General/basics

Question 1

Actus reus

Answer 1

Voluntary action taken by defendant.

Question 2

Basic criminal law analysis

Answer 2

1. Actus reus
2. Mens rea or strict liability?
3. Causation (end here for strict liability)
4. justifications or defenses?

Question 3

Legal duty to act:

Answer 3

1. When a statute imposes a duty of care
2. When a person has a status relationship that gives rise to duty of care (parent/child)
3. When a person assumes a contractual duty to care for another
4. When a person voluntarily assumes care of another and then secluded the other person in a way that prevented others from rendering aid
5. When a person created the peril the other suffered from

Question 4

Mens Rea

Answer 4

Purpose: defendant desires a result
Knowing: foresees a result as highly likely but doesn’t care if it happens or not.
Reckless: consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Negligent: defendant should be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk, conduct is a gross deviation from standard of care of a reasonable person in defendant’s situation.

Question 5

Strict liability offenses

Answer 5

Where defendant is liable regardless of intent.
Crimes with common law origin: it’s assumed not to be strict liability.
If a crime doesn’t have CL origins, it’s interpreted as strict liability when there’s a clear indication of legislative intent.
Two categories:
1. Public welfare offenses (food handling, pharmaceuticals, traffic violations)
2. Morality offenses (statutory rape)

Question 6

Determining if an offense is strict liability

Answer 6

1. Does statute say mens rea isn’t required? If mens rea merely omitted,
2. Look at legislative history of the offense. If that doesn’t answer,
3. Look at purpose of the law and penalty imposed. The more prison time possible, the less likely it’s a strict liability (except CL strict liability crimes like statutory rape and bigamy)

Question 7

Causation basic approach

Answer 7

1. But-for cause?
2. Intervening cause after defendant acted?
3. If yes, dependent or independent?
   - dependent: if intervening act was foreseeable and reasonably related to defendants conduct = legal causation.
   - independent: if intervening act is not foreseeable and not reasonably related to defendant’s conduct = no legal causation.

Question 8

Causation and negligent medical care

Answer 8

CL only considers negligent medical care a superseding cause if it was so outrageously improper or inappropriate as to be regarded as abnormal (grossly negligent).

Question 9

Concurrent causation

Answer 9

Two independent acts at or near the same time that would individually cause the result: both are the but-for cause, both are criminally liable.

Question 10

Causation in CL v. MPC

Answer 10

MPC focuses on defendant’s culpability toward the result: compares what defendant intended/contemplated/should’ve contemplated with what happened

Question 11

Intent crimes: specific v. general intent

Answer 11

Specific intent: definition of crime expressly includes intent to do some further act or achieve additional consequence, actor must be aware of a statutory attendant circumstance.

General intent: to commit a particular act, without intent to do a further act or achieve a future consequence

Question 12

Year and a day rule

Answer 12

At common law, defendant’s conduct could not be the cause of a homicide unless victim died within a year and a day after defendant’s act.

Question 13

Result crimes

Answer 13

Require that defendant “cause” some result. ex: homicide