Criminal Law- Components Of A Crime

Front 1

components of a crime

Back 1

voluntary act (AR) and a culpable state of mind (MR);

Act must be both the actual cause and the proximate cause of the harm incurred

Front 2

AR requirements

Back 2

Cannot punish for thoughts alone;

Must be an act or omission

Front 3

Voluntary vs involuntary

Back 3

Voluntary: use of the human mind;

Involuntary: use of the brain without the mind (habitual acts still voluntary thought)

Front 4

possession

Back 4

actual or constructive;

Continued possession without getting rid may be illegal because you didn't do something (omission)

Front 5

justification for requiring voluntary act

Back 5

more retributive than utilitarian;

R- deterrence;

U-forcing epileptic to take meds if they are to drive

Front 6

omission

Back 6

hard to hold someone accountable for lack of action (good Samaritan statutes)

Front 7

sources of legal duty

Back 7

statutes;

Status (family members);

Contract (express or implied) (nursing home);

Voluntary assumption;

Causation of harm (DWI and hitting a person, must call police)

Front 8

attendant circumstances

Back 8

condition that must be present, in conjunction with the prohibited conduct or result, in order to constitute a crime;

Social harm does not occur unless these AC are met;

E.g. Drive an automobile in an intoxicated condition; AC= automobile & intoxication

Front 9

MR rational

Back 9

utilitarian & retributive:

U-usually incomplete theories;

R-desire to punish those mentally culpable and not punish those who accidentally cause social injury

Front 10

MR levels

Back 10

WPKRNS/L;

Front 11

willful

Back 11

voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty;

Often written into statutes as purpose/knowledge

Front 12

purpose

Back 12

conscious desire to bring about an effect in the world (want it to happen)

Front 13

knowledge

Back 13

you know it will happen (don't have to want it to happen);

Can be actual knowledge or"correct belief"

Front 14

recklessness

Back 14

awareness that there is high degree of risk, and a willingness to run that risk anyway;

Criminal recklessness must pass a high degree of risk

Front 15

negligence

Back 15

ran a criminally high risk but a reasonable person would have seen the risk and avoided it;

Utilitarian justification of deterrence;

Physical disabilities but not mental ones usually taken into account

Front 16

strict liability

Back 16

does not take into account what is happening inside your head; act is enough;

Usually for crimes with low penalties

Front 17

CL intent

Back 17

includes both P & K

Front 18

SI offense

Back 18

crime includes an intent or purpose to do some future act, or achieve some further consequence;

WPK~R;

Very high probability, K, and some unacceptable high risk, (R) is diving line; at this point it is kicked to judge/jury

Front 19

GI

Back 19

WPKRN

Front 20

proving knowledge

Back 20

what can you assume/infer:

Reasonability

Front 21

willful blindness

Back 21

not an excuse;

WB to law is treated as knowledge of the law

Front 22

statutory interpretation steps

Back 22

text/plain meaning;

Purpose/legislative intent (definitions, plain meanings, CL background, history, case law, legislative history);

Practicality/admin (were these circumstances under consideration when passing law?)

Front 23

mistake of fact

Back 23

once D produces evidence that he was mistake, burden remains on prosecution to prove BRD that D was not mistaken, or that mistake did not negate MR requirements;

Front 24

CL mistake of fact

Back 24

exculpatory if it negates the particular element of MR;

Does mistake negate culpability of D?

Front 25

modern mistake of fact steps

Back 25

first, identify the nature of the crime for which the D is being prosecuted

Front 26

Exception: entrapment by estoppel

Back 26

Actor believes conduct is outside scope of the law because she was informed it was by an official interpretation of the law

Front 27

causation

Back 27

D must be the actual cause and proximate cause to be held liable for a crime

Front 28

actual cause (case-in-fact); but-for & substantial factor

Back 28

but-fore cause; but for actor's conduct, the crime would not have occurred;

Substantial factor: but-for fails because multiple actors; D's conduct is a cause-in-fact if subject conduct was a "substantial factor" in bringing about the said result

Front 29

proximate cause

Back 29

legally responsible cause;

Front 30

intervening & superseding cause

Back 30

intervening cause breaks causal chain if it succeeds actions of original actor;

Look at forseeability of intervening action;

Acceleration?

Front 31

apparent-safety doctrine

Back 31

if victim comes to a place of apparent safety from D's actions, D is generally not proximate cause of subsequent harm