General principles

Question 1

ACTUS REAS- Acts and Omissions

Answer 1

Before there can be a crime, there must be a criminal act (actus reus). The criminal act must be a voluntary, affirmative act that causes a criminally proscribed result. The act requirement may also be satisfied by an “omission” or failure to act under circumstances imposing a legal duty to act. A bad thought standing alone cannot result in criminal liability.

Question 2

Voluntary Act

Answer 2

The criminal act must be physical and voluntary. Actions during unconsciousness, sleep, or hypnosis are not voluntary. Other acts that are not considered voluntary are reflexive or convulsive acts as well as conduct that is not the product of the actor’s determination.

Question 3

MENS REA

Answer 3

Mens rea is the requirement of a guilty mind or legally proscribed mental state that a defendant must possess to commit a crime. Except for strict liability crimes, a crime is committed when a criminal act (actus reus) is coupled with a guilty mind—both the mental and physical elements exist at the same time. Strict liability crimes have no mens rea requirement and require only an actus reus.

Question 4

Specific Intent Crimes

Answer 4

Specific intent crimes require that the defendant possess a subjective desire, specific objective, or knowledge to accomplish a prohibited result. When dealing with specific intent crimes, it is necessary to identify specific intent for two reasons. First, the prosecution must prove the specific intent in order to prosecute the defendant; second, certain defenses (e.g., voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact) are applicable only to specific intent crimes.

Question 5

Types of details known

Answer 5

i) First-degree murder;
ii) Inchoate offenses (attempt, solicitation, conspiracy);
iii) Assault with intent to commit a battery; and
iv) Theft offenses (larceny, larceny by trick, false pretenses, embezzlement, forgery, burglary, robbery).

Question 6

Malice Crimes

Answer 6

The crimes of common-law murder and arson require malice, a reckless disregard of a high risk of harm. Although these two crimes appear to have an “intent” requirement (e.g., intent to kill), malice requires only a criminal act without excuse, justification, or mitigation. Intent can be inferred from the accomplishment of the act.

Question 7

General Intent Crimes

Answer 7

General intent crimes require only the intent to perform an act that is unlawful. Examples include battery, rape, kidnapping, and false imprisonment.

Motive is not the same as intent. The motive is the reason or explanation for the crime and is immaterial to the substantive criminal offense.

Question 8

Transferred intent

Answer 8

When a defendant acts with an intent to cause harm to one person or object and that act directly results in harm to another person or object, the defendant can be liable for the harm caused under the doctrine of transferred intent.

Question 9

Acting with purpose

Answer 9

When a defendant acts “purposely,” his conscious objective is to engage in the conduct or to cause a certain result. MPC § 2.02(2)(a).

Question 10

Acting recklessly

Answer 10

“Recklessly” requires the defendant to act with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a material element of a crime exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must constitute a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a law-abiding person. MPC § 2.02(2)(c). Mere realization of the risk is not enough.

Question 11

Acting negligently

Answer 11

A defendant acts “negligently” when that defendant should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a material element of a crime exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must constitute a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the same situation. MPC § 2.02(2)(d).

Question 12

No Men Rea stated

Answer 12

If the requisite mens rea is not stated in a criminal statute, it is established if the defendant acted at least recklessly. If the mens rea does not state the culpable mind applicable to all material elements of the crime, then the mens rea applicable to one material element is applicable to all material elements, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears. MPC § 2.02(3),(4).

Question 13

Strict liability>

Answer 13

A strict-liability crime does not require a mens rea, rather, proof of the actus reus is sufficient for a conviction. Examples of strict-liability crimes include statutory rape; bigamy; regulatory offenses for public welfare; regulation of food, drugs, and firearms; and selling liquor to minors.

Question 14

Vicariously Liability

Answer 14

Vicarious liability may present due process issues because it can involve criminal liability without a personal act on the part of the defendant. Although imprisonment for a faultless crime may have constitutional due process implications, when the punishment for a crime is merely a fine, the application of vicarious liability is unlikely to constitute a denial of due process.

Question 15

Mistake of Fact

Answer 15

1) Negation of intent

Mistake of fact may negate criminal intent but it must be an “honest mistake.” The defense applies differently between specific- and general?intent crimes. Mistake of fact is never a defense to a strict-liability crime because strict-liability offenses do not have a mens rea.

2) Reasonableness of mistake
a) Specific-intent crimes

A mistake of fact is a defense to a specific-intent crime, even if the mistake is unreasonable.

Question 16

Mistake of Law

Answer 16

Mistake or ignorance of the law generally is not a valid defense, except when:

i) There is reliance on the decision of a court, administrative order, or official interpretation of the law determined to be erroneous after the conduct;
ii) A statute defining a malum prohibitum crime (i.e., a crime for engaging in conduct not obviously wrong, such as a failure to obtain a license) was not reasonably made available prior to the conduct; or
iii) An honestly held mistake of law negates the required intent (e.g., specific intent) or mental state (e.g., purposefully) for a material element of the crime. MPC § 2.04(1).

If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they are joint principals (i.e., co-principals).

Question 17

Accomplice Liability

Answer 17

If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they are joint principals (i.e., co-principals).

Question 18

Accomplice’s status

Answer 18

Some states draw a distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal in the second degree based upon presence at the scene of the crime. An accomplice who is physically or constructively present during the commission of the crime is a principal in the second degree. For example, a getaway driver some distance from the scene is deemed constructively present and will be considered a principal in the second degree.

An accomplice who is neither physically nor constructively present during the commission of the crime, but who possesses the requisite intent, for example someone who helped plan the crime or acquired tools or weapons necessary to commit the crime, is an accessory before the fact.

Question 19

Accomplice’s Mental State-Majority view

Answer 19

Under the majority and MPC rule, a person is an accomplice in the commission of an offense if he acts with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense. The accomplice must solicit, aid, agree, or attempt to aid in the planning or commission of the crime, with the intent that the crime actually be committed. Model Penal Code § 2.06(3). Mere knowledge that another person intends to commit a crime is not enough to make a person an accomplice.

Question 20

Criminal facilitation

Answer 20

In jurisdictions that have adopted the majority rule, a person encouraging or assisting a criminal who is not guilty of the crime itself as an accomplice may be guilty of a lesser crime, such as criminal facilitation.

Question 21

Reckless or negligence mental state crimes

Answer 21

When the crime committed by the principal only requires the principal to act recklessly or negligently (e.g., involuntary manslaughter), a person may be an accomplice to that crime under the majority rule if the person merely acts recklessly or negligently with regard the principal’s commission of the crime, rather than purposefully or intentionally

Question 22

Accomplice’s criminal liability

Answer 22

An accomplice is responsible for the crime to the same extent as the principal. If the principal commits crimes other than the crimes for which the accomplice has provided encouragement or assistance, then the accomplice is liable for the other crimes if the crimes are the natural and probable consequences of the accomplice’s conduct.
An accomplice may be criminally liable even though she cannot be a principal.

Question 23

Withdrawal

Answer 23

To legally withdraw (and therefore avoid liability for the substantive crime), the accomplice must (i) repudiate prior aid, (ii) do all that is possible to countermand prior assistance, and (iii) do so before the chain of events is in motion and unstoppable.

Question 24

Infective forms of withdrawal

Answer 24

A mere change of heart, a flight from the crime scene, an arrest by law enforcement, or an uncommunicated decision to withdraw is ineffective. Notification to the legal authorities must be timely and directed toward preventing others from committing the crime.

Question 25

Persons who are not accomplices

Answer 25

A person who is a member of the class protected by a statute cannot be an accomplice. Similarly, when the crime requires another party, the other party is not, simply by engaging in the criminal act, guilty of the crime as an accomplice. For example, the buyer of drugs is not guilty of the crime of distributing drugs simply by purchasing the drugs (but of course he may be guilty of a different crime).

Question 26

Effect of the principal’s status on accomplice culpability

Answer 26

In most jurisdictions, an accomplice may be convicted of a crime even if the principal is not tried, is not convicted, has been given immunity from prosecution, or is acquitted.

Question 27

Accessory after the fact

Answer 27

An accessory after the fact is a person who aids or assists a felon in avoiding apprehension or conviction after commission of the felony. An accessory after the fact must know that a felony was committed, act specifically to aid or assist the felon, and give the aid or assistance for the purpose of helping the felon avoid apprehension or conviction. An accessory after the fact is not subject to punishment for the crime committed by the felon, but instead has committed a separate crime, frequently labeled “obstruction of justice” or “harboring a fugitive.”

Question 28

Insanity defense

Answer 28

Insanity encompasses mental abnormalities that may affect legal responsibility. It is a legal term rather than a psychiatric term. A defendant who puts his sanity at issue can be compelled to submit to psychiatric testing after being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights.

Question 29

What mental conditions are not included under the insanity classification?

Answer 29

Expressly excludes the “sociopathic” or “psychopathic” criminals who have a tendency to commit antisocial and sometimes violent acts and are incapable of experiencing guilt.

Question 30

M’Naghten test

Answer 30

Under the M’Naghten test, the defendant is not guilty if, because of a defect of reason due to a mental disease, the defendant did not know either (i) the nature and quality of the act or (ii) the wrongfulness of the act.

Question 31

The wrongfulness of the defendants acts and how that determines whether or not the defense will prevail

Answer 31

Without knowing that the act is wrong, a defendant could not have formed the requisite criminal intent. Therefore, it is important to assess whether the defendant’s actions would have been criminal if the facts, as he believed them to be, supported his delusions.

Question 32

Majority jurisdictions- burden of proof for insanity

Answer 32

In the majority of jurisdictions, the defendant has the burden of proving insanity. The level of proof required in these jurisdictions can be either a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.

Question 33

Minority jurisdictions- burden of proof for insanity

Answer 33

Minority jurisdictions require the defendant to overcome the presumption of sanity by introducing evidence of the defendant’s insanity, and then shift the burden of persuasion to the prosecution, which has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is sane.

Question 34

Intoxication

Answer 34

Intoxication can be caused by any substance (e.g., alcohol, drugs, or prescription medicine). There are two types of intoxication defenses: voluntary and involuntary.

Question 35

Voluntary intoxication

Answer 35

Voluntary intoxication is the intentional taking of a substance known to be intoxicating; actual intoxication need not be intended.

Question 36

Specific-intent crimes- intoxication as a defense

Answer 36

Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific-intent crimes if the intoxication prevents the formation of the required intent. For example, intoxication may prevent the formation of the premeditation required for first-degree murder but not second-degree murder.

Question 37

MPC and intoxication as a defense

Answer 37

Under the MPC, voluntary intoxication is a defense to crimes for which a material element requires a mental state that is purposely or knowingly and the intoxication prevents the formation of that mental state

Question 38

When is intoxication as a defense inapplicable

Answer 38

Voluntary intoxication is not a defense when the intent was formed before intoxication or when the defendant becomes intoxicated for the purpose of establishing the defense of voluntary intoxication. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to crimes involving malice, recklessness, or negligence, or for strict-liability crimes.

Question 39

Do specific intent defenses apply to common law murder and arson?

Answer 39

Although common-law murder and arson sound like specific-intent crimes because they require the “intent to kill” or the “intent to burn,” they are malice crimes, and the specific-intent defenses (e.g., voluntary intoxication) do not apply.

Question 40

Involuntary intoxication

Answer 40

Involuntary intoxication is a defense when the intoxication serves to negate an element of the crime, including general as well as specific-intent and malice crimes. To be considered involuntary, the intoxicating substance must have been taken: i) Without knowledge of the intoxicating nature of the substance, including substances taken pursuant to medical advice; or ii) Under duress. In addition, although intoxication and insanity are two separate defenses, excessive drinking and drug use may bring on actual insanity. Thus, involuntary intoxication can give rise to an insanity defense if the requirements for that defense are met.

Question 41

Immaturity/Infancy

Answer 41

At common law, a child under the age of seven could not be convicted of a crime. A child at least seven years old but less than 14 years old was rebuttably presumed to be incapable of committing a crime. A child at least 14 years old could be charged with a crime as an adult. Modern statutes have modified this rule and provide that no child can be convicted of a crime until a certain age is reached, usually between the ages of 11 and 14.