General Principles

Question 1

What is the principle of actus reus?

Answer 1

A voluntary or affirmative act
OR
An omission (failure to act)
CAUSING
A criminally proscribed result.

Question 2

What are the two requirements of a voluntary act?

Answer 2

An act that is:
-> physical
AND
-> voluntary.

Question 3

Does an act committed while unconscious, asleep or under hypnosis considered a “voluntary act”?

Answer 3

No it is not.

Question 4

Under what circumstances has someone “failed to act” when there is a duty that exists?

Answer 4

Duties which impose a duty to act exists under the following circumstances:
-> imposed by statute (e.g. the obligation to file a tax return)
-> contract (e.g. a lifeguard saving a drowning person)
-> special relationship (e.g. a parent’s duty to her child or the duty to one’s spouse)
-> detrimental undertaking (e.g. leaving a victim in worse condition after treatment)
-> causation (e.g. failing to aid after causing a victim’s peril)

Question 5

What is mens rea?

Answer 5

It’s the mental state during a crime which is necessary for the punishment of the crime. It can either be a guilty mind or a legally prescribed mental state.

Question 6

Is there a mens rea for strict liability crimes?

Answer 6

No.

Question 7

If a statute doesn’t have a mens rea element, how do you know it’s a strict liability statute?

Answer 7

In determining whether the legislature intended to impose strict liability for a crime, courts often consider the severity of the associated penalty.
-> Crimes with relatively light penalties (e.g., fine-only crimes) are more likely to be strict liability offenses than those with severe penalties.
-> Additionally, strict liability crimes are often regulatory in nature and related to public health and safety.

Question 8

Do all criminal offenses have a mens rea?

What happens if the statute or law doesn’t state it under the MPC?

Answer 8

Most criminal offenses have a requisite mens rea, but courts may need to look at the statute’s legislative intent to appropriately apply this requirement.

Additionally, the prosecution must prove that the defendant, at a minimum, possessed the requisite mens rea to obtain a conviction.

When a statute does not specify the requisite mental state, the minimum required mental state according to the MPC is recklessness—i.e., the conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustified risk that:
-> the material element exists
OR
-> the material element will result from the defendant’s conduct.

Question 9

What is a specific-intent crime and what are four examples of it?

Answer 9

It’s a crime in which the D has a subjective desire, specific objective, or knowledge to accomplish the prohibited act.

First-degree murder
Inchoate offenses
Assault with intent to commit battery
Theft offenses

Question 10

What are malice crimes? What are two examples of it?

Answer 10

They’re CL crimes such as murder and arson.

The D acted with a reckless disregard of a high risk of harm, doesn’t require D to act with ill will toward victim.

Question 11

What are general-intent crimes?

Answer 11

Requires the intent to perform an unlawful act.

Question 12

What are the types of intent a D can have?

Answer 12

Purposefully
Knowingly
Recklessly
Negligently

Question 13

How does transfer of intent work?

Answer 13

When D acts with intent to cause harm to one person or object, and that act directly results in harm to another person or object.

Question 14

Does transfer of intent work for mistaken identity situations?

Answer 14

No, only “bad aim” situations.

Question 15

What kind of crimes is transfer of intent usually confined to?

Answer 15

Homicide, battery and arson

Question 16

Can transfer of intent be used for attempted crimes?

Answer 16

No, only completed crimes.

Question 17

Does the Model Penal Code recognize transfer of intent?

Answer 17

Not specifically recognized, but liability is recognized when purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causing a particular result is an element of an offense.

Question 18

How does the model penal code define:
-> purposely
-> knowingly/willfully
-> recklessly
-> negligently

Answer 18

Purposely
-> D’s conscious objective is to engage in the conduct or to cause a certain result

Knowingly/willfully
-> D is aware or knows that the result is practically certain to occur

Recklessly
-> D acts with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk

Negligently
-> D should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a material element of a crime exists or will result from the conduct (i.e., a gross deviation from the standard of care)

Question 19

What are strict-liability crimes?

What are three examples of ti?

Answer 19

No mens rea needed; proof of the actus reus is sufficient for conviction.

Statutory rape, bigamy, regulation of food and drugs

Question 20

Are strict-liability crimes something that is generally favored in the legal system?

Answer 20

No, they’re generally disfavored. There must be clear legislative intent to dispense with the mens rea.

Question 21

How does vicarious liability work?

What kind of crimes fall under vicarious liability and what is the general punishment for them?

Answer 21

No actus reus by D; imposes criminal liability on D for the actus reus of a third party.

Generally limited to regulatory crimes; punishment generally limited to fines.

Question 22

When is a corporation vicarious liable for the actions of another?

Answer 22

May be vicariously liable when the act is performed by a high-ranking corporate agent who likely represents corporate policy.

Question 23

How does causation work in criminal law?

Answer 23

D’s conduct must cause the particular result or circumstances of the crime.

Question 24

Can mistake be used as a defense?

Answer 24

Mistake may negate criminal intent if it is an “honest mistake.”

Question 25

How does mistake of fact work under -> CL -> MPC -> strict liability

Answer 25

CL -> a defense to specific-intent crimes, even if unreasonable -> a defense to general-intent or malice crimes, only if reasonable MPC -> serves as a defense if it prevents prosecution from establishing the required state of mind for a material element of a crime Strict liability -> no defense

Question 26

Is a mistake of law a defense under CL and the MPC?

Answer 26

Not CL but only the MPC

Question 27

How does a mistake of law row under the MPC?

Answer 27

Mistake of law is a defense under the MPC IF -> an honestly held mistake of law negates required intent or mental state OR -> D relied on court decision/administrative order or official interpretation that was found to be erroneous after the conduct OR -> statutory definition of malum prohibitum crime (crime prohibited by a statute) not available before conduct

Question 28

Can a lawyer incorrectly telling a D the law, but used as a defense under the mistake of law? Can this be an overall defense to criminal liability?

Answer 28

Yes with regard to the element of giving the D an honestly held mistake of law which negates the required intent or mental state. Never.

Question 29

Who is the principal party to a crime?

Answer 29

The person whose acts or omissions are the actus reus of the crime, and who is either actively or constructively present at the scene of the crime.

Question 30

Who is an accomplice?

Answer 30

A person who, -> with the requisite mens rea (intent to commit the crime), -> aids or abets a principal prior to or during the commission of the crime.

Question 31

Must an accomplice be present at the scene of the crime to be considered an accomplice?

Answer 31

An accomplice is responsible for the crime to the same extent as the principal regardless of whether the accomplice participated in or was present at the crime.

Question 32

Who is a principal in the second degree?

Answer 32

An accomplice who is physically or constructively present during the commission of the crime.

Question 33

Who is an accessory before the fact?

Answer 33

An accomplice who is NEITHER physically nor constructively present during the commission of the crime, BUT who possesses the requisite intent.

Question 34

How does accomplice liability work?

Answer 34

They are responsible for the crime and all other crimes that are the natural and probable consequences of the accomplice's conduct.

Question 35

How can an accomplice withdraw from a crime?

Answer 35

To withdraw, an accomplice must: -> repudiate prior aid -> do all that is possible to countermand prior assistance, and -> do so before the chain of events is in motion and unstoppable

Question 36

How does the CL and modern majority view differ regarding an accomplice can be convicted of a crime if the principal is tried or convicted?

Answer 36

At common law, an accomplice could be convicted of the crime only if the principal was previously convicted. However, under the modern majority view, an accomplice may be convicted of a crime even if the principal is not tried, is not convicted, has received immunity from prosecution, or is acquitted.

Question 37

Who is an accessory after the fact?

Answer 37

Aids or assists a felon to avoid apprehension or condition after commission of the felony. They must know that a felony was committed.

Question 38

What crime is an accessory after the fact liable for?

Answer 38

Only label for a separate crime (e.g. "obstruction of justice" or "harboring a fugitive").

Question 39

How does insanity work as a defense to a crime?

Answer 39

The existence of insanity must have been present during the time of the commission of the crime.

Question 40

What are the four tests of insanity?

Answer 40

M'Naghten test Irresistible Impulse test Durham test MPC test

Question 41

How does the M'Naghten test for insanity work?

Answer 41

D did not know either -> the nature and quality of the act OR -> the wrongfulness of the act BECAUSE -> of a defect of reason due to mental diseases Aka, the "right from wrong" test.

Question 42

How does the Irresistible Impulse test for insanity work?

Answer 42

D lacked -> capacity for self-control AND -> free choice DUE -> to mental disease or defect (inability to conform conduct to the law)

Question 43

How does the Durham test for insanity work?

Answer 43

The unlawful act was the product of D's mental disease or defect ("but for" test).

Question 44

How does the MPC test for insanity work?

Answer 44

Combines M'Naghten and irresistible impulse At the time of the conduct, D lacked -> substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act OR -> to conform his conduct to law, AS A RESULT -> of mental disease or defect.

Question 45

How does voluntary intoxication work as a defense to responsibility? What kinds of crime is it a defense to? How does the MPC see this defense?

Answer 45

A person who intentionally takes a substance that is known to be intoxicating, but does not need to intend actual intoxication. A defense to specific-intent crimes if it prevents the formation of the required intent. A defense to crimes with a mental state that is "purposely" OR "knowingly" and the intoxication prevents the formation of that mental state.

Question 46

How does involuntary intoxication work as a defense to responsibility? What kinds of crimes is it a defense to?

Answer 46

Person takes intoxicating substance without knowledge of the intoxicating nature of the substance, or under duress. A defense when intoxication negates an element of a general-intent, specific-intent, OR malice crime. May be a defense to a strict-liability crime by negating the voluntary act of such a crime.