Elements

Question 1

Elements required to prove a crime

Answer 1

Actus Reus (voluntary, physical act);
Mens Rea (mental state);
Concurrence (requisite mens rea must exist at the time of the actus reus); and
Causation (cause-in-fact/actual + proximate cause) (usually needed, but not always, e.g. attempted murder)

Question 2

What is the burden of proof for each element of a crime?

Answer 2

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Question 3

Are habitual acts (conditioned reactions) considered voluntary acts?

Answer 3

Yes

Question 4

What are examples of involuntary acts?

Answer 4

• Reflexes;
• Bodily movements during unconsciousness or sleep;
• Actions during hypnosis; or
• A bodily movement that is otherwise not the product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual

Question 5

Do involuntary acts satisfy the actus reus?

Answer 5

No, unless:
1. D is aware that they have a condition that can result in involuntary actions; and
2. Fails to take reasonable steps to prevent such actions

Question 6

When is possession deemed a voluntary act?

Answer 6

When the defendant is aware of his control of the contraband fo a sufficient period of time to have been able to terminate the possession

Question 7

Are acts performed under duress considered voluntary acts?

Answer 7

Yes
⚠️ Note: duress can be a valid defense. See the deck on defenses.

Question 8

When does failure to act constitute the actus reus?

Answer 8

1. There was a legal duty to act;
2. D was aware of such duty; and
3. D could have reasonably performed the act

Question 9

Under what circumstances is there a legal duty to act?

Answer 9

1. Special relationship (ex. parent/child);
2. Statutory or contractual duty (ex. firefighter or lifeguard); or
3. Voluntary undertaking that leaves Victim worse off than before
4. Defendant created the peril/risk
5. By Statute- (ex. paying taxes, ships captain duty to stay on sinking ship, etc.)

Question 10

Define

mens rea

Answer 10

D’s state of mind during a crime. D must have “culpable state of mind” to be convicted of a crime

Question 11

Do strict liability crimes have a required mens rea?

Answer 11

No, it is sufficient that the act was performed

Question 12

What are the 4 main categories of strict liability crimes?

Answer 12

Remember MARS: “life is strict on Mars”

• Morality crimes (bigamy)
• Administrative crimes
• Regulatory crimes
• Statutory rape

Question 13

What intent do specific intent crimes require?

Answer 13

Subjective intent to cause a specific outcome

Question 14

What are some common specific intent crimes?

Answer 14

• Burglary
• Robbery
• Assault
• Murder
• Attempt
• Conspiracy
• Theft crimes (embezzlement, larceny, false pretenses, forgery)
• Solicitation

Remember acronym “BRAM-ACTS”

Question 15

What do general intent crimes require?

Answer 15

D intended to commit the criminal act

⚠️ Note: Unlike specific intent, general intent crimes do not require subjective intent to bring about a certain result; only to commit the act itself

Question 16

What are the 5 main general intent crimes?

Answer 16

Battery
Rape
Kidnapping
False imprisonment
Manslaughter

Remember: BRIK-Slaughter

Question 17

What are the 4 categories of mens rea under common law?

Answer 17

1. Specific intent;
2. General intent;
3. Negligence;
4. Recklessness

Question 18

What are the 4 categories of mens rea under the MPC?

Answer 18

Purposely (subjective)
Knowingly (subjective)
Recklessly (subjective)
Negligently (objective)

Question 19

When does D act “purposely” for the purposes of MPC mens rea?

Answer 19

With the conscious objective to produce the result or engage in the particular behavior

⭐️ Subjective standard

Question 20

When does D act “knowingly” for the purposes of MPC mens rea?

Answer 20

When he knows that a course of action will almost certainly produce a specific result

⭐️ Subjective standard

Question 21

Differentiate between purposely and knowingly

Answer 21

Purposely: D desires to produce a specific result

Knowingly: D is aware that a specific result is almost certain to occur

Ex. If Max shoots Brianne at close range and kills her, he has acted “purposely”

However, if Max means to kill Brianne, and he places a bomb in the car that he knows is carrying both Brianne and Mat, it is unlikely he could be charged with “purposely” killing Mat, but will likely be charged with “knowingly” killing Mat

Question 22

When does D act “recklessly” for the purposes of MPC mens rea?

Answer 22

When D “consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk”

⚠️ Note: Majority uses a subjective standard, minority uses an objective standard

Question 23

When does D act “negligently” for the purposes of MPC mens rea?

Answer 23

When, regardless of whether D was actually aware of the risk, D should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk

Question 24

Differentiate between criminal negligence & civil negligence

Answer 24

Criminal negligence: gross deviation from the normal standard of care

Civil negligence: deviation from the normal standard of care

Question 25

Causation requires both **(blank) cause** and **(blank) cause**

Answer 25

Actual cause (“cause-in-fact) and proximate cause

Question 26

What does **concurrence** require?

Answer 26

Concurrence between: The **mental state** and the **act**; and The **mind** and the **result** ⚠️ Note: If the result is too attenuated from the original intent, there will likely be no concurrence and no liability

Question 27

What are **two tests** to determine whether **actual cause** exists?

Answer 27

1**. “But for” causation**: Criminal result would not have occurred *“but for”* D’s act; or 2. **Substantial Factor**: D’s acts were a *substantial* factor in causing the criminal result (e.g. D’s acts shorten V’s life or speeds up their inevitable death) 3. ⭐️ The decision whether to use the “but for” test or “substantial factor” test is state specific.

Question 28

# Define MPC proximate cause

Answer 28

Exists when the actual result involves the **same kind of harm that the D “designed or contemplated”** and is not too **“remote or accidental.”**

Question 29

What should you ask when determining whether **proximate cause** exists?

Answer 29

Is the **connection** between the act and the harm **so attenuated** that it is **unfair** to hold D liable for that harm?

Question 30

# Define: doctrine of transferred intent

Answer 30

If D intends to harm against one party but **inadvertently** harms another party, D’s **original intent is“transferred”** to the actual victim

Question 31

Does the doctrine of transferred intent apply if the victim was **unforeseeable**? (ex. D intends to shoot A but actually shoots B)

Answer 31

**Yes.** For example, if Max shoots into a car intending to kill Kathy, but a jogger runs in front of the car at the exact moment the shot was fired and is killed, Max will still be liable.

Question 32

Does the doctrine of transferred intent apply if the victim was **unforeseeable**? (ex. D intends to shoot A but actually shoots B)

Answer 32

**Yes.** For example, if Max shoots into a car intending to kill Kathy, but a jogger runs in front of the car at the exact moment the shot was fired and is killed, Max will still be liable.

Question 33

V dies in an unforeseen manner not intended by D. Is D still liable?

Answer 33

Yes, if: * D **directly caused** V’s harm For example, D likely still liable even if the injury is different than what the D intended (shooting in the foot vs. the head) and even if harm the occurs in a different way than what D intended; * V had a **pre-existing condition** that exacerbated the harm (Eggshell rule); or * V died from **fright or stress**

Question 34

Is D still liable if there is a **foreseeable intervening event**?

Answer 34

**Yes**, D will likely **still be liable** because the causal chain has not been broken. Ex. Carly pushes Max while ice skating, and Max falls and breaks his hip on the ice. Causation exists because it is forseeable that Max would fall on the ice if pushed.

Question 35

# Define: superceding cause

Answer 35

**Unforeseeable** intervening cause. Absolves D of liability if **both the act and the injury** are unforeseeable. For example, D punches V on the arm, after which V returns home, uninjured. That night, a burglar breaks into V’s home and and shoots V in the arm. Causation for the gunshot does not exist for D.

Question 36

If, after D causes V injury, V dies as a **result of medical treatment**, is D still liable?

Answer 36

**Yes**, unless the medical treatment was performed in a **grossly negligent** or **reckless manner**. ⚠️ Note: Medical treatment performed in an ordinarily negligent manner is NOT sufficient to supercede, it must be grossly negligent or reckless

Question 37

Will a **third party’s failure to act** absolve the D of liability? (Ex. D shoots V and a bystander refuses to render aid that would have saved V)

Answer 37

No, never

Question 38

If V voluntarily subjects himself to harm (e.g. playing Russian Roulette), does that absolve D of liability?

Answer 38

No, generally not

Question 39

When two offenses are **greater and lesser included offenses**, can a defendant be convicted of both crimes for a **single offense**?

Answer 39

**No** Ex. (Ex. Robbery= larceny + force or threat of immediate harm. Defendant can't be convicted for both for the same transaction)