BASIC ELEMENTS

Question 1

Mens rea

Answer 1

The ∆’s criminal state of mind

Question 2

Actus reus

Answer 2

the act that caused the prohibited result

Question 3

Attendant circumstances

Answer 3

Another element that must be met that is not the acts nor the reus

Question 4

Purpose

Answer 4

conscious objective to bring about the prohibited result

Question 5

Knowledge

Answer 5

knowing with substantial certainty the outcome will bring about the prohibited result

Question 6

Reckless

Answer 6

∆ was aware of the risk creation but chose to ignore it/do it anyway

Question 7

Negligence

Answer 7

∆ was not aware of the risk but a reasonable person would of. A gross deviation from the societal norm.

Question 8

Willful blindess

Answer 8

The ∆ deliberately closes his eyes to what otherwise would have been obvious to him.

CL- recognizes this as intent
MPC - recognizes this as knowledge

Question 9

Omission

Answer 9

Omission + legal duty + capacity = Legal Act

Question 10

Possession

Answer 10

Possession + Awareness = Legal Act

Question 11

Mistake of fact (CL)

Answer 11

Works as an eraser to eliminate the mens rea element by erasing intent. Technically is not a defense, but it has the effect of a defense b/c it if it happens ∆ is not guilty.

Question 12

An honest/good faith mistake of fact erases what type of intent?

Answer 12

Specific Intent

Question 13

An honest and reasonable mistake erases what type of intent?

Answer 13

General Intent

• Did the ∆honestly believe it?
• Even if he honestly believe it, would a reasonable person have believed it?

Question 14

Mistake of Law

Answer 14

Ignorance of the law is NEVER a defense to a general intent element no matter how reasonable the mistake may have been.

Question 15

Mistake of Law Exception 1

Answer 15

The only time the ∆ can have a defense of mistake of law is when the SI element requires “KNOWLEDGE”

Ex: Knowledge of paying taxes. You don’t need knowledge of the law to know RAPE or LARCENY is wrong.

Question 16

Mistake of Law Exception 2:

Answer 16

Estoppel theory: when the ∆has relied on an official source that has authority to interpret the law. Must be reasonable

Question 17

Willful blindness Requirements

Answer 17

1) ∆ must subjectively believe there is a high probability the fact exists.
2) ∆must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of the fact.

Question 18

Causation

Answer 18

The prosecution must prove BRD that the ∆is the legal cause by proving the ∆ was the actual and proximate cause of the prohibited result.

Question 19

What is actual cause

Answer 19

The ∆’s act is what caused the result

Question 20

3 types of Actual Cause

Answer 20

1) But for the ∆’s conduct the prohibited result wouldn’t of occurred.
2) Substantial factor: when there are multiple actors acting independently when either alone could have produced the result independent of each other. TEST: Was the ∆’s conduct a substantial factor?
3) Acceleration: If a 2nd actor/event speeds the inevitable result.

When the ∆’s actions ALONE cause the harm (no interventions the ∆’s act is the direct cause.

Question 21

Proximate Cause

Answer 21

Is the effort by the fact finder to determine whether it is proper to hold the ∆ criminally responsible.

You only look at proximate cause when you have established there is more than 1 cause in fact/something has intervened.

TEST: Is there more than 1 “but for cause”

Question 22

Proximate cause analysis: Intervening Superseding Cause

Answer 22

Is there subsequent intervention between the act & the result? If yes…is it superseding?

Was the intervention foreseeable?

Was the intervention so strong that it is superseding?

• Is it totally abnormal?
• Acts of God, suicidal act by victim, wrongdoing by an independent 3rd party

What breaks the causal chain?

• Unforeseeable coincidences
• Abnormal & unforeseeable responses

Question 23

Concurrence

Answer 23

The ACT must concur with the ∆’s STATE OF MIND (MR)