elements of a crime

concurrence

mens rea + actus reus lining up 

D must have had the intent necessary for the crime at the time D committed the act constituting the crime, and the intent must have actuated the act

coincidence

an intent problem.

intent does not align with how/when you commit the crime.

example: You drive to A’s house to kill them but accidentally hit them with your car.

Contemporaneity

a time problem.

intent forms after the actus reus

example: hit someone with car accidentally but then leave them to die

accomplice liability

not a crime in itself.

A person who aids or encourages the principal to commit an illegal Conduct (mere presence not enough)

Liable for principal crime if an accomplice intended to aid or encourage crime

principal defendant

A person who commits the illegal act or who causes an innocent agent to do so

Liable for principal crime

pinkerton

liable for actions crimes occuring outside the intended crime that are forseeable and within the scope of conspiracy.

Actus reus accomplice liability common law

• Aiding P’s (principal criminal’s) offense, or

• Encouraging P’s offense, or (mere presence is not enough - P must know that ∆ would aid them.

• Omitting to perform a legal duty to prevent P’s offense

Mens rea common law 

In order to be convicted of a substantive offense as an accomplice, D must have:

1. intent to assist the principal in the commission of the crime 

and

2. The intent that the principal commit the substantive offense (this is generally the same mens rea as that required for the underlying offense)

MPC 2.06(3)(a) - accomplice liability

A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if;

• • a. With the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he

  • • i. solicits such other person to commit it, or

  • • ii. aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it, or

  • • iii. having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effort so to do; or

• • b. his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity.

renunciation for accomplice liability

 One must:

– Eliminate entirely the effects of having been an accomplice, or

– Notify the authorities

4c’s

• conduct (act or omission)

• Circumstance (aka attendant circumstance) (e.g. “breaking and entering the dwelling house of another at nighttime”)

• consequence (result)

• causation (but-for, proximate)

Conduct

Usually no liability unless ∆ performs voluntary act

exception if you have a legal duty or its in the omission category

• No liability for reflex or convulsion

• No liability for unconscious movement or while sleeping

• No liability for actions while hypnotized

actus reus omission category

• File taxes

• Drug possession 

• Homicide duty to act 

legal duty to act comes from:

• Relationship status (parent-child)

• Contract or statute 

• Voluntary assumption of care

• Creating peril 

• Duty to report/aid (police on police - george floyd)

Causation (result based offenses)

D’s conduct must be both the cause in fact and the proximate cause of the victim’s death

Cause in fact

criminal result would not have occurred but for D’s conduct

Proximate cause

criminal result is a natural and probable consequence of the conduct, even if D didn’t anticipate the precise manner in which the result occurred

rule of lenity

• Last resort: The Rule of Lenity applies only after all other interpretive tools fail, acting as a tie-breaker.

• Limits expansion: Courts cannot use broad, non-textual readings to criminalize conduct not clearly covered by the statute.

• Narrow reading: If multiple reasonable interpretations remain, courts must choose the one most favorable to the defendant.

mens rea latin meaning

guilty mind

culpability

Intentionality → he meant to do what he did

4 versions of intent:

General intent

General intent plus

Specific intent

strict liability

strict liability

if you do actus reus it counts

Conscious commission of proscribed act – no need of proof of intent

People v stark: construction case where ∆ diverts funds to fund something else with intent to put it back. Statute was something about intending to keep money - which he didn't.

State v loge: alcohol to a minor  

state v TRD: sex offender registry

malice in fact (in re vv kids throwing fireworks)

• Express malice

• Actual ill will 

• A wish to vex, defraud, annoy, or injure another person

Malice in law:

• Implied malice

• An intent to do a wrongful act, established either by proof or presumption of law

• Circumstances can imply malice

speciifc intent

intent to do some act AND bring about some harm the law forbids (i intend to shot TO kill)

Intent to engage in additional proscribed conduct

State v Schminkey: intoxicated man took someone's truck and crashed but did not flee - specific intent

State v morris: sober man ran away from police after he stole someones car out of their driveway

general intent PLUS malice

Reckless disregard of a known risk

general intent

general intent= intent to do the act that is defined as criminal (easiest to prove). Awareness of acting in proscribed manner

MPC ladder rule

Hierarchy (prove one above proves the one below)

MPC mens rea - actus reus relationship

All actus reus has attached mens rea. If there is only one mens rea it applies to all actus reus’s.

purposely

Conscious object to engage in proscribed conduct

knowingly

Awareness that conduct is of a particular nature or will cause a particular result

Knowledge is satisfied by high probability 

• Awareness of a “high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.”

recklessly

Consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk

negligently

Failure to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk

Mpc 2.02:

Minimum Requirements of Culpability outline 4 standards

ostrich rule

Can’t deny having knowledge if you buried your head in the sand

Offense analysis Mens rea(Common Law Approach)

• One mens rea term, applied to the entire offense

Element analysis Mens Rea (MPC approach)

• Various culpability terms, applied to each

element

• Now broadly accepted, even in some

jurisdictions that didn’t adopt MPC 2.02