Principles of Criminal Law

Question 1

What are the two elements required for a common-law crime?

Answer 1

Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Question 2

What is Actus Reus

Answer 2

The act required to commit a given crime It can be done by a voluntary physical act (voluntary bodily movement) or by an omission

Question 3

When an omission is an Actus Reus

Answer 3

Omission as actus reus - a failure to act can constitute actus reus if:

1. D had a specific legal duty to act;
2. D had knowledge of facts giving rise to the duty; and
3. It was reasonably possible for D to perform the duty

Question 4

What is Mens Rea

Answer 4

The mental element required at the time a crime was committed.

Three forms of Mens Rea:

1. Specific intent
2. General intent
3. Malice

Question 5

Describe each form of mens rea

Answer 5

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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

Question 6

Mistake of fact and voluntary intoxication are available defenses for what times of crimes in regards of their intent? (mens rea)

Answer 6

Specific intent crimes have mistake of fact and voluntary intoxication as defenses

Question 7

What are the Model Penal Code mens rea standards?

Answer 7

1. Purposely (subjective standard)
   
   • A person acts purposely when his conscious objective is to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain resuIt
2. 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
3. Recklessly (subjective standard)
   
   • A person acts recklessly when he knows of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and consciously disregards it
4. 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.

Question 8

Whole list of crimes by intent

Answer 8

General intent

1. Battery
2. Rape
3. Kidnapping
4. False imprisonment

Specific intent

1. Attempt-
2. Larceny & Robbery
3. Forgery
4. False pretenses
5. Embezzlement
6. Conspiracy
7. Assault
8. Burglary
9. First-degree murder
10. Solicitation

Malice

1. Common law murder (malice aforethought)
2. Arson

Strict liability

1. Statutory rape
2. Regulatory crimes
3. Administrative crimes

Question 9

List the general intent crimes

Answer 9

General intent

1. Battery
2. Rape
3. Kidnapping
4. False imprisonment

Question 10

List the specific intent crimes

Answer 10

Specific intent

1. Attempt-
2. Larceny & Robbery
3. Forgery
4. False pretenses
5. Embezzlement
6. Conspiracy
7. Assault
8. Burglary
9. First-degree murder
10. Solicitation

Question 11

List the malice crimes

Answer 11

Malice

1. Common law murder (malice aforethought)
2. Arson

Question 12

List the Strict Liability Crimes?

Answer 12

1. Strict liability
2. Statutory rape
3. Regulatory crimes
4. Administrative crimes

Question 13

What crimes don’t require Mens Rea?

Answer 13

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

Question 14

What is the concurrence requirement?

Answer 14

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

Question 15

What is the Causation requirement?

Answer 15

D’s conduct must be both the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of the crime committed

Question 16

What are the different types of causation?

Answer 16

• 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)

Question 17

Transferred Intent Doctrine

Answer 17

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

Question 18

What are the effects of a transferred intent doctrine?

Answer 18

Effect - under transferred intent, D is usually charged with two crimes:

1. Attempt (to commit the originally intended crime); and
2. 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

Question 19

Merger

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Merger of inchoate offenses, when do they apply?

Answer 20

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)

Question 21

Merger of lesser offenses

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Accomplice Liability Requirements

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Accomplice liability scope of liability

Answer 23

Scope of liability- accomplice is liable for the crimes he committed or counseled and any other probable or foreseeable crimes committed

Question 24

Defenses and expectations of accomplice liability

Answer 24

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:

1. Repudiate prior aid or encouragement;
2. Do all that is possible to counteract the prior aid; and
3. 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

Question 25

Accessory after the fact, difference with accomplice liability

Answer 25

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

Question 26

Solicitation (Inchoate offense)

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Merger of solicitation and other crime

Answer 27

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

Question 28

Defenses to solicitation

Answer 28

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.

Question 29

Conspiracy (inchoate offense), what it is?

Answer 29

An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime or unlawful objective

Question 30

Conspiracy requirements

Answer 30

Required elements:

1. 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
2. Intent to enter into the agreement
3. Intent to commit the target crime or pursue the unlawful objective
4. An overt act in furtherance of the target crime
   
   • Not a requirement at common law (minortiy law)

Question 31

Unilateral conspiracy

Answer 31

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

Question 32

When conspiracy ends?

Answer 32

Termination- conspiracy ends upon completion of the target crime

Question 33

Notes on defenses and conspiracy

Answer 33

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

Question 34

Co-conspirator liability

Answer 34

Co-conspirator liability – each conspirator is liable for co-conspirators’ crimes that are:

1. Foreseeable; and
2. Committed in furtherance of the conspiracy

Question 35

Withdrawal co-conspirator (difference between common law and MPC)

Answer 35

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)

Question 36

Withdrawal co-conspirator

Answer 36

• 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

Question 37

Attempt (inchoate offense)

Answer 37

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

Question 38

Overt act

Answer 38

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

Question 39

Intent (attempt)

Answer 39

D must specifically intend to commit a particular crime

Question 40

Defenses to attempt

Answer 40

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)

Question 41

What is the Wharton rule?

Answer 41

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.