Principles of Criminal Law Flashcards
What are the two elements required for a common-law crime?
Actus Reus and Mens Rea
What is Actus Reus
The act required to commit a given crime It can be done by a voluntary physical act (voluntary bodily movement) or by an omission
When an omission is an Actus Reus
Omission as actus reus - a failure to act can constitute actus reus if:
- D had a specific legal duty to act;
- D had knowledge of facts giving rise to the duty; and
- It was reasonably possible for D to perform the duty
What is Mens Rea
The mental element required at the time a crime was committed.
Three forms of Mens Rea:
- Specific intent
- General intent
- Malice
Describe each form of mens rea
-
Specific intent - D must have a specific intent or objective to commit the given crime
- >> Specific intent must always be proven; never inferred
- >> Mistake of fact and voluntary intoxication are available defenses
-
General intent- D must be aware of his actions and any attendant circumstances
- >> May be inferred from the act itself
- >> Note- most crimes are general intent crimes
-
Malice- D acts with reckless disregard or undertakes an obvious risk, from which a harmful resuIt is expected
- >> Applies to arson and common law murder
Mistake of fact and voluntary intoxication are available defenses for what times of crimes in regards of their intent? (mens rea)
Specific intent crimes have mistake of fact and voluntary intoxication as defenses
What are the Model Penal Code mens rea standards?
-
Purposely (subjective standard)
- A person acts purposely when his conscious objective is to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain resuIt
-
Knowingly (subjective standard)
- A person acts knowingly when he is aware that his conduct is of a particular nature or knows that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause a particular resuIt
-
Recklessly (subjective standard)
- A person acts recklessly when he knows of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and consciously disregards it
-
Negligence (objective standard)
- A person acts negligently when he fails to become aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Remember this is used as an alternative to the Mens Rea Standards of common law.
Whole list of crimes by intent
General intent
- Battery
- Rape
- Kidnapping
- False imprisonment
Specific intent
- Attempt-
- Larceny & Robbery
- Forgery
- False pretenses
- Embezzlement
- Conspiracy
- Assault
- Burglary
- First-degree murder
- Solicitation
Malice
- Common law murder (malice aforethought)
- Arson
Strict liability
- Statutory rape
- Regulatory crimes
- Administrative crimes
List the general intent crimes
General intent
- Battery
- Rape
- Kidnapping
- False imprisonment
List the specific intent crimes
Specific intent
- Attempt-
- Larceny & Robbery
- Forgery
- False pretenses
- Embezzlement
- Conspiracy
- Assault
- Burglary
- First-degree murder
- Solicitation
List the malice crimes
Malice
- Common law murder (malice aforethought)
- Arson
List the Strict Liability Crimes?
- Strict liability
- Statutory rape
- Regulatory crimes
- Administrative crimes
What crimes don’t require Mens Rea?
The Strict liability crimes, because they don’t require intent or awareness (i.e., no mens rea requirement)
Arises with statutory rape, administrative, regulatory, or morality crimes
What is the concurrence requirement?
D’s criminal act and the requisite intent (i.e., mens rea) for the crime must occur simultaneously
- E.g., D plans on murdering victim at her home – D is not guilty of murder if he accidentally runs over victim with his car before reaching her house
What is the Causation requirement?
D’s conduct must be both the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of the crime committed
What are the different types of causation?
-
Cause-in-fact- but for D’s conduct, the result would not have occurred\
- >> Homicide and manslaughter- any act by D that hastens victim’s death is a cause-in tact, even if death is already inevitable
-
Proximate cause- the actual result is the natural and probable consequence of D’s conduct, even if it did not occur exactly as expected
- >> Superseding factors- break the chain of causation
- >> Intervening acts- must be entirely unforeseeable to shield D from liability (e.g., victim’s refusal of medical treatment, third party medical negligence-both are foreseeable, and D is liable)
Transferred Intent Doctrine
D may be held liable if he intends the harm caused, but causes it to a different victim or object than intended
- Often applies to homicide, battery, and arson
- Does not apply to attempt
- Defenses and mitigating circumstances may also be transferred
What are the effects of a transferred intent doctrine?
Effect - under transferred intent, D is usually charged with two crimes:
- Attempt (to commit the originally intended crime); and
- the actual resulting crime
E.g., D intends to shoot A, but kills B; D can be charged with the attempted murder of A and the actual murder of B
>> Note- merger does not apply b/c there are different victims
Merger
Under the merger doctrine, two or more offenses merge, prohibiting D from being prosecuted separately for each crime
- Merger concerns the relationship between either
- a) an inchoate offense and its completed substantive offense, or
- b) an offense and its lesser included offense
Merger of inchoate offenses, when do they apply?
Inchoate offenses - only applies to solicitation and attempt
- Merger prevents D from being convicted of both solicitation/attempt and the target offense
>> E.g., D completes a burglary after attempting it; D cannot be convicted of both attempt and burglary
- Does not apply to conspiracy (i.e., D can be convicted of conspiracy to commit a given crime and the crime itself)
Merger of lesser offenses
Lesser included offenses - D cannot be convicted of a target crime and a lesser included offense
- Lesser included offense= consists of same but not all elements as the greater crime
- E.g., D robs V, but during the robbery D’s accomplice kills V; D can be convicted of felony murder but not the lesser included robbery offense
Note- also barred by double jeopardy
Note - crimes with different victims never merge
Accomplice Liability Requirements
Requirements- to be liable as an accomplice, one must:
Aid, counsel, or encourage principal before or during the crime
With the intent
- a) to assist the principal; and
- b) that the principal commit the crime
Accomplice liability scope of liability
Scope of liability- accomplice is liable for the crimes he committed or counseled and any other probable or foreseeable crimes committed
Defenses and expectations of accomplice liability
Defenses and exceptions - accomplice liability does not apply where:
- Withdrawal- accomplice can avoid liability by withdrawing from a crime before the principal commits it; accomplice must:
- Repudiate prior aid or encouragement;
- Do all that is possible to counteract the prior aid; and
- Do so before the chain of events is in motion and unstoppable
- Member of a protected class- those protected by a criminal statute are not liable as accomplices (e..g., minor-victims in statutory rape cases are not liable as accomplices to statutory rape)
- Parties not provided for in the statute- e.g., a purchaser of drugs cannot be an accomplice to the seller
Accessory after the fact, difference with accomplice liability
Accessory after the fact - different than accomplice liability
- Involves helping a known felon escape arrest, trial or conviction
- Gives rise to a separate, lesser charge of obstruction of justice
Solicitation (Inchoate offense)
Inciting, urging, or otherwise asking another to commit a crime with the intent that they commit the crime
- No affirmative response from the solicited party is required
Merger of solicitation and other crime
Merges with the target offense - Solicitation is complete when D asks solicitee to commit the felony
- If solicitee agrees, it gives rise to conspiracy and the solicitation merges with the conspiracy (i.e., the only crime remaining is conspiracy)
- Does not matter if the solicited party is convicted or if the solicited crime was impossible to commit
Defenses to solicitation
Defenses
- The Solicitor is exempted to be guilty of the intended crime (a minor cannot be guilty of statutory rape)
Are not Defenses:
- Refusal by the solicitee is not a defense
- Impossibility and withdrawal are not defenses
- MPC allows renunciation as a defense, only if solicitor prevents crime, but common law does not.
Conspiracy (inchoate offense), what it is?
An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime or unlawful objective
Conspiracy requirements
Required elements:
-
An agreement between two or more people
- >> I.e., a ‘‘meeting of the minds’’; express agreement not required
- >> Parties do not need to know of each other’s existence
- Intent to enter into the agreement
- Intent to commit the target crime or pursue the unlawful objective
-
An overt act in furtherance of the target crime
- Not a requirement at common law (minortiy law)
Unilateral conspiracy
Unilateral conspiracy - at common law, two or more people must have criminal intent, but MPC allows only one party
- E.g., under MPC, D may be convicted of conspiracy with another party who was an undercover police officer
- Unless otherwise instructed, apply common law rule
When conspiracy ends?
Termination- conspiracy ends upon completion of the target crime
Notes on defenses and conspiracy
Defenses- impossibility is not a defense to conspiracy
- Withdrawal is generally not a defense to conspiracy but may be a defense to liability for co-conspirators’ subsequent crimes
Co-conspirator liability
Co-conspirator liability – each conspirator is liable for co-conspirators’ crimes that are:
- Foreseeable; and
- Committed in furtherance of the conspiracy
Withdrawal co-conspirator (difference between common law and MPC)
Under common law, one cannot withdraw from the conspiracy itself
>> MPC allows withdrawal if the withdrawing party thwarts the conspiracy (e.g., by stopping it or notifying police)
Withdrawal co-conspirator
- Subsequent crimes - one can withdraw from co conspirators’ subsequent crimes, including the target offense of the conspiracy
- Affirmative act required - withdrawal is effective when the withdrawing party makes an affirmative act that notifies his co-conspirators, he is withdrawing
- Must be timely - withdrawal must give enough time for co-conspirators to abandon plans for the target offense
- Neutralize - The withdrawing party must attempt to neutralize the effect of any assistance he provided to the original conspiracy
Attempt (inchoate offense)
An act, done with the specific intent to commit a crime, that constitutes an overt or substantial step towards committing the crime but falls short of completing the crime
- I.e., an incomplete act that would be a crime if completed
Overt act
Overt act - D must commit an act beyond mere preparation
- D must take a substantial step towards committing the target crime
- Under common law standard, attempt requires an act that is dangerously close to success
Intent (attempt)
D must specifically intend to commit a particular crime
Defenses to attempt
Defenses - legal impossibility is a defense to attempt
- Factual impossibility is not a defense
- Abandonment is not a defense - under majority rule, liability for attempt arises once D commits an overt act concurrently with the specific intent to commit a crime (i.e., D is liable for attempt before he can abandon the crime)
What is the Wharton rule?
If two or more people are necessary for the commission of the substantive offense (e.g., adultery, dueling, sale of contraband), the “Wharton rule” states that there is no crime of conspiracy unless more parties participate in the agreement than are necessary for the crime.
