General principals Flashcards
Transferred Intent
Under the doctrine of transferred intent, when a defendant acts with an intent to cause harm to one person and that act directly results in harm to another person, the defendant is treated as having the intent to cause harm to the person harmed.
Accomplice Liability
Under the majority and MPC rule, an accomplice is a person who, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, aids or abets a principal prior to or during the commission of the crime. The accomplice’s assistance to the principal may be verbal encouragement, financial assistance, or physical assistance, provided that the accomplice has the requisite intent to encourage or assist in the commission of the crime. An accomplice is responsible for the crime to the same extent as the principal. If the principal commits crimes other than the crimes for which the accomplice has provided encouragement or assistance, an accomplice is liable for the other crimes if they are the natural and probable consequences of the accomplice’s conduct.
When can a defendant assert a mistake of law defense?
As with a mistake of law regarding whether conduct constitutes a crime, a mistake of law as to the existence of a defense generally does not permit a defendant to raise the defense. However, when the defense turns on the existence of a material element and the defendant’s honestly held mistake of law negates the required mental state for that element, the defendant may assert the defense
Mens rea standard that calls for the defendant to have act recklessly for conviction under a statute
The mens rea or scienter standard for a conviction under the statute is recklessness, defined as disregard of a substantial and unjustified risk. Given the totality of the circumstances – including the crime’s location, the victim’s age, and the defendant’s intent and unjustifiable actions – a jury could properly conclude that the defendant had acted with reckless disregard
Does a strict liability crime require Mens Rea?
A strict-liability crime does not require a mens rea, rather, proof of the actus reus is sufficient for a conviction. 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, finding 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.
Is a person deemed an accomplice if the other party actions are an essential element of the crime?
A person is not guilty as an accomplice when that person’s action is itself an essential element of the crime.
When the crime requires another party (i.e., the crime of distributing drugs requires a purchaser), the other party is not, simply by engaging in the criminal act, guilty of the crime as an accomplice.
