General Principles

When analyzing whether a crime was committed, consider the three elements of a crime:

• Actus reus: A wrongful act

• Mens rea: An individual’s mental state or guilty mind

• Causation: A causal connection between the act and the result

ACTUS REUS: ACTS AND OMISSIONS

A criminal act (actus reus) must typically be a voluntary, affirmative act that causes a criminally proscribed result. A bad thought alone is not enough, and actions during unconsciousness, sleep, or hypnosis are not voluntary

OMISSIONS

A criminal act may also occur by an omission or failure to act when there is a legal duty to act. Such a duty arises in these five instances:

1. Statute (e.g., the obligation to file a tax return)

2. Contract (e.g., a lifeguard’s obligation to save a drowning person)

3. Special relationship (e.g., a parent’s duty to a child, a person’s duty to a spouse)

4. Detrimental undertaking (e.g., leaving a victim in worse condition after treatment)

5. Causation (e.g., failing to aid after causing a victim’s peril)

MENS REA: STATE OF MIND

Mens rea is the guilty mind or legally proscribed mental state that a defendant must possess to commit a crime. Except for strict-liability crimes (which have no mens rea requirement), a crime is committed when the criminal act (actus reus) is coupled with a guilty mind (mens rea)

Specific-Intent Crimes

Specific-intent crimes require that the defendant have a subjective desire, a specific objective, or knowledge to accomplish the prohibited result.

Specific-Intent Crimes

The common-law crimes that require specific intent are (FIAT):

• First-degree murder

• Inchoate offenses – attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy

• Assault with intent to commit battery

• Theft offenses – larceny, larceny by trick, false pretenses, embezzlement, forgery, burglary, and robbery

Certain defenses (e.g., voluntary intoxication, unreasonable mistake of fact) are available only for specific-intent crimes.

Malice Crimes

Malice crimes (e.g., common-law murder, arson) require reckless disregard of a high risk of harm. Malice does not require that a defendant act with ill will toward the victim. The defendant need only commit the criminal act without excuse, justification, or mitigation.

General-Intent Crimes

General-intent crimes (e.g., manslaughter, battery, rape, kidnapping, false imprisonment) require only the intent to perform an unlawful act.

Model Penal Code (MPC)

Crimes defined by statute generally state the mens rea requirement. The four levels of culpability according to the MPC are: purposely, knowingly/willingly, recklessly, and negligently.

Purposely

Defendant’s conscious objective is to engage in the conduct or to cause a certain result

Knowingly / Willfully

Defendant is aware or knows that the result is practically certain to occur based on the conduct

Recklessly

Defendant acts with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk

Negligently

Defendant should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a material element of a crime exists or will result from the conduct (i.e., a gross deviation from the standard of care)

Strict-Liability Crimes

Strict-liability crimes (e.g., statutory rape, bigamy, violation of a food and drug regulation) do not require a criminal mental state.

• Proof of a criminal act is sufficient for conviction.

• But offenses requiring no mens rea are generally disfavored, so there must be clear legislative intent to dispense with the mens rea requirement.

When you are presented with a section of the MPC or any other criminal statute, read the section carefully for hints about the mens rea requirement.

• “With intent” = specific-intent crime

• “Knowingly” or “recklessly” = general-intent crime

• No intent language = possible strict-liability crime

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious-liability crimes do not require an actus reus by the defendant because vicarious liability holds a defendant criminally responsible for the actus reus of a third party. It is generally limited to regulatory crimes, and punishment is generally limited to fines

• Corporation may be vicariously liable under modern statutes (but not at common law) for an act performed by a high-ranking corporate agent who likely represents corporate policy

Causation

The defendant’s mens rea (if required) must cause the criminal act, and the act must cause the particular result made unlawful by the statute.

Mistake as a Defense

• Mistake of Fact (a defendant’s misunderstanding of a material fact)

• Mistake of Law (a defendant’s misunderstanding of the legal effect of a known fact or circumstance)

Mistake of Fact (a defendant’s misunderstanding of a material fact)

Common law:

• Specific-intent crimes – It is a defense even if the mistake is unreasonable

• General-intent or malice crimes – It is a defense only if the mistake is reasonable

MPC

• It is a defense if the mistake prevents the prosecution from establishing the required state of mind for a material element of the crime

Strict Liability

• It is not a defense because strict-liability offenses have no mens rea requirement

Mistake of Law (a defendant’s misunderstanding of the legal effect of a known fact or circumstance)

Common law

• It is generally no defense even if the mistake is reasonable

MPC

• A defendant’s lack of knowledge of a criminal statute is no defense

• A defendant’s honest mistake of law may be a defense if it negates the requisite mental state

Transferred Intent

Transferred intent (i.e., the unintended-victim rule) may supply the required intent when a defendant acts with intent to cause harm to one person or object and that act directly results in harm to another person or object. It is usually confined to homicide, battery, and arson.

This doctrine applies only to “bad aim” cases—not “mistaken identity” cases. And transferred intent will not satisfy the mens rea requirement for attempted crimes, so the crime must be completed for the doctrine to apply.

JURISDICTION

A state has the authority to prosecute a crime that occurred within its boundaries, in whole or part.

PARTIES TO A CRIME - Modern view

Principal:

• Person whose criminal act or omission is the actus reus of the crime

• Is physically or constructively present at the scene of the crime

Liability

• Target and foreseeable crimes

PARTIES TO A CRIME - Common Law

Principal (1st degree):

• Person whose criminal act or omission is the actus reus of the crime

• Is physically or constructively present at the scene of the crime

Liability

• Target and foreseeable crimes

PARTIES TO A CRIME - Modern view

Accomplice:

• Person who (with the requisite mens rea) aids or abets a principal prior to or during the crime

• Is or Is not physically or constructively present during the commission of the crime

Liability

• Target and foreseeable crimes

PARTIES TO A CRIME - Modern view

Accessory after the fact:

• Person who aids or assists a felon in avoiding apprehension or conviction after committing a felony

• Knows that a felony was committed

Liability

• Independent crime

***Being an accomplice or accessory is not itself a crime. It is instead a theory of liability to link a person (accomplice/accessory) to the crime committed by another (principal).

PARTIES TO A CRIME - Common Law

Principal (2nd degree):

• Person who (with the requisite mens rea) aids or abets a principal prior to or during the crime

• Is physically or constructively present during the commission of the crime

Liability

• Target and foreseeable crimes

PARTIES TO A CRIME - Common Law

Accessory before:

• Person who (with the requisite mens rea) aids or abets a principal prior to or during the crime

• Is not physically or constructively present during the commission of the crime

Liability

• Target and foreseeable crimes

More on accomplice

Note that an accomplice is responsible for the crime and all other crimes that are the natural and probable (i.e., foreseeable) consequence of the accomplice’s conduct.

Insanity

For insanity to be a defense, the elements of insanity must have been present at the time of the crime. The four legal tests for insanity are:

• M’Naghten: The defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act, or the wrongfulness of the act, because of a defect of reason due to mental disease (“right from wrong” test).

• Irresistible impulse: The defendant lacked the capacity for self-control and free choice due to a mental disease or defect (i.e., unable to conform conduct to the law).

• Durham: The unlawful act was the product of the defendant’s mental disease or defect (“but for” test).

Insanity (MPC)

MPC: At the time of the conduct, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to conform his conduct to the law because of a mental disease or defect (combines M’Naghten and irresistible impulse).

Intoxication - voluntary

Voluntary intoxication is the intentional taking of a substance known to be intoxicating. Note that the defendant need not intend actual intoxication. It serves as a defense to specific-intent crimes—and under the MPC, to crimes with a “purposely” or “knowingly” mental state—if the intoxication prevents the formation of the requisite mental state.

Intoxication - Involuntary

Involuntary intoxication, in contrast, occurs when an intoxicating substance is taken without knowledge of its intoxicating nature or under duress. It serves as a defense when the intoxication negates an element of the crime.

Intoxication Defenses

• Specific Intent: Act consciously performed for a particular purpose— for both voluntary and involuntary

• General Intent: Act consciously performed—Involuntary

• Strict Liability: Act performed—Involuntary

Immaturity/Infancy — Common-law rule:

• < 7 years old = cannot be convicted of a crime

• ≥ 7 to < 14 years old = rebuttably presumed to be incapable of committing a crime

• ≥ 14 years old = can be charged as an adult

• Modern statutes provide that children may not be convicted of a crime until reaching a certain age (typically between 11 and 14).