Parts of Crime

Question 1

Actus Reus

Answer 1

a voluntary act or omission and the attendant circumstances required of the crime (objective)

Question 2

Results crimes v. Conduct crimes

Answer 2

result- law punishes because of an unwanted outcome

conduct- law punishes specific behavior

Question 3

Martin v. State

Answer 3

Actus reus case. Officers carried drunk man onto highway then charged him with being drunk on a highway. It was an involuntary act (since he was carried) and he did not commit the actus reus of the crime.

Question 4

State v. Utter

Answer 4

Actus reus case. Child stabbed by father with ptsd. It was an irresistible impulse/ automatism so an involuntary act.

Question 5

What is an omission?

Answer 5

There is usually not a duty to help, unless:

1) special relationship (parents, spouse, employer)
2) contractual obligation
3) legal duty by statute
4) voluntary care begun and you stop others from helping
5) you created a risk of harm to another

Question 6

People v Beardsley

Answer 6

Man doesn’t help side piece when she OD’ed. No legal duty to act

Question 7

Barber v. Superior Court

Answer 7

medical ‘omissions’ case. Man comatose after surgery, with family permission doctors took him off life support. There is no legal duty to continue care that has been ineffective

Question 8

Mens Rea

Answer 8

mental state required for a particular offense (subjective to the mind of the defendant)

Question 9

What kind of intent is needed for strict liability crimes?

Answer 9

No required mens rea. Only actus reus required

Question 10

Regina v. Cunningham

Answer 10

Gas pipe stolen and neighbor suffocated by leak. No mens rea to hurt neighbor. The term malice in a criminal statute does not mean general wickedness; it means either (1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that was in fact done or (2) reckless disregard of a foreseeable risk that the harm would result.

Question 11

General Intent

Answer 11

No particular mental state, just prove:

1) the act was committed by D
2) and D had a morally blameworthy state of mind

Question 12

General intent crimes

Answer 12

Battery, Rape, Kidnapping, or False Imprisonment

Question 13

Specific Intent

Answer 13

Crimes with intent in the statute

Question 14

Some specific intent crimes

Answer 14

Solicitation, attempt, conspiracy, premeditated murder, assault, larceny, burglary forgery, anything else by statute

Question 15

Malice

Answer 15

(1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that was done or (2) reckless disregard of a foreseeable risk that the harm would result.

Question 16

People v. Conley

Answer 16

Kid 1 swung wine bottle at another kid 2 who ducked and it hi kid 3. There was transferred intent

Question 17

What mistake defenses are there to mens rea?

Answer 17

Mistake of fact, mistake of law

Question 18

Does mistake of fact apply to crimes of general intent?

Answer 18

Only if it is a reasonable mistake that shows D didn’t act with moral blame worthiness.

Question 19

When does the required mens rea have to exist?

Answer 19

At the time of the crime (concurrence of the elements)

Question 20

doctrines related to mens rea and mistakes

Answer 20

Moral wrong doctrine: a reasonable mistake does not acquit where, if the facts had been as the actor believed them to be, the actor’s conduct was still immoral
Legal wrong doctrine: if a D’s conduct, based on the facts as he reasonably but mistakenly believed them to be, constitutes a crime then it is a legal wrong and will not be acquitted

Question 21

transferred intent

Answer 21

When a defendant intends to cause harm to one person but an accident causes the same harm to another

Question 22

Concurrence of the elements

Answer 22

look at the mens rea at the time of the volitional act that causes the social harm

Question 23

State v. Rose

Answer 23

D hit a pedestrian and kept driving, drug body underneath the car. Concurrence of the elements at the time of act. To figure out murder or manslaughter, we must know men’s rea at time of death. Since we don’t know time of death, hard to prove concurrence of the elements