General principles Flashcards
Actus reus: possession
For possession to satisfy AR requirement, D must have had knowledge of possession or must have been in possession for sufficient time to terminate the possession
Mens rea: willful blindness
MR requirement may be imputed if circumstances alerted D to a high likelihood of criminal activity and D nonetheless failed to investigate
Four levels of MR under MPC
Most culpable to least:
(1) Purpose
(2) Knowledge
(3) Recklessness
(4) Negligence
Mens rea: an act is reckless if…
Actor is aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the actor’s conduct will cause a harmful result
Actor does not know that the result will likely occur; but actor does know that there is a big risk and proceeds with the act despite the risk
If a law does not specify a MR, what would a prosecutor most likely need to prove under C/L and MPC? (I.e., what would be the default MR)
C/L: knowledge
MPC: recklessness
Mens rea: mistake of fact (MPC)
Under the MPC, a reasonable mistake of fact will negate the mens rea required for criminal liability even if D is charged for a crime that only requires criminal negligence (the lowest MR standard)
True or false: under the MPC, the MR must be proved as to every material element of a criminal statute
True
True or false: grossly negligent or reckless behavior is generally foreseeable
False
Since it is not foreseeable, it is not a natural or probably cause of, e.g., a robber’s brandishing of a gun to a victim who then runs out into a street, gets hit by a car, and is operated on at a hospital by a drunk doctor who blunders her surgery and leads to victim’s death. In this case, doctor’s action would be an intervening cause that breaks the causal chain and absolves the robber of liability for the victim’s death.
True or false: a pre-existing medical condition is usually considered a dependent intervening clause
Yes
A victim with a pre-existing medical condition is sometimes referred to as an “eggshell victim”—a term also seen in tort law—b/c the person is by nature more susceptible to harm than the average victim. General rule w/ respect to eggshell victims is that you take ‘em as they come. I.e., pre-existing medical conditions, even untreated ones, are deemed to be foreseeable and do not break the chain of causation b/w D’s conduct and a resulting harm.
What counts as an act for purposes of AR?
(1) a voluntary act; (2) that causes; (3) social harm
MPC 2.01(1): A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable.
Concurrence Requirement: need to have a concurrence between an act and an appropriate state of mind.
MPC 1.13(2): Act or action means a bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary
not voluntary acts within the meaning of this section
-reflex or convulsion
-bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep [somnambulism, see Cogdan]
-conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion [hypnosis]
-a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effect or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual;
MPC treats habitual action done without thought as voluntary action because habitual actions, even when unintentional, are nonetheless “a product of the effort or determination of the actor”
[MPC defines voluntariness indirectly, by simply listing examples of involuntary acts]
True or false: Court can only impose civil penalties for vicarious SL crimes (cannot jail a bar owner if waitress sells alcohol to a minor)
True
Causation: foreseeability: C/L
D’s wrongful act must be both the factual/actual cause (“but for,” “substantial”) and the proximate/legal cause (reasonably foreseeable) of the relevant harm
- Factual/Actual: but for/sine qua non – the harm would not occurred with the D’s act
- Proximate/Legal: the act must bear a sufficiently close relationship to the resulting harm (uses “reasonably foreseeable” as a statistical standard)—conduct is SUFFICIENTLY DIRECT CAUSE and REASONABLY RELATED to the ultimate harm. (Gives a lot of discretion to the jury.)
Causation: foreseeability: MPC
MPC: But-for is the exclusive meaning of “causation.” Proximate cause relates to the actor’s mens rea.
Cause in Fact - MPC 2.03(1)(a): Conduct is cause of result when it is an antecedent, but-for which result in question would not have occurred
Causation: foreseeability: proximate cause: MPC
Proximate Cause - MPC 2.03(2)(b):
When Purpose or Knowledge of causing a particular result is element of an offense, the MR element is not established if the actual result was not within purpose or contemplation of actor
UNLESS the actual result involves same kind of injury or harm as that desired or contemplated AND is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on actor’s liability or gravity of offense.
Morse: “Not too remote or accidental” —> gets back to foreseeability
