Overview & Elements of a Crime Flashcards
scope of criminal jurisdiction
• A person may be tried in any state that has a connection to the crime, including the state where the criminal act (or omission) occurred and/or the state where the harmful result occurred.
– Example: A, while stealing B’s car in Bristol, Virginia, stabs B and forces B into the trunk. A then drives B’s car toward the Tennessee state line. B dies in Bristol, Tennessee. A is tried for murder in Virginia and Tennessee. A moves to dismiss both cases for lack of jurisdiction. Should either case be dismissed?
»> No, because a state has jurisdiction when the offense is committed wholly or partly within the state.
merger doctrine - general rule
• Merger: Under the doctrine of merger, an accused may be convicted for only one offense despite the fact that he committed multiple offenses
merger doctrine and inchoate crimes
solicitation; attempt; conspiracy
- solicitation merges into conspiracy, attempt, and the completed crime
- attempt merges into the completed crime
- but conspiracy does NOT merge into attempt or the completed crime (e.g., a person may be convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder)
• **Under the ALI Model Penal Code (“M.P.C.”), a defendant who intends to commit a single crime (e.g., murder) may not be convicted of more than one inchoate crime.
»> For example, if a defendant commits conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder, the defendant may not be convicted of both inchoate crimes.
merger doctrine and lesser included offenses
rule; robbery; felony murder; reckless driving
– “Lesser included offenses” merge into the greater offense; a lesser included offense is one that consists entirely of some, but not all, elements of the greater offense
»> remember, must be a crime against the same person!
**note: questions won’t often explicitly test merger - it will be woven into the problem
- Robbery: larceny and assault (or battery) merge into robbery (or attempted robbery) because all of the elements of both larceny and assault (or battery) must be proved for robbery (or attempted robbery) - assuming there is only one victim
- Felony-Murder: the underlying felony (e.g., robbery) merges into felony-murder, assuming there is only one victim
- Reckless Driving (or DUI): does not merge into involuntary manslaughter (even where the reckless driving caused the death) because each crime requires proof of at least one distinct element—a person may be convicted of reckless driving without causing a death and may be convicted of involuntary manslaughter without using a vehicle
four elements of a crime
- A. Physical Act
- B. Mental State
- C. Concurrence of Physical Act and Mental State
- D. Causation
physical act/actus reus
definition; what is not a physical act - 5 categories; omissions & 4 exceptions
• Definition: A willed muscular movement of the defendant.
– The following are NOT physical acts for criminal liability:
»> sleepwalking
»> reflexes
»> convulsions
»> hypnosis
»> being physically forced by another (e.g., A pushes B into C. A is guilty of battery, but not B)
• Omissions: As a general rule, a person’s failure to act will not constitute a crime.
– unless, (similar to the duty for intentional torts) there is a legal duty imposed by:
»> a statute,
»> a special relationship,
»> a contract, or
»> voluntary assumption of a duty (secluding the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid; or causing the peril through your own conduct!) – must act reasonably to alleviate the harm
»> **the omission must be the immediate and direct cause of death
mental state/mens rea
four mental states; doctrine of transferred intent
• The common law recognizes four mental states for criminal liability: – 1. Specific Intent Crimes – 2. Malice Crimes – 3. General Intent Crimes – 4. Strict Liability Crimes
• Criminal law also recognizes the doctrine of transferred intent; it is most often applied in homicide, assault, and battery cases.
»> Transferred intent DOES NOT APPLY TO ATTEMPT (but watch for multiple victims!)
– Problem: A shoots at B intending to kill B. The bullet misses B but kills C. Is A guilty of murdering C?
»> Yes, A’s intent to kill B will be transferred to C.
»> ***but if A only injures C – A can only be convicted of attempted murder of B, not attempted murder of C because “attempted murder” does not transfer
»> **note, attempt would not merge because there are technically 2 different crimes against 2 individuals
specific intent crimes
definition; trigger language; 5 types; key note and special defenses
– Definition: Crimes for which the prosecution must prove the accused’s intent as a separate element.
**trigger words: “does x with the intent to…”
– List:
»> all theft and lying crimes (larceny, robbery, burglary, forgery, false pretenses, embezzlement, bribery, and perjury)
»> all inchoate crimes (solicitation, conspiracy, attempt)
»> first degree murder (in states with statutes differentiating degrees of murder)
»> assault (but only the attempted battery type)
»> accomplice liability
– Pneumonic: Students Can Always Fake A Laugh, Even For Ridiculous Bar Facts
– Note: It is important to memorize this list of specific intent crimes, as the mental state of such crimes is frequently tested. In addition, there are two defenses (i.e., voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact) that apply only to these crimes.
• **does not mean other defenses can’t potentially be used against these crimes – for instance reasonable mistake can be used for specific intent crimes as well because mistake negates intent!
malice crimes (definition; list of 4)
– Definition: Crimes in which the accused acted with (at least) extreme recklessness (i.e. reckless indifference).
– List: >>> common law murder (and second degree murder in states with statutes differentiating degrees of murder) >>> arson >>> malicious mischief >>> house burning
**note: if you are faced with a situation where you can choose recklessness or extreme recklessness – if someone is pointing a loaded gun in the direction of people, it is extreme recklessness (also referred to as acting “maliciously”)
general intent crimes
definition; list
– Definition: Crimes in which the accused acted with at least ordinary recklessness or gross negligence.
»> **can be inferred from the mere doing of the act
– List:
»> All crimes that do not require specific intent or malice, including battery, rape, kidnapping, false imprisonment, mayhem, criminal trespass, involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, and assault (of the “threat” kind).
– If the mental state requirement of a crime is unclear, the default is general intent.
strict liability crimes
definition; list of 5; defenses
– Definition: A crime in which the accused’s mental state is irrelevant.
– List:
• statutory rape
• selling or providing liquor to minors
• bigamy
• DWI/DUI (and most other traffic violations that are criminal in nature)
»> Reckless driving is a general intent crime.
• Many regulatory, environmental, and public welfare offenses (e.g., selling impure or adulterated food or alcohol)
»> **if the Bar gives you an administrative statute without any of the intent adverbs (intentionally, wilfully, knowingly), it is a specific intent crime – commonly tested
– Defenses: There are very few defenses to strict liability crimes (i.e., mistake of fact is NOT a defense, consent is NOT a defense, but insanity may be a defense).
four MPC mental states (how do they test this and what are they?)
**note: the way they test this is not by referring to the MPC, but they will give you a unique statute which includes one of these mental states
– Purposely: conscious intent to either engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result (e.g., A shot B because A wanted B to die)
– Knowingly (or Willfully): aware that conduct will or likely will cause a certain result; conduct overwhelming likely to produce a result
»> a reasonable or unreasonable mistake of fact is a defense to such crimes
»> **easy approach: “did defendant know?”
»> **knowledge may be inferred if you consciously avoid learning the truth
– Recklessly: conscious disregard of a substantial or unjustifiable risk, and this constitutes a gross deviation from standard of care of a reasonable person; must know that injury might result; this is the default mental state under the M.P.C.
»> While crimes calling for “recklessness” require a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, a person who was not consciously aware of a risk due to intoxication will be deemed to have acted recklessly.
– Negligence: failure to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and such failure is a substantial deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person (a higher standard than tort law—probably close to tort law’s gross negligence)
concurrence of physical act and mental state
rule and examples
• The defendant must have the necessary mental state at time he or she committed the act constituting the crime.
– Examples:
• 1. A breaks into B’s home at night to stay warm. After entering B’s home, A decides to steal B’s stereo; A takes the stereo with her when she leaves B’s house. Is A guilty of burglary?
»> No, A did not have the intent to commit a felony at the time of the breaking.
• 2. Is A guilty of any crimes?
»> Yes, A is guilty of larceny because she took B’s stereo with the intent to steal and she is guilty of criminal trespass (a general intent crime and a misdemeanor).
• 3. As she is leaving a restaurant, A takes B’s coat thinking it was her own coat. Five minutes later, A realizes the coat belongs to B, but decides to permanently keep it. Is A guilty of larceny?
»> No, because A did not have the intent to steal (or any other culpable intent) at the time she took the coat. However, A would be liable for the tort of conversion.
causation
rule; example problem
- To be found guilty, the defendant’s criminal act must be both the actual (“but for”) cause and the proximate cause. Technically, causation is an element of all crimes, but causation issues usually arise in “result” crimes (e.g., homicide).
- note: even if no sufficient intervening act to break proximate cause, that can still be the defendant’s best attempt at a defense
– Problem: A intentionally shoots B in the leg. B was taken to a hospital for surgery. Due to the surgeon’s negligence, B died in the operating room. B would have survived the wound had he received competent medical treatment. Is A guilty of murder?
• Did A perform a physical act?
»> Yes, pulling the trigger on the gun is a willed muscular movement.
• Did A have the requisite mental state?
»> Yes, intent to inflict great bodily injury satisfies the “malice” requirement.
• Was A the “but-for” cause of B’s death?
»> Yes, but for A’s act, B would not have been in the hospital and would not have died when he did.
• Was A the proximate (or legal) cause of B’s death?
»> Yes. An intervening act breaks the chain of causation from the original act to the death only if the intervening force was so out-of-the-ordinary that it is no longer fair to hold the defendant criminally responsible for the outcome.
»> Under the majority view, the intervening event must be so “abnormal or bizarre” that it is truly unforeseeable. The ordinary negligent acts or omissions of a third party (e.g., doctor or rescuer) or the victim are not sufficient to break the chain of causation.
causation rule for murder/manslaughter
• Defendant is the actual cause of murder or manslaughter if the defendant’s criminal act “shortens” the victim’s life.
– V, who is terminally ill, has 24 hours to live. Before V dies of natural causes, D stabs V to death. Is D the actual cause of V’s death?
»> Yes, but for D’s act, V would not have died when he did.
• In rare cases, the defendant may be the actual cause of murder or manslaughter if defendant’s criminal act “lengthens” the victim’s life.
– V is scheduled to fly to Europe on June 1. On May 31, D poisons V, which makes V too sick to make his flight to Europe. The plane on which V was scheduled to fly crashes on June 1, killing all passengers and crew. On June 3, V dies from the poison. Is D the actual cause of V’s death?
»> Yes, but for D’s act, V would not have died when he did.
