Criminal

Question 1

Actus Reus

Answer 1

physical / external part of the crime - the act itself

Question 2

Possession as an act

Answer 2

MPC 2.01(4) Possession is an act, within the meaning of this Section, if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession

Question 3

Omissions

Answer 3

general rule: mere awareness that a crime is occurring, not doing anything about it is not a crime
- criminal law WILL penalize failures to prevent harm but only when there is a legal duty to prevent harm

Question 4

legal duties for omissions

Answer 4

1. statutory duty
2. status relationship (spouse, parent, teacher)
3. contractual duty
4. voluntary assumption of care + seclusion
5. create risk of harm to another

Question 5

Result crimes

Answer 5

law punished because of an unwanted outcome, such as the death of another person or the destruction of a dwelling house
- harm resulting from voluntary acts or omissions

Question 6

conduct crimes

Answer 6

conduct/mental states creates the crime
law prohibits specific behavior, such as driving under the influence or solicitation to commit murder

Question 7

attendant (circumstance) crimes

Answer 7

element of a statute/crime
- condition that must be present, in conjunction with the prohibited conduct or result, in order to constitute the crime

Question 8

Mens Rea

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Culpability (BROAD) mens rea

Answer 9

Guilty of a crime if she commits the social harm of the offense with any morally blameworthy state of mind

Question 10

Elemental (NARROW) mens rea

Answer 10

• Refers to the mental state the defendant must have with regard to the “social harm” elements set out in the definition of the offense
• Not guilty of an offense, even if she has a culpable frame of mind, if she lacks any mental state specified in the definition of the crime

Question 11

proving culpability at common law

Answer 11

INTENT
– acting with purpose to do something
– knowledge
RECKLESSNESS
NEGLIGNECE

Question 12

4-4 Intent

Answer 12

A person intends, or acts intentionally or with intent, to accomplish a result or engage in conduct described by the statute defining the offense, when his conscious objective or purpose is to accomplish that result or engage in that conduct

Question 13

4-4 Knowledge

Answer 13

A person know or acts knowingly or with knowledge of: (b) the result of his conduct, described by the stature defining the offense, when he is consciously aware that such result is practically certain to be cause by his conduct

Question 14

Intent at common law

Answer 14

o Includes results that are conscious object of actor
And
o Results actor knows are virtually certain to occur

Question 15

Transferred Intent

Answer 15

When a defendant intends to cause harm to one person but accidentally causes the same harm to another, courts typically rely on a legal fiction known as the “transferred intent” doctrine

Question 16

Specific Intent / General Intent

Answer 16

Specific - offense includes:
1. The purpose to do a future act, or purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence about achieving a particular result, OR
2. Knowledge of an attendant circumstance

If not, then it is a general intent crime

Question 17

MPC Culpability Categories

Answer 17

Purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently

Question 18

MPC Purposely

Answer 18

o A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:
 If the element involved the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it if his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and
 If the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist

Question 19

MPC Knowingly

Answer 19

o A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:
 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
 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 20

MPC Recklessly

Answer 20

o A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation

Question 21

MPC Negligently

Answer 21

o A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.

Question 22

Culpability Requirement unless otherwise provided

Answer 22

o When the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto.
o RULE: The court should put the correct level of mens rea to the statute, if not provided already [the level the legislature would have intended]

Question 23

willful blindness

Answer 23

• MPC recognizes this doctrine; well established in criminal law
• Courts articulate the doctrine in different ways but agree on two basic requirements:
  o (1) the defendant must subjectively believe there is a high probability that a fact exists and
  o (2) the defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact

Question 24

Strict liability offenses

Answer 24

Common law rule: Offenses that require no mens rea generally are disfavored; courts will read mens rea into a statute that is silent on the matter unless there is a clear congressional intent to punish even those who lack a guilty mindset
- only clear offense that falls under here is statutory rape

Question 25

Mistake of Fact

Answer 25

- Good faith belief = honest belief (subjective standard) - Reasonable belief = belief that could be held by reasonable person (objective standard) The moral wrong doctrine is not a statute or law, its a way to look at the conduct through the D’s eyes/mindset - Perkins rule: if not specific intent or other special mental element is required for guilt of the offense charged, a mistake of fact will not be recognized as an excuse unless it was based upon reasonable grounds - Simple Rule: Honest mistake of law or fact is a defense when it negates a required mental element of the crime Specific Intent - Does the mistake relate to the specific intent portion of the offense? o Yes: if mistake negates specific intent element  acquit o No: go to general intent step General Intent - Was mistake reasonable? o No: then no defense o Yes: then possible defense o Ex crime: rape Strict Liability - No defense for mistake

Question 26

Mistake of Law

Answer 26

Basic rule: ignorance of the law is no excuse - Criminal tax law can use excuse: we have a few special areas of law where mistake of law is allowed

Question 27

MPC Ignorance or Mistake

Answer 27

o (3) A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when:  (a) the statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged; or  (b) he acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in (i) a statute or other enactment; (ii) a judicial decision, opinion or judgment; (iii) an administrative order or grant of permission; or (iv) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation

Question 28

Willfully (mistake of law)

Answer 28

- No universal meaning. each court interprets differently - Generally understood as: doing the illegal thing, knowingly, with the purpose of breaking the law

Question 29

Actual Cause (Cause-In-Fact)

Answer 29

- But for test - Substantial Factor test - Acceleration If not actual cause - cannot be charged for the crime For any result we care about - there will be infinite actual causes

Question 30

"But-For" Test

Answer 30

- Under this test, a defendant’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of the prohibited result if the said result would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s conduct - But for the action of the defendant, would the result still occur? o If so, then defendants’ action is not the actual cause of the result o If not, then defendants’ action is an actual cause of the result - Imagine the world as it would have been without the defendant’s action… would the result still have occurred?

Question 31

Substantial Factor Test

Answer 31

- When two people acting separately commit two different acts each of which is sufficient to cause result - Substantial factor test concludes both actions are actual causes

Question 32

Acceleration

Answer 32

- Imagine a world where the first injury was sufficient to cause death - Death would occur at a time X - “acceleration” would mean death occurred earlier than that - This earlier death was caused by the second injury - Why? Because but for the second injury, death would not occur until later

Question 33

Proximate Cause ("Legal" Cause)

Answer 33

- The doctrine of “proximate” or “legal” causation serves the purpose of determining who or what events among those that satisfy the but-for standard should be held accountable for the resulting harm - A person or event cannot be a proximate cause of harm unless she or it is an actual cause, but a person or event can be an actual cause without being the proximate cause - Issues of proximate causation generally arise when an intervening force exists INTERVENING SUPERSEDING REASONABLY FORESEEABLE

Question 34

Intervening Cause

Answer 34

(1) “an act of God”, i.e. an event that cannot be traced back to any human intermediary; (2) an act of an independent third party; or (3) an act or omission of the victim that assists in bringing about the outcome - actual causes that come between the first event and the result - An intervening cause that “breaks the causal chain” is sometimes described as a superseding cause

Question 35

Superseding Cause

Answer 35

another label that refers to an intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation (conclusion; does not do much work)

Question 36

Reasonably Foreseeable

Answer 36

o Was the result reasonably foreseeable? o Foreseeable intervening causes do not supersede o Medical malpractice is generally viewed this way o Gross deviations from the standard of care are not reasonably foreseeable

Question 37

Negligent Manslaughter

Answer 37

1. Causing 2. Death 3. Of another person 4. Negligently 50/50 always loses - must be beyond a reasonable doubt

Question 38

Common Law Murder

Answer 38

The unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought 1. Intent to kill 2. Intent to cause grievous bodily harm 3. Depraved heart murder 4. Intent to commit a felony

Question 39

MPC 210.1 Criminal Homicide

Answer 39

(1) a person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being (2) criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide

Question 40

MPC 210.2 Murder

Answer 40

(1) Except as provided in Section 210.3(1)(b), criminal homicide constitutes murder when: o (a) it is committed purposely or knowingly; or o (b) it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape (2) Murder is a felony of the first degree [but a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death, as provided in Section 210.6]

Question 41

MPC 210.3 Manslaughter

Answer 41

(1) criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when: o (a) it is committed recklessly; or o (b) a homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be (2) manslaughter is a felony of the second degree

Question 42

MPC 210.4 Negligent Homicide

Answer 42

(1) criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide when it is committed negligently (2) negligent homicide is a felony of the third degree

Question 43

Doctrine of "lesser included offense"

Answer 43

o A defendant has the right to a jury instruction upon request that the jury may find her guilty of an offense “included” within the offense charged, as long as the factfinder could reasonably conclude from the evidence introduced at trial that the defendant is guilty of the lesser, but not the greater, offense. MPC 1.07(4), (5) o Rules relating to fair notice provide that she may not be convicted of a more serious offense than that charged.

Question 44

ostensible purpose of willful-deliberation-premeditation formula

Answer 44

distinguish between more or less culpable intentional killings

Question 45

Premeditation & Deliberation

Answer 45

“to premeditate is to think about beforehand; to deliberate is to measure and evaluate the major facets of a choice or problem….” o “Premeditation and deliberation characterize a thought process undisturbed by hot blood” - A person can pre-meditate without deliberating - You cannot deliberate without premeditating o Premeditation and deliberation relate to mental processes and ordinarily are not readily susceptible to proof by direct evidence  Instead, proved by circumstantial evidence

Question 46

Murder - Intentional

Answer 46

o Generally, intentional killings [purpose, knowledge] basis for degrees varies (e.g. identity of victim; manner of killing; premeditated and deliberate)  Some non-intentional killings (i.e. manslaughters) can be upgraded to murder (“depraved heart”)  First-degree & Second-degree  No state uniformity for distinguishing between degrees

Question 47

Manslaughter - Reckless

Answer 47

o Some intentional killings (i.e. murders) can be downgraded to manslaughter (i.e. heat of passion/provocation, extreme emotional disturbance)  Not a complete defense for heat of passion/provocation  result in guilt of a lower crime

Question 48

Negligent homicide - negligence

Answer 48

GROSS negligence

Question 49

Provocation Doctrine

Answer 49

serves to reduce an intentional killing from murder to manslaughter

Question 50

Heat of Passion Manslaughter - Rule of Provocation

Answer 50

1. Adequate provocation 2. Killing in the heat of passion 3. No reasonable opportunity to cool 4. Causal connection: provocation  passion  fatal act Are words alone adequate provocation? NO

Question 51

Provocation Described

Answer 51

o As the true general rule, that “reason should, at the time of the act, be disturbed or obscured by passion to an extent which might render ordinary men, of fair average disposition, liable to act rashly or without due deliberation or reflection, and from passion, rather than judgement”  Underlined: not absolute every time; looking for scenarios that are so disruptive than an ordinary person would be liable

Question 52

Cooling off - provocation

Answer 52

Key factor, if had time to cool off, there is no argument for provocation