General Intent Crimes Flashcards
What are the requirements for arson?
Arson is a malice crime and requires: (i) the malicious (with intent OR extreme recklessness); (ii) burning (some damage to structure caused by fire); (iii) of the dwelling house of another (under common law this means a structure where someone else lives, but on the MBE, it can be non-residential structure owned by the defendant).
As mentioned above, when the MBE tests on the crime of arson, it will impliedly follow the modern trend that the structure does not need to be the dwelling of another. Here, the answer choices focus on intent, so it’s important to focus on the malicious intent rather than getting hung up on the fact that the defendant’s actions do not fall within the common law definition of arson (the fact that the structure is not the dwelling of another).
A is correct. To establish malice in an arson case, the prosecution need only show that the defendant displayed extreme recklessness or recklessly disregarded an obvious or high risk that the burning of the structure would occur. Here, the facts state that the defendant, while looking through the basement for flammable material, he lit a match to read the label on a can. The match burned his finger and, in a reflex action, he dropped the match. It fell into a barrel and ignited some paper. The defendant could have put out the fire, but instead left the building because he wanted the building destroyed. This meets the malicious intent required for an arson conviction.
B is incorrect. As discussed above, arson is a malice crime. Malicious intent requires more than mere negligence. Negligence alone is insufficient proof of malicious burning. In this case, the defendant’s recklessness, combined with the obvious risk of the burning, demonstrates malice and the defendant can properly be convicted of arson.
C is incorrect. Arson is a malice crime and not a specific intent crime. As such, arson requires only the malicious burning of the building, as evidenced by extreme recklessness, not the specific intent to burn the building down.
D is incorrect. The burning of the structure need not be intentional, as long as it is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s extremely reckless lighting of a match around flammable materials and then letting the fire grow. Because the defendant allowed a minor fire, which he started, to spread throughout the building because he wanted the building destroyed, he is guilty of arson.
Whether a principal and an assessory be tried together?
A principal and accessory can be tried together, and the principal does not have to be convicted before the accomplice can be convicted. In fact, the principal does not have to be convicted at all, or even charged, in order for an accomplice to be found guilty of aiding, abetting, or facilitating the principal’s commission of a crime. Just because the principal is not convicted or charged does not mean that the crime did not occur and that the accomplice did not aid, abet, or facilitate its commission. The identity of the principal need not even be known in order to prosecute and convict an accomplice, as long as it can be proven that someone committed the underlying crime and that the alleged accomplice aided, abetted, or facilitated its commission.
What is a battery?
A harmful or offensive contact.
The woman gave no indication that she did not want to be subjected to the ordinary touches that are part of life in a crowded society. In the absence of such an indication from her, the passenger was entitled to believe that she implicitly consented to a light tap to get her attention. The passenger’s touch was neither unreasonable nor inconsistent with ordinary social norms privileging such contacts, and would not amount to offensive or harmful contact sufficient to give rise to a claim for battery.
B is incorrect. This answer correctly states that the woman cannot prevail, but it misstates the legal basis for this conclusion. It is true that the woman would have to prove that she thought that she was about to be touched in order to recover in an action for assault. But the elements of a negligence or a battery action could be established without any reference to whether she had an apprehension of this or contact of any other sort. The reason she cannot recover, despite being seriously injured, is because she gave no indication that she did not want to be subjected to the ordinary touches that are part of life in a crowded society. The passenger’s touch was neither unreasonable nor inconsistent with ordinary social norms privileging such contacts.
C is incorrect. People are presumed to have consented to the ordinary contacts of daily life. Although the passenger intended to touch the woman, he did not intend a harmful or offensive touching, and the woman gave no indication that she did not want to be subjected to the ordinary touches that are part of life in a crowded society. The touch was neither unreasonable nor inconsistent with ordinary social norms privileging such contacts.
D is incorrect. Serious injury is neither necessary nor sufficient to support either battery or negligence, although some damage would be required to recover in negligence. Here, although the woman was seriously injured, she will not prevail because she gave no indication that she did not want to be subjected to the ordinary touches that are part of life in a crowded society. The passenger’s touch was neither unreasonable nor inconsistent with ordinary social norms privileging such contacts.
