Intro to Criminal law - Exam 2

What is Mistake of Fact?

What is Mistake of Fact?

is a defense whenever the mistakes prevent the formation of the mens rea of the crime namely, purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently.

A mistake of fact is a type of defense that can be used in a criminal case to demonstrate that the defendant did not have the criminal intent to commit a crime. It cannot apply to strict liability because strict liability, by definition, is not fault-based.

What are the three analysis questions of criminal liability?

1) was there criminal conduct (crime act + intent)?
2) Was the conduct justified?
3) Was the conduct excused

What are affirmative defenses?

Includes the justification and excuse defenses.

Defendants have to "start matters off" by putting in some evidence in support of their justification or excuse defense

What are perfect defenses?

a defense in which defendants are acquitted if they're successful

MAJORITY of defenses are "_________" once proven, the defendant walks free. (except for insanity)

perfect defenses

If evidence does not provide defense, it may be an __________ ___________

Imperfect defense - which is reducing lesser crime, defense where defendant fails in the full defense but is found guilty of a lesser crime

Even when evidence doesn't add up to an imperfect defense, there still may by _______________ ______________, that convince judges or juries that defendants don't deserve the maximum penalty for the crime they are convicted of.

Mitigating Circumstances - convince judges or juries that defendants don't deserve the maximum penalty for the crime they are convicted of.

What is mens rea?

guilty mind/ evil mind

the mental element of a crime

T/F Motive is an element of mens rea

FALSE - motive is not an element of mens rea

Distinguish motive from intent

A motive is something that causes a person to act.

EX: if a man murders his wife for money...he INTENDED to kill her, his MOTIVE was to get the money.

Is Motive still relevant in criminal cases, although it is not an element of mens rea?

Yes, motive may affect discretion choices, like sentencing. Juries sometimes refuse to convict mercy killers

T/F - You need to prove motive as a part of mens rea

False! You do not need to prove your motive!

What are the two types of intent?

Specific and General

What is general intent?

General intent is the intent to commit the criminal act forbidden by the statute.

What makes general intent...general?

It is general because it states the minimum requirement of ALL crimes, including voluntary act, omission, or possession.

This may also include intent to commit a crime without the specific time or date in mind (taking a car without permission)

What is specific intent ?

is the intent to commit the actus reus of a crime and the intent to cause a criminally harmful result.

What type of intent applies to bad result crime only?

specific intent

EX: murder, aggravated assault, robbery, theft

What do you need to prove with specific intent?

You need to prove there was another reason for the crime. This goes beyond general intent; it is about what you intended when you took the car.

General Intent = joyriding a friend's car (unauthorized use of a vehicle)

Specific Intent = Auto theft - intention to take the car, permanently depriving the owner of it

What does the MPC say about the mental states?

MPC states that all crimes requiring mental elements NEED to include one of the four degrees of culpability

What are the 4 levels of culpability under the MPC?

1. Purpose
2. Knowledge
3. Recklessness
4. Negligence

What is "purposely" under the MPC mental state

The conscious objective to cause harm.

Purpose is the most blameworthy mental state requiring the actor's "conscious objective" to commit crimes or cause criminal results.

Provide an example of "purpose" under the MPC mental state

Suppose someone sets fire to a building intending to destroy it. If their goal is to burn down the building and possibly harm people inside, they have acted with purpose because their conscious objective was to cause that specific damage.

What is "knowingly" under the MPC mental state

is the awareness that conduct is practically certain to cause certain results, but it is done anyway

Explain the mental state of 'knowledge' in both conduct crimes and bad result crimes

In conduct crimes...awareness is clear...im aware I'm taking an Iphone, therefore it's knowingly, this doesn't mean you have to know your acts are illegal

In bad result crimes...MPC says it's enough to be practically certain that conduct will cause bad harm

Provide an example of 'knowledge' under the MPC mental state

Suppose someone sets fire to a building to destroy incriminating documents inside but knows people are likely inside the building. Even if their primary purpose was only to destroy the documents, they act with knowledge of the near certainty that others could be harmed or killed by the fire.

T/F - Knowledge and purpose are the same mental element

False, knowledge and purpose are not the same.

Purpose involves specific intent or desire, whereas knowledge involves the awareness of a result as a near certainty but not as a desire.

What is "recklessly" under the MPC mental state

is the conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm. They don't intend or at least don't expect or care if they cause harm.

Under recklessness, they aren't acting for the very purpose of doing harm

Provide an example of 'reckless' under the MPC mental state

Imagine a person decides to drive home after drinking several alcoholic beverages at a party. They feel slightly impaired but believe they can still manage to drive. They are aware that driving under the influence creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk to themselves and others on the road, but they choose to disregard this risk and drive anyway.

If this driver causes an accident and someone is injured or killed, their decision to drive despite knowing the risk would likely be considered reckless.

This is an example of recklessness because the driver didn't intent to hurt anyone, nor did they know that an accident was certain to happen. However, by choosing to drive despite the substantial and known risk...they acted with recklessness

What is "negligence" under the MPC mental state ?

refers to the unconscious and unreasonable action of creating risks. They should be aware of a substantial or unjustifiable risk that the material elements exist or will result from their conduct.

Provide an example of 'negligent' under the MPC mental state

a reasonable person should know that going the speed limit (35 mph) during a torrential downpour is not safe and creates a great risk of harm.

or

Imagine a parent who, on a hot day, leaves their young child in a parked car to run a quick errand. The parent forgets to leave the air conditioning on, or they don't realize how quickly the temperature can rise in a locked car. They do not intend any harm to the child, nor are they aware of the risk at that moment. However, a reasonable person would understand that leaving a child in a car on a hot day poses a substantial risk of heatstroke or death.
If the child is harmed as a result, the parent's actions may be considered negligent because they failed to perceive the risk of harm that a reasonable person would have recognized and taken steps to avoid.

What is strict liability?

Liability without subjective or objective fault.

Strict liability in criminal law is a legal concept where a defendant can be found guilty of an offense regardless of their mental state, or mens rea.

___________ ____________ is typically applied to minor offenses, such as possession of drugs, statutory rape, speeding, and selling alcohol to a minor. And is often used in regulatory offenses that aim to prevent harm to society

Strict Liability

What is concurrence?

Mens rea sets Actus Reus in motion or triggers the cause of resulting crimes.

Concurrence is an element in all crimes where the mental attitude is formed with purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence.

All crimes except strict liability crimes are subject to the _______________ requirement.

concurrence

What is Causation?

Holding an actor criminally accountable for the results of their actions...two types: factual (but-for) +legal (proximate)

What is the Factual Cause (but for) under causation?

if it weren't for an actor's conduct, the results wouldn't have occurred

EX: if someone pushes a big rock downhill that kills 2 people, the cause in fact or factual cause or (but for) would be the pushing of the rock

What is the Legal (proximate) cause under causation?

a subjective question of fairness that appeals to the jury's sense of justice ..." is it fair to blame the defendant for the harm triggered by the chain of events"

What two types of cause do prosecutors need to prove causation beyond a reasonable doubt?

1. Intervening Cause
2. Superseding cause

What is an intervening cause

- a type of legal/proximate cause

- if something else happens between my act and the result.

Two women are fighting and one gets thrown so hard she hits her head and needs to go to the hospital. In the ambulance, doing 90 mph, and going through red lights, it hits a car and ends up killing the woman inside who needed to hospital in the first place. Are the ambulance drivers at fault?

What is a superseding cause?

- a type of legal/proximate cause

- an unforeseeable, intervening event that occurs after the defendant's original act, breaking the chain of causation. This event is so significant that it relieves the original actor of liability for the harm, as the new event is seen as the primary cause.

EX: Imagine a scenario with the driver running a red light and hitting a pedestrian. However, after the pedestrian is injured, a lightning strike suddenly occurs, injuring the pedestrian even further. The driver would likely not be held liable for the injuries caused by the lightning strike because it is an unforeseeable, extraordinary event that breaks the causal chain. The lightning strike would be considered a superseding cause, absolving the driver of liability for the additional injuries.

- more or less how responsible you were for the injury determines your sentencing

What is the ignorance maximum/ ignorance of the law?

means that everyone is presumed to know the law. Most statutes and court opinions retain ignorance maximum as the law.

Ex: claiming not to have to stop fully @ a stop sign if there's no one around..duh, you have to.

provide an example of mistake of fact

EX: One individual finishes up at the bowling alley, heads for the door, grabs what he thinks is his coat, puts it on, and drives home. Once he gets home, he realizes he has the wrong coat. In this scenario, his taking the coat can be excused due to a mistake of fact, as he never intended to steal anyone else's coat.

What are Justification Defenses?

defendants admit they were responsible for their acts but claim that under the circumstances, what they did was justified. Socially acceptable and the "right" thing to do.

Ex: self-defense

What are Excuse Defenses?

defendants admit what they did was wrong but claim under circumstances they were not responsible for what they did. This focuses on the individual's state of mind or circumstances at the time of the offense

EX: instantly, intoxication

T/F Most states require the burden of production in affirmative defenses

True! Most states do require the DEFENDANT of the burden of production , they have the job to present enough evidence on the particular issue to allow it to be considered by the judge or jury

What is the Burden of production?

A party must produce enough evidence to get the issue to the jury.

In certain affirmative defenses, like insanity, or self-defense, the ______________ ____ _______________ may fall on the defendant. This means that the defendant must prove the defense to a certain standard, often a preponderance of evidence.

Burden of persuasion

What is the difference between the burden of production and the burden of persuasion?

Purpose:
Burden of Production: Ensures that there is sufficient evidence to proceed with the case or issue.

Burden of Persuasion: Requires the party to convince the judge or jury to a certain degree of certainty.

When it's used:
Burden of Production: Typically comes first; it must be met before the case or issue can be considered further.

Burden of Persuasion: Comes into play once enough evidence has been produced and is used in deciding the final outcome.

MINORITY of the states require the burden of _________________-

persuasion!

What is self-defense?

claim that a defendant acted lawfully to defend himself or herself, others, or property, or to prevent a crime - "taking law into your own hands"

What are the elements of self defense

#1- Nonaggressor
#2- Necessity
#3 - Proportionality
#4- Reasonable Belief

Explain the "Nonagressor" element of self defense

The defendant didn't provoke or start the engagement. Self-defense is available only against unprovoked attacks.

What is the withdrawal exception?

if attackers completely withdraw from attacks they provoke, they can defend themselves against an attack by their initial victims

What is the 'Necessity' element of self- defense?

A defense that argues an imminent danger of attack was prevented. The time for defense is "right now!"

What is imminence requirement / imminent danger ?

A portion of necessity that claims in order to pursue self-defense, you need to act "right now!"...it can't be later or planned

What is 'proportion' in regards to self-defense?

You can only use reasonable force in defense - it cannot exceed the amount required to prevent the attack

What is the 'reasonable belief' element of self-defense?

honest and reasonable belief that danger or death at that moment justifies the use of deadly force - some states allow death for rape, robbery, kidnapping, sodomy

T/F - Reasonable fear of the future justifies self-defense.

False! This is not protected under the self-defense claim

What is the difference between imminent danger and present danger

Imminent danger is an immediate, unavoidable threat requiring urgent action to prevent harm.

Present danger is a current threat that exists but may not require instant action because harm is not about to occur immediately. Present danger DOES NOT justify self defense

What is the castle doctrine?

When you are attacked in your home, you can stand your ground and use deadly force to fend off an unprovoked attack, but only with reasonable belief

Under the ideas and concepts surrounding retreat...who receives the right to self-defense?

Depends on state and rules

What is the majority rule concerning retreat?

Majority rule allows one to stand his ground against unprovoked attack

What is the minority rule concerning retreat?

Minority rule requires act to retreat with reasonable belief that you would not be put in further danger

What is the defense of others under retreat?

The other has to have the right to defend themselves. Some states still require a special relationship, but trend anyone who needs protection.

What is the defense to home and property?

broad but limited right to use deadly force against home invasion.

In terms of protecting the home and property, most states require?

Most states require actual entry into occupied homes, no spring gun, no curtilage. No deadly force to protect your "stuff," necessary non deadly force to prevent taking or get it back if just taken.

What state has the exception of the defense and property rules?

Colorado's : "make my day" = if someone breaks in you can shoot them regardless of their intent

What is "choice of evils" aka. Necessity?

Justifies committing a crime to prevent greater evil

What are the MPC elements of 'choice of evils'?

(1) identify evil
(2) rank evils
(3) choose based on a reasonable belief that great evil is imminent

What would be an example of 'choice' of evils'?

Speeding to get a pregnant woman to the hopsital

Under 'choice of evils' you must....?

You must make the right choice or the defense will fail. Right choices are: life, safety, and health over property

T/F Consent is based on necessity

False! It is not based on necessity

A competent adult can consent under what four elements?

(1) no serious injury
(2) injury happens during sports
(3) conduct benefits consent (surgery)
(4) consent to sexual conduct

Consent needs to be _______________, _______________, and _______________

Consent must be knowingly, voluntary, and authorized.

What is the insanity defense?

A defense to criminal charges when the defendants state of mind is such that he or she cannot claim legal responsibility

What are the rules under insanity defense?

There is a difference between mental illness and legal insanity - only when the illness affects the capacity to act and or reason and understand

How often is the insanity defense used?

Rarely used, less than 1%. Successful only 26% of the time.

What is the number #1 test used to measure insanity?

The M'Naghten?

What is the M'Naghten test?

Determines insanity through the capacity to know right from wrong. Highest used in the states.

What are the 2 elements of the M'Naghten test?

1. Mental disease or defect at the time of crime

2. Caused the defendant not to know whether:
2A. nature and quality of his act
2B. that what he was doing was wrong