Crim Law Elements

Front 1

Essential Elements of A Crime

Back 1

1) Acteus Reus
2) Mens Rea
3) Concurrence
4) Harmful result and Causation

Front 2

Actus Reus

Back 2

1) Either a voluntary physical act or
2) A failure to act where there is a legal duty.

Front 3

{Actus Reus}
Involuntary conduct

Back 3

Not liable for acts if:
1) Not the product of actor's determination
2) Reflexive or convulsive acts
3) Acrs performed while the defendant was unconscious or asleep

Front 4

{Mens Rea}
Purposely

Back 4

Specific Intent
- where it is the “conscious object” or “purpose or intention” of D to engage in the particular conduct, or to cause the particular result in question.

Front 5

{Mens Rea}
{MPC}
Knowingly

Back 5

Specific Intent
- Where D does not necessarily desire a particular result but is aware that the conduct or result is “practically certain” to follow.

Front 6

{Mens Rea}
Recklessly

Back 6

General Intent
- Conscious risk creation.
1) D consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
2) Must be aware of the risk
UNLESS they behave extremely unreasonable.

Front 7

{Mens Rea}
Negligently

Back 7

General Intent
Where D behaves negligently and certain results follow. Here a reasonable person would realize the risk entailed.
• Doesn’t have to be aware
• Usually gross negligence is required.

Front 8

{Mens Rea}
{MPC}
Purposeful

Back 8

- where it is the “conscious object” or “purpose or intention” of D to cause the particular result.
- Pertains to D not reasonable person.

Front 9

{Mens Rea}
MPC Knowlingly

Back 9

- Conscience awareness that results are practically certain to occur.

Front 10

{Mens Rea}
{MPC}
Recklessly

Back 10

- Conscious risk creation.
1) D knows about and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

- Pertains to D not reasonable person.
- Must be aware of the risk unless they behave extremely unreasonable.

Front 11

{Mens Rea}
{MPC }
Negligently (elements)

Back 11

1) D behaves negligently and certain results follow.
2) a reasonable person would realize the risk entailed.

- Doesn’t actually have to be aware of risk
- Usually gross negligence is required.

Front 12

{Mistake}
Types (Common Law) (4)

Back 12

1) Mistake of fact
2) Mistake as to some matter of law, which is incorporated into the criminal prohibition
3) Mistake about the existence of the criminal prohibition, or its meaning
4) Mistake as to the law that justifies what would otherwise be a criminal act, e.x: execution of a public duty

Front 13

Legality

Back 13

- the law must be certain
- People don’t have to actually know what they law is, but they should be able to if they look it up
- Law must be:
1) Certain
2) Clear ascertainable and non-retroactive

Front 14

Homicide (definition)

Back 14

“The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought”

Front 15

{Homicide}
Common Law (types)

Back 15

1) Intent to kill
2) Intent to inflict great bodily injury
3) Awareness of an unjustifiably high risk to human life (abandoned and malignant heart)
4) Intent to commit a felony

Front 16

{Homicide}
First Degree Murder (what to prove)

Back 16

The prosecution must prove ANY of the following:
1) Deliberate and premeditated killing, reflected in a cool and dispassionate manner
2) 1st degree felony murder: Specific felonies must be involved
i. Arson
ii. Robbery
iii. Burglary
iv. Rape
v. Mayhem
vi. Kidnapping
3) Some statutes make killings performed in a certain way:
i. Lying in wait
ii. Poison
iii. Torture

Front 17

{Homicide}
Second Degree Murder

Back 17

a. Intent to kill murder without premeditation and deliberation
b. Intent to do serious bodily injury murder, even if premeditated
c. Depraved heart murder
d. Most felony murder cases

Front 18

{Homicide}
{Intent to Murder}
Anderson Test

Back 18

- From a grisly and ugly killing of a 10-yr-old girl who was repeatedly stabbed.
- Factors include: (These are not exhaustive factors.)
1) Planning activity
2) Facts about defendants prior relationship or behavior with victim that might indicate motive
3) Evidence regarding nature or manner of killing, which indicate deliberate intention to kill according to preconceived design

Front 19

{Homicide}
{Intent to Murder}
State v. Guthrie

Back 19

- There must be some amount of time between the intent to kill and the killing.
- Dishwasher stabbed co-worker after teasing.
- The court reasoned that there has to be some amount of deliberation, otherwise there is no difference in the degrees of intentional killing.

Front 20

{Homicide}
Heat of passion/voluntary manslaughter (def + Elements)

Back 20

Unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. In most jurisdictions, this means that manslaughter is intentional homicide committed under extenuating circumstances, that mitigate, but don’t excuse or justify the crime.
- The requirements are:
1) Elements of Murder
2) Provocation

Front 21

{Homicide}
{Heat of passion/voluntary manslaughter}
Provocation

Back 21

1) A reasonable person would be provoked into a heat of passion
2) Defendant was provoked
3) A reasonable person would NOT have cooled off
4) Defendant DID NOT cool off.

Front 22

{Homicide}
{Heat of passion/voluntary manslaughter}
Provocation - Reasonable Person (5)

Back 22

- There is a finite list of things that can provoke someone:
1) Extreme assault or battery on defendant (Defendant can't have started fracas)
2) Mutual combat
3) Defendant’s illegal arrest: Defendant must know or reasonably think that he has been illegally arrested
4) Injury or serious abuse of a close relative
5) Sudden discovery of a spouse’s adultery: Must be a spouse, can’t be a g/f or fiancé.

Front 23

{Homicide}
{Heat of passion/voluntary manslaughter}
MPC

Back 23

- When a homicide would otherwise be murder is committed
1) under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance
2) for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse.

- Middle ground between standard that ignores all individual peculiarities and what that makes distress decisive regardless of cause

Front 24

{Homicide}
{Heat of passion/voluntary manslaughter}
{MPC}
Extreme Emotional Disturbance

Back 24

1) Defendant must have acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance; AND
2) There must have been a reasonable explanation or excuse for such extreme emotional disturbance. The reasonableness is determined from the viewpoint of the defendant.
- Personal handicaps such as blindness, traumatization, grief, but not idiosyncratic moral values.

Front 25

{Homicide}
{Unintended Killings}
{Criminal Negligence}
Majority View

Back 25

- Something more than ordinary negligence.
- There is a difference between the exact language in the different statutes. Usually require one or both of the following:
1) Defendant’s conduct involves a high risk of death or serious bodily injury
2) Defendant is aware of that fact that his conduct is creating the risk.

- only simple negligence where the defendant was using an inherently dangerous instrumentality.

Front 26

{Homicide}
{Unintended Killings}
Depraved Heart Murder - Elements

Back 26

1) Conduct creates an unjustifiable risk of death or serious bodily injury
a. Wanton: Conveys a higher degree of indifference, marked by arrogant reckless of the rights of others.
2) The risk is extremely high
3) A reasonable person would have been aware of 1 and 2 above
4)Defendant was aware of 1 and 2 above. Cases are divided as to if 4 is required.

Front 27

{Homicide}
{Felony Murder}
Purposes (arguments for)

Back 27

1) Deter accidental killings
2) To make it easier for the prosecutor to convict for murder
a. Malice is posited and doesn’t need to be proved. Expands the scope of liability for murder, even if recklessness can’t be proved.
b. Precludes use of provocation formula
c. Precludes use of diminished capacity
3) Fixes degree of murder.

Front 28

{Homicide}
{Felony Murder}
Objections

Back 28

- Departs from the basic principles of crim law: mens rea
- Leads to disproportionate verdicts and sentencing (Stamp)

Front 29

{Homicide}
{Felony Murder}
Limitations (6)

Back 29

1) Time
2) Specific Felonies
3) Causation
4) Merger
5) Furtherance of the felont (Agency Theory)
6) Who is killed

Front 30

{Homicide}
{Felony Murder}
{Limitations}
Specific Felonies

Back 30

- Many jurisdictions limits the felonies that could make someone liable for felony murder.
1) “inherently dangerous” felonies
2) Felonies at Common Law
3) Malem in Se Felonies
4) Specifically named in statutes

Front 31

{Homicide}
{Felony Murder}
{Limitations}
Furtherance of felony (Agency Theory)

Back 31

- Who does the killing?
- killing must be done:
1) by the felon or one of his agents
2) in furtherance of a common object or purpose.

Front 32

{Attempt}
Intent

Back 32

1) Need specific intent
2) Need intent even for strict liability crimes

Front 33

{Attempt}
Actus Reus - Approaches

Back 33

1) Proximity
2) Probable desistance
3) Equivocality
4) MPC

Front 34

{Attempt}
{Actus Reus}
Proximity

Back 34

- This test focuses on how close the defendant is to completing the act.
- The idea is that you have to have taken the last step right before the actual act. - "Crossed the rubicon"

Front 35

{Attempt}
{Actus Reus}
Probable Desistance

Back 35

- Point at which it is unlikely that defendant would voluntarily desist from effort to commit crime.
- Asks the question whether there was still time for the defendant to change their mind.
- In practice this is very similar to the proximity approach.

Front 36

{Attempt}
{Actus Reus}
Equivocality Approach

Back 36

- Based on what has been done so far, is there any doubt that the defendant was going to commit a crime?

Front 37

{Attempt}
{Actus Reus}
MPC - Elements

Back 37

1) Substantial step
2) Furtherance
3) Purpose

Front 38

{Attempt}
{Actus Reus}
{MPC}
Substantial Step

Back 38

- there must be an act or omission constituting a substantial step towards the actor’s commission of a crime

Front 39

{Attempt}
{Actus Reus}
{MPC}
Furtherance

Back 39

The actions must have some firmness of criminal purpose.

Front 40

{Attempt}
{Actus Reus}
{MPC}
Purpose

Back 40

- Factual circumstances that show purpose:
1. Lying in wait
2. Searching for or following victim
3. Reconnoitering the scene
4. Unlawful entry where crime would be committed
5. Possession of materials to commit offense

Front 41

{Attempt}
{Defenses}
Common Law

Back 41

1) Impossibility of law - Yes
2) Impossibility of fact - No
3) Abandonment - No

Front 42

{Attempt}
{Defenses}
{Common Law}
Impossibility of Law

Back 42

- it is a defense.
- Here a defendant would is engaging in conduct that they think is a crime, but actually isn’t against any law.

Front 43

{Attempt}
{Defenses}
{Common Law}
Impossibility of fact

Back 43

- not a defense.
- This is when there is a fact, not known to defendant, that makes the crime impossible.
- EX: trying to pickpocket someone with no wallet is still attempt.

Front 44

{Attempt}
{Defenses}
{MPC}
Abandonment

Back 44

- Must be
1) Complete: Must totally abandon crime.
2) Voluntary: The abandonment must not be influenced or motivated by the possibility of getting caught.

Front 45

{Attempt}
{Defenses}
{MPC}
non- voluntary Abandonment (3)

Back 45

- Not a defense
1) Postponement
2) Dissuasion by victim
LeBaron v. State: Rapist let woman go after she proved she was pregnant. Court held this was not voluntary abandonment.
3) Threat of apprehension

Front 46

Accomplice Liability - Elements

Back 46

1) Gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent the crime
2) With intent to promote or facilitate commission of the crime
3) And with the same mens rea required for commission of the offense by the principal

Front 47

{Accomplice Liability}
Categories

Back 47

- P1: This is the person who commits the crime.
- P2: Present at the scene + aide. Can be constructively present (e.g. lookout or getaway driver.
- Accomplice before the fact: Absent from the scene but helped.
- Accomplice after the fact:

Front 48

{Self-Defense}
Elements

Back 48

1) Defendant perceives a threat of serious bodily harm or death
2) The threat is unlawful
3) The threat is imminent
4) These beliefs are reasonable

Front 49

{Self - Defense}
Limitations

Back 49

1) Retreat
2) Initial aggressor

Front 50

{Self - Defense}
{Limitations}
Initial Aggressor

Back 50

- If you are the initial aggressor in an altercation OR
- If you reinitiate an altercation after it is over, you can't use self defense.
EXCEPTION: If you are the aggressor and the other person comes back with deadly force.

Front 51

{Self-Defense}
Reasonable belief

Back 51

- Objective: What a reasonable person would believe
- Subjective: Must also be an honest belief.

Front 52

{Self - Defense}
MPC

Back 52

Subjective fear of imminent unlawful force.

Front 53

{Accomplice Liability}
Withdrawal (CL)

Back 53

1) Must take place before the events are unstoppable

Inciter – communicate an renunciation of the crime to the perpetrator

Abettor – Must render the assistance ineffective

Front 54

{Accomplice Liability}
Withdrawal (MPC)

Back 54

Any of the following:
1) Wholly depriving his prior assistance of effectiveness,
2) Provide a timely warning of the plan to law enforcement
3) Make an effort to prevent the commission of the offence

Front 55

{Attempt}
{Actus Reus}
(Common Law)
Indispensable Elements

Back 55

Control over all factors in the commission of the crime. Nothing must be left undone