The shot does not kill B, but merely injures her. Can D be convicted of the attempted murder of B?
D can be convicted of the
attempted murder of A, and of battery against B, but cannot be convicted of the attempted murder of B (because transferred intent only applies to completed crimes and not attempted crimes)
56
What are Malice crimes?
Malice Crimes are the crimes of common-law murder and arson.
57
What is required to satisfy the element of malice in malice crimes (common law murder and arson)?
These crimes require malice, which is defined as a reckless disregard of a high risk of harm.
Although these two crimes appear to have an “intent” requirement (e.g., intent to kill), malice requires only a criminal act without excuse, justification, or mitigation. Intent can be inferred from the accomplishment of the act.
58
Does MPC mentions transferred intent?
The Model Penal Code, while not specifically recognizing the doctrine of transferred intent, does recognize liability when purposely, knowingly,
recklessly, or negligently causing a particular result is an element of an offense.
59
What are the levels of culpability based on the Model Penal Code (“MPC”)?
1) Purposely (subjective)
2) Knowingly (subjective)
3) Recklessly (subjective)
4) Negligently (objective)
60
When does D act “purposely” for the purposes of MPC mens rea?
With the conscious objective to produce the result or engage in a particular behavior.
Subjective standard
61
When does D act “knowingly” for the purposes of MPC mens rea?
When he knows that a course of action will almost certainly produce a specific result.
Subjective standard
62
Differentiate between purposely and knowingly?
Purposely: D desires to produce a specific result (Ex. If Max shoots Brianne at close range and kills her, he has acted “purposely”)
Knowingly: D is aware that a specific result is almost certain to occur
(if Max means to kill Brianne, and he places a bomb in the car that he knows is carrying both Brianne and Mat, it is unlikely he could be charged with “purposely” killing Mat, but will likely be charged with “knowingly” killing Mat)
63
When does D act “recklessly” for the purposes of MPC mens rea?
When D “consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk”
Note: The risk must constitute a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a law-abiding person. The mere realization of the risk is not enough.
Majority jrx: uses a subjective standard,
Minority jrx: uses an objective standard
64
When does D act “negligently” for the purposes of MPC mens rea?
When, regardless of whether D was actually aware of the risk, D should have been aware of the risk.
The risk must constitute a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the same situation.
65
Differentiate between criminal negligence & civil negligence?
Criminal negligence: gross deviation from the normal standard of care
Civil negligence: deviation from the normal standard of care.
66
T or F: if a statute specifies a mental state, proof of a more culpable mental state satisfies the mens rea requirement.
Yes. For example, if a statutory crime required that an act
be undertaken knowingly, establishing that the act was committed purposefully satisfies the mens rea requirement with respect to that act
67
If the requisite mens rea is not stated in a criminal statute, what happens?
it is established if the defendant acted at least recklessly.
68
If the mens rea does not state the culpable mind applicable to all material elements of the crime, what happens?
Then the mens rea applicable to one material element is applicable to all material
elements, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears.
69
Examples of strict-liability crimes include?
statutory rape; bigamy; regulatory offenses for public welfare; regulation of food, drugs, and firearms; and selling liquor to minors.
70
Whats a Public welfare offense?
A public welfare offense is a strict-liability crime for which no mens rea is required.
Conduct that is subject to stringent public regulation includes that which could seriously threaten the public’s health or safety or is inherently dangerous.
Typical examples include adulteration of food or drugs, regulation of waste disposal, and selling liquor to minors.
71
Is there a Presumption against strict liability?
Criminal offenses requiring no mens rea are generally disfavored.
Courts have traditionally held that there must be some clear indication of congressional intent, express or implied, to dispense with mens rea as an element of the crime.
In determining legislative intent, courts will often consider the severity of the associated penalty.
THEREFORE, courts usually find crimes with relatively light penalties to be strict liability offenses, and those with more severe penalties (such as felony crimes) to have a mens rea element.
72
Strict liability vs. Vicarious Liability?
Vicarious liability differs from strict liability in that:
strict-liability crimes require only a personal act on the part of the defendant (actus reus);
vicarious liability crimes do not require an actus reus by the defendant. Instead, vicarious liability imposes criminal liability on the defendant for the actus reus of a third party.
73
When courts most commonly impose vicarious liability for strict-liability crimes?
For individual: most commonly when an employer or principal is vicariously liable for the crimes of an employee or agent.
For corporations: Modern statutes, impose vicarious liability on corporations when the offensive act is performed by an agent of the corporation
acting within the scope of his employment or when the act is performed by a high-ranking corporate agent who likely represents corporate policy.
74
T or F: The defendant must have committed the offense with a culpable state of mind to be liable.
True. (culpable state of mind can be any of the 4 state of minds)
75
T or F: defendant need not know that their conduct is illegal to be guilty of a crime.
True.
76
What does concurrence require?
Concurrence between:
1) The mental state and the act; and
2) The mind and the result
However, if the result is too attenuated from the original intent, there will likely be no concurrence and no liability
(i.e. if someone broke into a store to sleep, not to commit a felony, then there is no concurrence between the act of entering the store and intent to commit a felony, even if the intent was formed after he got into the place)
77
Define "causation"
When mens rea is a requirement of a crime, that mens rea must generally cause the actus res. In addition, the defendant’s act must cause the particular result made unlawful by statute
78
Causation requires both..?
Actual cause (“cause-in-fact) and proximate cause
79
What are two tests to determine whether actual cause exists?
1) “But for” causation: Criminal result would not have occurred “but for” D’s act;
or
2) Substantial Factor: D’s acts were a substantial factor in causing the criminal result (e.g. D’s acts shorten V’s life or speeds up their inevitable death)
Note: The decision whether to use the “but for” test or “substantial factor” test is state specific.
80
T or F: General intent is a “catch-all” category of intent. It requires that the defendant intend to commit an act that is prohibited by law (whether the defendant intended the act’s result is irrelevant)
True.
81
MPC proximate cause:
Exists when the actual result involves the same kind of harm that the D “designed or contemplated” and is not too “remote or accidental.
82
What should you ask when determining whether proximate cause exists?
Is the connection between the act and the harm so attenuated that it is unfair to hold D liable for that harm?
83
Is D still liable if there is a foreseeable intervening event?
Yes, D will likely still be liable because the causal chain has not been broken.
84
Carly pushes Max while ice skating, and Max falls and breaks his hip on the ice. Does causation exists?
Causation exists because it is forseeable that Max would fall on the ice if pushed.
85
V dies in an unforeseen manner not intended by D. Is D still liable?
Yes, if:
1) D directly caused V’s harm
For example, D likely still liable even if the injury is different than what the D intended (shooting in the foot vs. the head) and even if harm the occurs in a different way than what D intended;
2) V had a pre-existing condition that exacerbated the harm (Eggshell rule); or
3) V died from fright or stress
86
Define: superceding cause
Unforeseeable intervening cause.
Absolves D of liability if both the act and the injury are unforeseeable.
87
D punches V on the arm, after which V returns home, uninjured. That night, a burglar breaks into V’s home and and shoots V in the arm. is there a causation?
The causation for the gunshot does not exist for D.
88
If, after D causes V injury, V dies as a result of medical treatment, is D still liable?
Yes, unless the medical treatment was performed in a grossly negligent or reckless manner.
Medical treatment performed in an ordinarily negligent manner is NOT sufficient to supersede, it must be grossly negligent or reckless
89
D shoots V and a bystander refuses to render aid that would have saved V, will third party’s failure to act absolve the D of liability?
Never.
90
What could negates the mens rea required of a crime?
A mistake of fact.
but it must be an “honest mistake.”
The defense applies differently between specific- and general-intent crimes.
91
Is Mistake of fact a defense to a strict-liability crime?
Mistake of fact is never a defense to a strict-liability crime because strict-liability offenses do not have a mens rea.
92
Reasonableness of the mistake of fact? how reasonable?
1) A mistake of fact is a defense to a specific-intent crime, even if the mistake is unreasonable.
2) A mistake of fact must be reasonable in order to be a defense to a general-intent or malice crime.
93
An athlete takes an expensive gold watch from a table mistakenly thinking that it was her inexpensive black plastic sports watch. Is this enough to absolve her of the mens rea?
Yes. even though the athlete’s mistake of fact is unreasonable, the athlete lacks the intent to steal necessary to commit larceny, a specific-intent crime
94
Mistake of facts under the MPC?
Under the Model Penal Code, a mistake or ignorance of fact that negates the required state of mind for a material element of a crime is a defense
95
Mistake of law, valid defense?
Mistakes or ignorance of the law generally are not valid defense.
Exceptions:
i) Reasonable reliance on a statute or a court decision that later is held invalid.
ii) Reasonable reliance on official interpretation of the law by the government agency or official responsible for enforcing the law.
(This exception does not extend to reliance on advice of a private attorney, even if reasonable)
iii) An honestly held mistake of law negates the required intent (e.g., specific intent) or mental state (e.g., purposefully) for a material element of the
crime.
-----------------------
D reasonably relied on a statute that is invalid; or
Crime requires knowledge of the law itself (ex. crime requires D to “willfully” violate it; often applies to complicated tax laws)
96
Transferred intent is most commonly used with homicide, battery, and arson.
97
Is incorrect or bad legal advice from an attorney in itself a valid mistake-of-law defense?
It is not itself a valid mistake-of-law defense, but it may negate the required intent or mental state for a material element of the crime.
98
Does a mistake of law as to the existence of a defense permit a defendant to raise the defense?
a mistake of law as to the existence of a defense does not permit a defendant to raise the defense unless one of the exceptions enumerated
above applies.
99
How does the MPC treats deliberate ignorance? (i.e. a person is aware of hugh probablity that a fact exits)
MPC treats it as knowledge
100
How does the MPC treats deliberate ignorance? (i.e. a person is aware of hugh probablity that a fact exits)
MPC treats it as knowledge
101
Can a mistake negates the mens rea for one crime nonetheless be guilty for different crime?
Under the MPC, yes.
Example:
Josh physically kicked a person and caused them harm, not knowing he was a police officer. The state has a statute making committing a battery to a police officer makes is a felonious assault. However, because Josh did not know this person was a police officer, he cannot be charged with this felony. However, he can still be charged for regular battery because it would have been a crime whether he knew the police was an officer or not.
Note: HOWEVER, the other crime cannot be more serious than the crime would have committed. Meaning, be charged with something more serious than felonious assault.)
102
Transferred intent is most commonly used with and never with..
homicide, battery, and arson.
Never with attempt
103
Josh intended to steal bread for a starving child. Does he have the culpable mind?
Motive is irrelevant to mens rea. If one intends to steal, one has the mens rea
104
Intent may be inferred from the doing of the act to specific or general crimes?
Only general crimes. Additionally, an actual intent to commit the act is not required, merely creating a high risk that the act would occur is sufficient
105
Josh intended to steal bread for a starving child does he have a guilty mens rea?
Motive is irrelevant to mens rea. If one intends to steal, one has the mens rea
106
What are defenses that only apply to specific intent crimes?
voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact
107
What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of Solicitation?
Intent to have the person solicited commit the crime
108
What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of Attempt:
Intent to complete the crime
109
What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of Conspiracy?
Intent to have the crime completed
110
What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of First degree premeditated murder (by statute)
Premeditated, deliberate
intent to kill
111
What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of Assault:
Intent to commit a battery
112
What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of Larceny and robbery:
Intent to permanently deprive another of their interest in the property taken
113
What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crime of Burglary?
The intent at the time of entry to commit a felony in the dwelling of
another
114
What is the specific intent the prosecution must prove in the crimes of Forgery, False pretenses, and Embezzlement?
Intent to defraud.
115
Common law murder and arson are what types of intent crimes?
Malice.
116
To show malice, the prosecution need only show that
defendant recklessly disregarded an obvious or high risk that the harmful result would occur.
117
In what situations the D may be absolved of criminal responsibility?
If a person is found to be legally insane at the time of the act (tests).
If a person was intoxicated when they committed the crime depending if It was voluntary or involuntary intoxication.
118
if a crime is defined by a particular result. the prosecution must prove that D's conduct was...
the actual cause (or cause in fact) and the proximate cause (or legal cause) of that result
119
IF D attacked and injured V, and at the hospital V refused lifesaving blood tansfusion because of their religious beliefs and then they died. Is D the cause of V's death?
Yes, under the but-for test, but for D's conduct, V would have not been injured and placed in a hospital and would not have died.
120
When does "concurrent" causes exist? and how are these treated?
concurrent causes exist if
1) multiple forces combined cause a result
2) no one of these forces alone would have been sufficient to cause the result.
In this case, each force is deemed to be a "but-for cause" for the result
121
A man stabbed a neighbor, while at the same time his was shot the neighbor, however, it was found that neither the stab or the gun independently were sufficient to kill the neighbor. However, the neighbor is dead. Is there causation?
Yes, the combined causes are both deemed but-if for the result
122
What if someone Hasten's a victim impending death? (i.e. one person had one hour left to live, and their friend decided to kill him)
the person will be held responsible for causing the death. The action will be treated as a but-for cause for the person's death and not (the impending death)
123
What's the substantial factor test for (actual causation)? and when is it used? and how is it treated
It is used when 1) there are multiple forces if combined cause a result, and 2) any one of these factors alone would have been sufficient to cause that result, and 3) it is impossible to tell which force caused what portion of the results
Each force is treated as an actual cause, so long as it was substantial factor in bringing the about result
124
D's actions are proximate cause if..
if the result is a natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence of those actions
125
D stealing V's purse triggered an undiagonosed brain aneursym causing v's death. explain the causation?
D is the actual cause of v's death but he is not the proximate cause of D's death. Because stealing a purse does not usually causes death and it is unforeseeable that such action would cause such results.
126
What if a V as a preexisting condition exacerbates the harm caused by D?
V's preexisting condition will not break the casual chains and would not defeat the proximate cause, regardless if D knew or did not know about the condition before acting
127
In cases where there are intervening or superseding causes, how would that affect proximate causation?
If it was an unforeseeable event, it is considered a superseding event and can break the casual chain and defeat proximate.
if it was a foreseeable event, is is considered an intervening cause and it will not break the casual chain.
128
If V refused to take medical treatment, is that reason to break the casual chain?
No it is considered foreseeable and wont break the chain.
129
if there is a negligent medical treatment of a V, is it a reason to break the casual chain?
No, however, if the negligent medical treatment was grossly negligent or reckless, then yes.
130
If V's reaction's to D causes the death, is it a reason to break the casual chain?
Only if V's action is a proportionate or reasonable reaction to D's action.
i.e. D threatens V with a knife and V jumps out of a window on the third floor? maybe considered superseding.
