General Principles

Question 1

Standard of proof for each element

Answer 1

must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt

Question 2

To be guilty of a crime, the ∆must be

Answer 2

guilty of each element beyond a reasonable doubt

Question 3

Actus Reus Element met if

2

Answer 3

An act that is voluntary
or
Omission to act + under legal duty to act

Question 4

Elements to prove in each crime

Answer 4

1. Actus Resu
2. Mens Rea
3. Concurrence: Mens Rea drove the Actus Reus
4. Actual cause
5. Proximate Cause

Question 5

What are not voluntary acts

Answer 5

sleepwalking, hypnotized, or during an epileptic seizure there is no criminal act and no crime.

Unless they knew they were susceptible and took action anyway

Question 6

Are Habitual acts conditioned responses (conditioned reaction) a voluntary act?

Answer 6

Yes

Question 7

Are acts performed under duress voluntary

Answer 7

Yes

Question 8

When are there legal duties to act where an omission would fulfill actus reus?
(5)

Answer 8

a) Statutory duties (a law enforcement officer)
b) Legal duty by contract (a life guard)
c) Status relationship (husband/wife; parent/child)
d) Voluntary undertaking to rescue that is abandoned (telling others to stay back so you can rescue someone, and then abandoning the effort)
e) Failing to help after creating the risk of peril (hit and run)

Question 9

Main categories of mens rea

Answer 9

1. Purposeful
2. Knowledge
3. Intent
4. Willful
5. Recklessness
6. Crim. Neg.
7. Malice

Question 10

Purposeful mens rea

Answer 10

Conscious + objective

Question 11

Knowledge mens rea

Answer 11

Knows it is almost certain to produce result

Question 12

Intent mens rea

Answer 12

Acting with purpose or knowledge

Question 13

Incohate crimes mens rea

Answer 13

purposeful only

Question 14

Willful mens rea

2

Answer 14

acted purposefully or knowningly
+
moral turpitude

Question 15

Recklessness mens rea

2

Answer 15

when ∆is AWARE that conduct creates unjustifiable risk to others
+
Ignores it and engages anyway

Question 16

Criminal Negligence mens rea

3

Answer 16

a ∆ CREATES an unjustifiable risk
\+
∆ Subjectively unaware of the risk
\+
Reasonable person would have been aware

Question 17

Criminal negligence v. civil negligence

Answer 17

Criminal negligence = gross deviation from the normal standard of care

Question 18

What is specific intent requires

Answer 18

Proof that ∆intended to produce a specifically prohibited harm
(generally, purposeful or knowning)

Question 19

Whenever a crime includes the term “with intent to,” that is a

Answer 19

specific intent

Question 20

General intent requires

Answer 20

∆ desired to do the prescribed act

includes reckless + negligent

Question 21

How can specific intent element of a crime can be nullified by
(2)

Answer 21

1. honest but unreasonable mistake of fact

2. Voluntary intoxication

Question 22

How can a general intent element of a crime can be nullified by

Answer 22

honest and reasonable mistake of fact

Question 23

Malice mens rea

Answer 23

1. Express malice

2. Implied Malice

Question 24

Essential mens rea element for murder?

Answer 24

Malice

Question 25

Express Malice can be established through | 3

Answer 25

1. Purpose to kill another purpose 2. Acted with knowledge that conduct would kill 3. Intent to inflict serious bodily injury

Question 26

Implied Malice: is established by proving

Answer 26

that the defendant caused a death as the result of extreme reckless or criminally negligent conduct + that manifested a wanton disregard for the value of human life.

Question 27

Implied malice may be established even where | 2

Answer 27

Unintentional killing | Felony murder

Question 28

Strict liability mens rea

Answer 28

none Act+Result = Guilt

Question 29

When is mistake of fact never a defense

Answer 29

Strict Liability crimes

Question 30

unlawful killing + malice =

Answer 30

murder

Question 31

Transferred intent occurs where

Answer 31

the ∆ intends to produce against one party but inadvertently harms another party --> intent transfers to the unintended victim ≠ a defense that they harmed the wrong person

Question 32

What is the relationship between mens rea & actus reus?

Answer 32

In order to prove guilt, the Prosecution must prove that the act that causes the criminal result was actuated (set in motion) by the requisite criminal state of mind. This is called concurrence.

Question 33

Causation of element of a crime requires

Answer 33

Actual + Proximate cause Of the specific criminal result

Question 34

∆ cannot be proximate cause; unless,

Answer 34

they are actual cause

Question 35

Actual cause tests | 3

Answer 35

1. But for causation: criminal result would not have occurred but for the ∆'s act 2. Substantial Factor: when there are multiple causes or other parties responsible for the same criminal result, ∆ is the cause if ∆'s acts were a substantial factor in causing the criminal result. 3. Acceleration: when ∆'s conduct speeds up the inevitable death of someone (even by a matter of seconds)

Question 36

Proximate cause element satisfied by

Answer 36

1. If the harm was a foreseeable consequence of D’s conduct, D is the proximate cause; 2. if the harm was an unforeseeable result of D’s conduct, D is not the proximate cause.

Question 37

When is proximate cause analysis required

Answer 37

only when an intervening event comes between D’s actual cause and the criminal result.

Question 38

When will an intervening event supercede ∆'s criminal responsibility?

Answer 38

If the intervening event is foreseeable, it does not supersede; if it is unforeseeable, it normally will supersede.

Question 39

What type of conduct is foreseeable v. unforeseeable

Answer 39

Unforeseeable: gross negligence or reckless conduct Foreseeable: simple negligence, special sensitivities of the victim

Question 40

Questions to ask when determining if there is an intervening cause (2)

Answer 40

1. Was the intervening cause a dependent, or responsive intervening cause? Was it responsive to D’s initial cause? --> then not superseding 2. Or, was the intervening cause independent intervening cause or a mere coincidence? --> superseding