General Principles Flashcards
What is Actus Reus?
The actus reus is the guilty act committed by the defendant
What are the elements of Actus Reus?
b) An actus reus is either:
i) a voluntary, conscious act that causes an unlawful result; or
(1) Act plus volition equals legal act
(2) Reflexes or sleepwalking lack volition, and so are not legal acts
ii) the defendant fails to act when they have the duty and ability to do so. Examples include:
(1) statutory duties (such as law enforcement);
(2) a legal duty arising by contract (such as a life guard or employee of a nursing home);
(3) relationship status (i.e., husband/wife or parent/child);
(4) a voluntary undertaking to rescue that is abandoned; or
(5) failing to help after creating the risk (i.e., a hit and run)
Exam tip!
be alert to a problem where the evidence fails to prove one of these essential elements.
remember that a mission element = not guilty
Exam tip!
MPC is a minority rule
you should apply it only if it the Q directs you to
otherwise, apply the majority rule, which is often the modern rule or the CL rule if there is no modern majority rule
What is Mens Rea?
The mens rea refers to the guilty mind of the defendant
What are the categories of Mens Rea?
b) The categories of mens rea (normally defined by statute) include:
i) Purpose – Conscious objective to bring about result
ii) Knowledge – Knows, with almost absolute certainty, that the act will produce the result
iii) Intent – Acts intentionally with purpose or knowledge
iv) Willful – Acts purposefully or knowingly, with moral turpitude (similar to intent)
v) Recklessness – Aware that conduct creates risk that’s unjustifiable, but ignores and engages anyway
(1) “The defendant knew the risk but didn’t care”
vi) Criminal negligence – Creates an unjustifiable risk without the subjective awareness that they are doing so, but a reasonable person would have been aware
(1) “The defendant did not realize the defendant created the risk, but should have, because a reasonable person in that situation would have”
Mens Rea: Specific vs. General Intent
i) Specific intent – Requires proof that the defendant intended to create specifically prohibited harm
(1) Includes purpose or knowledge (“with intent to”)
(2) Nullified by honest but unreasonable mistake of fact and voluntary intoxication
ii) General intent – Only requires the desire to do the proscribed act
(1) Includes reckless and negligent states of mind
(2) Nullified by honest and reasonable mistake of fact
Mens Rea: Malice
i) Essential mens rea element for murder at common law
ii) Express Malice: The defendant intended to kill another human being
(1) To prove intent to kill, the defendant must have acted with:
(a) purpose to kill;
(b) knowledge that their conduct would kill; or
(c) an intent to inflict grievous bodily harm without the intent to kill
iii) Implied Malice: The defendant caused the death as a result of extreme reckless or criminal negligent conduct that manifested a wanton disregard for human life
Mens Rea: Strict Liability
i) No mens rea element
ii) Act plus result equals guilt
Mens Rea: Transferred Intent
i) The defendant intended to produce the criminal result against one victim, but harmed another – intent transfers
Mens Rea: Concurrence
i) Mental state must actuate (set in motion) the conduct that produces criminal result
Causation: Actual Cause (Cause-in-fact)
i) There are three tests to satisfy actual causation:
(1) “but for” – the result would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct;
(2) substantial factor – multiple causes or parties were responsible, but the defendant’s act was a substantial factor in causing the criminal result; and
(3) acceleration – the defendant’s conduct speeds up an inevitable death, even if only briefly
Causation: Proximate Cause
i) The resultant harm must be within the risk created by the defendant’s conduct in crimes involving negligence or recklessness, or sufficiently similar to that intended in crimes requiring intent
(1) An intervening event may result in breaking the chain of proximate cause. The question becomes whether the intervening event supersedes (cuts off) the defendant’s responsibility
ii) If the intervening event is foreseeable, it will NOT supersede; the defendant will still be liable
(1) Whether the event was foreseeable is the same as for negligence (the defendant takes the victim as they find him; think eggshell-plaintiff rule)
(a) The event is dependent on or responsive to the defendant’s initial cause
iii) If it is unforeseeable, normally the event will supersede, meaning the defendant will be relieved of liability and the casual connection will be broken to the criminal result
(1) Unforeseeable requires grossly negligent or reckless conduct that accelerates a death set in motion by the defendant
(a) Independent intervening cause or a mere coincidence
