My - Crim Flashcards
Recklessly
Know of the substantial or unjustifiable Risk but do it anyway + the disregard is a gross deviation form the “reasonable man” standard
Knowingly
Aware of the nature of conduct or conduct will cause result
Purposely
Conscious effort to engage in the conduct
or
cause the result
Negligently
Not aware of the risk the conduct causes even though should have + the disregard is a gross deviation form the “reasonable man” standard
Actus Reus 2 Elements
- Voluntary Act or Legal Omission (failure to act)~that causes ~
- Harm / “social harm”
Mens Rea
Guilty mind; criminal intent - culpability depends on what D is thinking
**Criminal Intent **
Actus Reus + Mens Rea (BOTH! Try to defeat or prove one or other or both !!! Test DOH !)
Omission - Duties to Act
- Status; mother / child
- Contract; Lifeguard
- Statute; File Taxes
- Volunteered to assume car (and secluded person in a manner that renders others from giving aid
Can a CEO be held criminally liable for strict liability crime?
Yes is the CEO is in a ‘responsible relationship’ to the harm
Why is a car crash due to a heart attack not a criminal act?
Due to the requirement of VOLUNTARINESS OF ACTION as a conduct element in crim liability. In this case D did not chose to have a heart attack - This is an Involuntary Act
Billy is drowning. Stranger leaps in to save, others don’t because he did. Stranger changes his mind at last moment and swims back to shore. Legal duty?
YES
- assumption of care
- creation of peril
Is a reasonable mistake of age defense to statutory rape?
No because Age is a strict liability element of crime
Under what two circumstances is one said to intend the results of his acts?
DESIRE: When he desires the result regardless of the likelihood it will come about, and
KNOWLEDGE: When he knows the result is substantially certain to occur, regardless of his desire to bring it about.
Dracula, Mummy, and Werewolf are sitting around drinking and playing cards. Mummy and Werewolf discover that Dracula has trump cards hidden under his cloak and that he has been cheating them all night. Infuriated, Mummy begins beating Dracula savagely with a bottle, and Dracula dies. Moments later, without realizing Dracula is already dead, Werewolf says, “I’ll finish this crook,” and slashes Dracula’s throat with a razor-sharp claw. Can Werewolf be charged with murder?
No. No Actus Reus
Every element of a criminal definition must be met to show that a crime has occurred. Even though Werewolf acted with the intent to cause death, he did not in fact cause the prohibited harm, and thus one of the essential elements of the crime is missing. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person; here, Werewolf was unable to kill his victim because Dracula was already dead at the time of Werewolf’s attack.
NOTE:
Although Werewolf may not be charged with murder or any other species of homicide, he might be subject to prosecution for criminal attempt.
Hi and Lois Flagstone, husband and wife, are ice skating on Golden Pond, when Hi falls through the ice. Lois skates blithely away, knowing that no one else is close enough to save him. Is Lois guilty of murder?
Yes, because she omitted to act where she had a legal duty (arising out of the husband-wife relationship), she was apparently able to help, and her intentional omission proximately caused Hi’s death.
Under what circumstances is a person said to act “intentionally/purposefully”?
When his conscious objective is either to
engage in certain behavior
~or~
cause a certain result.
When is ignorance or mistake of fact a good defense to a criminal prosecution?
Only where it negates the necessary mens rea.
If there would have been no crime committed if the facts had been as the defendant actually and reasonably believed, mistake of fact is a good defense.
(Note that for specific intent crimes, e.g., FIAT reasonableness of belief is not required.)
Mistake of fact negates the mens rea—it shows that the defendant did not have a guilty mind.
Faustus kills Mephistopheles, whom he mistakenly believes is Satan incarnate. Is his mistaken belief a good defense to a charge of murder?
No, because Faustus’ belief is unreasonable. His belief may go to the issue of his sanity, in an insanity defense, however.
- unreasonable mistake of fact
- not for common law murder
The State of Euphoria has a statute prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to individuals under age 21. The crime is considered a misdemeanor. Sylvia Swizzlestick is prosecuted for violating the statute. Sylvia defends on grounds that she mistakenly believed the person buying the alcohol was 21, because he looked just like a 22-year-old whose identification she had already checked. Could her mistake, if reasonable, exonerate her?
No. The crime is a strict liability offense, which means that Sylvia need not be aware of all the elements of the offense to be held liable. The statute does not require a mens rea, is regulatory, and is a misdemeanor—all hallmarks of a strict liability offense.
Is “mistake of law” a valid defense to a criminal charge?
In general, no. Thus, if a defendant mistakenly believes his acts are not proscribed, or if he is simply unaware of the law proscribing his behavior, he’ll still be liable—no matter how reasonable his belief is.
(Note that if defendant had advice as to the law on which he could reasonably rely—e.g., a judicial decision—and the source was mistaken, he will have a valid defense. However, the source cannot be his own private lawyer.)
Brutus intentionally stabs Caesar in the leg with a sword. Caesar is hospitalized for the wound. While he is in the hospital and weak from surgery, Marc Antony enters and stabs the Emperor through the heart. Is Brutus guilty of homicide, because Caesar would not have been vulnerable to Marc Antony “but for” Brutus’ initial attack?
No, because Marc Antony’s act was an independent, intervening, unforeseeable cause that breaks the chain of proximate causation. Marc Antony is the only person responsible for the homicide.
Bob Ford intends to kill Jesse James. He shoots at James and misses while James is riding his horse. To escape Ford’s shots, James turns his horse and gallops off in the opposite direction, where he is struck and killed by a boulder from an unexpected rockslide. Is Ford’s conduct a proximate cause of James’ death?
No. Although Ford’s conduct satisfies the “but for” test, the rockslide is an independent, intervening, unforeseeable cause.
Antony intended to kill Cleopatra and poisoned her. The poison was not fatal, but required Cleo to be hospitalized. While in the hospital, and due to the hospital’s gross negligence, Cleo is administered a supposed antidote, which is actually deadly poison, and she dies. Is Antony’s act the proximate cause of Cleo’s death?
No. The negligent treatment in the hospital is independent, intervening, and unforeseeable, because the hospital acted with gross negligence.
Adam intends to kill Eve and approaches her with a poisoned apple. To avoid eating the apple, which Eve knows to be poisoned, she jumps out of her treehouse into the mouth of a tiger and is killed. Is Adam’s act a proximate cause of Eve’s death?
Yes. Although Eve’s act is intervening and unforeseeable, it is not independent of Adam’s conduct, but a direct response to it.
Miles Standish and John Alden are rivals for Priscilla’s affections. To better his chances, Standish administers a mild poison to Alden in a piece of pumpkin pie. Alden is particularly sensitive to the poison and dies. Is Standish guilty of common law murder?
YES -Modern statutes separate murder into degrees. A murder becomes a first-degree murder if it involves premeditation or deliberation or it is committed in the course of a felony. In many states, killing by poison would constitute first-degree murder (because the use of poison indicates premeditation)
What are the four elements of “adequate provocation” that will reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter?
There are two subjective elements and two objective elements:
SUBJECTIVE:
- The defendant must have in fact been provoked (he must be in the “heat of passion”);
- The defendant must not have “cooled off.” between the provocation and the killing.
OBJECTIVE:
- A reasonable person would have been provoked (i.e., there must be adequate provocation); and
- A reasonable person, provoked in the same way, would not have “cooled off.” between the provocation and the killing.
Under what circumstances is homicide justifiable?
- Where the killing is necessary,
- The killer is without fault;
and - The killing occurs in:
a) The performance of a legal duty
OR
b) The exercise of a legal right.
If Def intends to cause Victim serious injury and V later dies as a result of a further event affected by the attack is Def guilty of murder?
Provided Def intended to cause Victim serious injury, this is enough to convict.
Harriet plots to kill Frank during hunting by shooting him. She does so. Is this first degree murder?
Yes, she planned and carried out simultaneously with that intent.
Harriet plots to kill Frank during hunting by shooting him. On the way, she unknowingly runs over and kills him. Is this first degree murder?
NO because she did not have the intent coupled with act b/c she ran over him accidentally.
