Parts of a Crime

Question 1

TWO COMPONENTS OF EVERY CRIME (OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE)

Answer 1

Actus Reus (Objective) and Mens Rea (Subjective)

Question 2

Actus Reus

Answer 2

The act itself. The physical elements of a crime.

Question 3

Mens Rea

Answer 3

The criminal intent with which one commits the act.

Question 4

Actus Reus includes

Answer 4

(1) An Act (Requirement): A VOLUNTARY ACT (but can be replaced by omission/possession)
(2) Causation
(3) Result: D must cause result that constitutes crime. Sometimes the result isn’t the focus (result crime vs. conduct crime)

Question 5

Different types of Physical elements

Answer 5

Conduct: Defendant’s behavior

Attendant Circumstances: facts in the world separate from D’s conduct. (such as location/setting, victim characteristics, etc).

Result: any illegal outcome required by law.

Example: CL Burglary (Conduct Crime)
1. Breaking and (conduct)
2. Entering the (conduct)
3. Dwelling House (attendant circumstance)
4. Of Another Person (attendant circumstance)
5. In the nighttime (attendant circumstance)
6. With intent to commit felony (mens rea)

Question 6

The Act Requirement

Answer 6

Rule: All crimes must have a VOLUNTARY ACT (this is the bare minimum requirement)

Why have this requirement? You cannot deter involuntary acts.

Question 7

What mental state element is required for Actus Reus?

Answer 7

The element of volition (voluntariness)

Question 8

Voluntariness applies to actus reus…

Answer 8

…whereas mens rea signifies the actor’s state of mind regarding the social harm.

Question 9

Which acts must be voluntary? (4 approaches)

Answer 9

1. Martin: All acts must be voluntary.
   (If one act is not voluntary, the act requirement is not satisfied.)
2. MPC: Liability must be based on conduct which includes a voluntary act.
   (Just one act must be voluntary, not all acts)
3. Newman: MPC + foreseeability
   (Just one act must be voluntary, but it must lead to the crime through foreseeable events)
4. “Last Act” Approach: The final act that turns non-criminal conduct to a crime must be voluntary. (Everything leading up could be involuntary, but if the last act that makes it a crime is voluntary, the act req is satisfied)

Question 10

What is voluntary?

Answer 10

CL: Voluntary = willed. Basically, more than unconscious. A “conditioned response” can be considered involuntary.

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.

2.01(2) names involuntary behviors.

Question 11

MPC INVOLUNTARY Behaviors

Answer 11

MPC 2.01(2):
(a) reflex or convulsion
(b) bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep
(c) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion;
(d) a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.

Question 12

Two Exceptions to Act Requirement

Answer 12

Omissions and Possession

Question 13

Omissions

Answer 13

Rule: Omissions can take place of voluntary act, but ONLY IF the person:
(1) had a legal duty and
(2) violated that duty.

CL and MPC are the same here.

Question 14

Legal Duties for Omissions (4)

Answer 14

(1) Statutory Duties
(2) Status Relationships (spouse, parent/child)
(3) Contract/professional duties
(4) Common law duties:
i. Voluntary assumption of care
ii. Creation of Peril

Question 15

General Presumption of Omissions

Answer 15

General Presumption: Person has NO DUTY TO ACT

To meet the standard of omission, there must be a legal duty , not just a moral duty.

Question 16

Possession

Answer 16

RULE: Possession can take the place of a voluntary act where (1) D is aware of control and (2) there is sufficient time to terminate possession.

Possession does NOT need to be voluntary.

MPC = CL here.

Both types of possession require control. Touchstone of possession is control.

Question 17

Actual vs Constructive Possession

Answer 17

Actual: Must have direct physical control (e.g. I’m holding my phone)

Constructive: Must knowingly have power and intention to exercise dominion and control (e.g. my phone is next to me but not on my person, I still have constructive possession of it)

Constructive possession can almost always be established if an item is within someone’s home.

Question 18

Mens Rea: Intent vs. Motive

Answer 18

Intent: Your level of “mental purpose” in committing the acts of the crime (e.g. goal to kill). For an act to be punishable, it must be committed with a culpable state of mind.

Motive: Your reason for having that mental purpose (e.g. because the person cut you off in traffic). Motive only matters for evidence and explanation in most cases. It is not legally important.

Question 19

Mens Rea

Answer 19

A guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; criminal intent.

Question 20

Mens Rea: CL vs. MPC

Answer 20

CL: Primary distinction is between specific and general intent.

MPC: Four general ideas of mental state (purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence)

Note: MPC carefully defines four concepts, but ideas are generally applicable to MPC and CL.

Question 21

Specific Intent Crimes

Answer 21

A crime that contains within its definition a special mental element … above and beyond any mental state required with respect to the actus reus of the crime.

Question 22

Three types of Specific Intent

Answer 22

(1) Intent to commit a future act
(2) Intent to pursue a specific result
(3) Awareness of attendant circumstances

Question 23

General Intent

Answer 23

Basically everything which is not specific intent.

Conduct Crimes: Need intent to do the acts themselves (e.g. speeding).

Result Crimes: usually need recklessness, knowledge, or purpose as to the result (See Regina v. Cunningham: for general intent crimes, you have to have the mental state of recklessness or more as to the result you are causing)

Circumstances: See Mistake Doctrine

Question 24

Transferred Intent

Answer 24

Intent can transfer from one victim to another (Conley), but will NOT transfer from crime to crime (different from torts, e.g. intend to break window with rock, but hit person not enough for liability)

Question 25

Willful Blindness

Answer 25

If proven, willful blindness can fulfill a knowledge element of mens rea (where one is required). MPC 2.02(7): “When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist” CL: D has knowledge if they (1) subjectively believe there’s a high probability that the circumstance/fact exists AND (2) they take deliberate actions to avoid learning it. Courts are split on whether willful blindness begins at "denial" (not inquiring further when obvious facts are presented to you) or if a D must affirmatively take steps to avoid learning the truth. If you see on exam, just argue both ways.

Question 26

MPC Mens Rea General Info

Answer 26

MPC DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SPECIFIC INTENT AND GENERAL INTENT. 2.02(1): "A person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense." There's a "sliding scale" of culpability. If you have a "higher" mens rea than is required, you are still culpable. Ex: If you acted recklessly, then you also acted negligently.

Question 27

MPC Knowledge

Answer 27

MPC § 2.02(2)(b) (b) Knowingly. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: (i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and (ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is PRACTICALLY CERTAIN that his conduct will cause such a result.

Question 28

MPC Recklessness

Answer 28

2.02(2)(c): Recklessness. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he: (1) Consciously disregards a SUBSTANTIAL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK, AND (2) the risk involves a GROSS DEVIATION from the standard of conduct a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.

Question 29

Default Mens Rea

Answer 29

IF THE LAW DOES NOT ESTABLISH REQUISITE MENTAL STATE, it is established if the person acted purposefully, knowingly, OR recklessly.

Question 30

MPC Negligence

Answer 30

2.02(2)(d): Negligence. A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when: (1) He SHOULD BE AWARE of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, AND (2) the failure to perceive the risk involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

Question 31

Statutory Interpretation Guidelines (Mostly MPC)

Answer 31

- ALWAYS a presumption of mens rea requirement. - If statute is silent on culpability, default to recklessness for all elements - If statute mentions culpability somewhere, that culpability requirement applies to all elements unless there's a plainly contrary purpose. - If you have a special motive that is separate from the remainder of the crime (e.g. “with intent to commit a felony”), just because it appears the beginning of a sentence doesn't mean it applies to every element. We would separate this element from the rest.

Question 32

Strict Liability (An Exception to Mens Rea Requirement)

Answer 32

Strict liability is an exception to the mens rea requirement. Two types: (1) Public Welfare Offenses: things which are obviously dangerous and should alert D that they might be violating a statute (see Staples). MPC says penalty should be small for these. (2) Strict Liability Offenses: Category of special offenses which are strict liability because they have always been that way, such as statutory rape and felony murder (See Moreira-Bravo). MPC is opposed to strict liability crimes; it says strict liability should be limited to "violations" (e.g. speeding) only.

Question 33

Policy reasons in favor and against of Strict Liability:

Answer 33

In Favor: - Makes safety regulation manageable - Deters bad behavior - incapacitates people who cause harm regardless of extent - Retributivist argument could be that we care more about the harm you caused than the reason you cause it (but weak because retributivism does not focus on culpability) - Actions are best evidence of intent, and we don't want people to get away just because proving what is in someone's head is difficult. Against: - It's retributivist, unfair, and nonculpable people are punished - Captures wrong population. Negligent drivers thrown in with murderers. - Throws off utilitarian cost/benefit analysis - Overdeters - Shouldn't lower protections for D's just to make convictions easier - Trivializes the criminal law. Criminal convictions are meant to reflect societal condemnation of egregious behavior, not accidents.