Crim Law

General Rule

To be found guilty of a crime, there must be (1) actus reus, a voluntary act or omission; (2) mens rea, a morally blameworthy state of mind; and (3) causation elements, linking the actus reus and mens rea to the prohibited social harm

Actus Reus Rule

Under common law, a person is not guilty of an offense unless their liability is based on a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act that they had a legal duty to do. A voluntary act is a conscious, willed bodily movement. A duty to act arises through (1) a contractual obligation, (2) a special relationship, (3) a duty taken on voluntarily (including police officers or official duties), (4) a statute that creates a duty, or (5) where the defendant creates the danger

Omission- Model Penal Code § 2.01

Under the MPC, liability is based on the omission if (1) the law defining the offense provides for it; or (2) if the duty to act is otherwise imposed by law

Voluntary Act

A conscious, willed bodily movement

Involuntary Act

Movement or body not consciously controlled by the mind, such as reflexes, convulsions, or actions performed while unconscious

Culpability (Mens Rea) Common Law

Under common law, a person acts intentionally if it is his conscious object or will to cause the social harm; or he acts with knowledge that the social harm is virtually certain to occur.

Culpability (Mens Rea) MPC

Under the MPC, the four culpable mental states are purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently. A person acts purposely when their conscious objective is to engage in conduct or cause a result and is aware of the risk involved. §2.02(2)(a). They act knowingly when aware their conduct is such and likely to cause a result. §2.02 (2)(b). Recklessness is consciously disregarding a substantial risk. §2.02(2)c). Its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation. Negligence is failing to be aware of a substantial risk, involving a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. §2.02(2)c).

Specific Intent vs. General Intent

Specific intent requires that the defendant had (1) an intent to perform the act and (2) the desired result, while general intent requires only (1) the intent to perform the prohibited act, regardless of whether they intended the specific outcome.

Transferred Intent

Transferred intent is a legal doctrine holding that if a person intends to harm one individual but unintentionally harms another, the original intent “transfers” to the actual victim.

Strict Liability

Strict liability crimes are crimes that do not contain a mens rea requirement regarding one or more elements of the actus reus. This applies to public welfare offenses, like traffic violations or statutory r*pe, where only the actus reus must be proven.

Causation (Common Law)

Under common law, a defendant’s act must be an actual cause, meaning the result would not have occurred when it did “but for” the defendant’s conduct, and he must also be the proximate cause (legal cause), meaning the result must be a direct and natural result of the defendant’s actions.

Accelerated Cause

If the accused commits an act that will almost certainly result in death, another actor accelerating that death is still the actual cause of the prohibited social harm. Everyone dies at some point; rushing another person’s end is a crime.

Concurrent Causes

If multiple actors are concurrently involved in the prohibited activity, they can all be the actual cause.

Intervening Causes

An intervening cause is an independent force, another “but for” cause, that operates in producing social harm, but which only comes into play after the defendant’s voluntary act has been committed or his omission has occurred. If the action is dependent, i.e., a foreseeable and normal result, then it does not relieve the accused of criminal liability

Superseding Causes

An independent intervening cause that was unforeseeable and abnormal, which breaks the chain of causation and allows the defendant to escape liability

Murder (Model Penal Code)

MPC does not recognize degrees of murder! An actor is guilty of murder when the actor kills another purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

First Degree Murder

Under common law, murder is the killing of another person with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought has been defined as one of the following prongs: (1) an intent to kill, (2) an intent to cause grievous bodily harm (which can include poisoning), (3) depraved heart murder, or (4) felony murder. An actor is guilty of first-degree murder when there is a willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. A killing is willful if there was a specific intent to kill, it is deliberate when the consequences have been considered, and it is premeditated if it was planned.

Second Degree Murder

Under common law, murder is the killing of another person with malice aforethought. An actor is guilty of second-degree murder when there is malice aforethought, which is (1) an intent to kill, (2) an intent to cause grievous bodily harm (which can include poisoning) , (3) depraved heart murder, or (4) felony murder.

Felony Murder

An actor is guilty of felony murder if a death results from conduct during the commission or attempted commission of a felony. One must determine if the death occurred during the commission of the felony, if the felony was inherently dangerous, if the felony was independent from the killing (or if it merges), and if the death was the proximate cause of the felony.

Voluntary Manslaughter

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another without malice aforethought. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when an actor commits an intentional killing in a “sudden heat of passion” before a reasonable cooling-off period has elapsed as a result of adequate provocation. (1) The actor must have acted in the heat of passion, (2) the passion must be a result of adequate provocation, (3) the actor must not have had a reasonable opportunity to cool off; and (4) there must be a causal link between the provocation, the passion, and the homicide. Words alone do not constitute adequate provocation.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another without malice aforethought. An actor is guilty of involuntary manslaughter if the killing involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

Manslaughter (MPC)

Under the MPC, an actor is guilty of manslaughter when the actor kills another: (1) recklessly; or (2) under circumstances that would ordinarily constitute murder, but which homicide is committed as the result of “extreme mental or emotional disturbance” (EMED) for which there is a “reasonable explanation or excuse.” No need for provocation.

Willful Blindness

Mistake of Fact

Any mistake of fact, whether reasonable or unreasonable, is a defense to a specific intent crime. For a general intent crime, a mistake of fact excuses only (1) if it was reasonable and (2) if the defendant’s conduct would have been lawful had the facts been as he believed them to be.

Mistake of Law

Mistake of law isn't a defense unless: 1) the defendant relied on government misinformation; 2) the statute provides no fair notice; or 3) there’s a mistake involving a different law affecting mens rea.

General Defenses

General defenses challenge the government’s ability to prove the elements of their case, arguing the complaint fails to meet legal requirements. Places the burden on the government to prove their case.

Affirmative Defenses

Affirmative defenses admit the act occurred but raise new facts or legal justification, arguing "I did it, but for a valid reason". The burden is placed on the defendant to prove the new facts.

“Failure of Proof” Defense

“Failure of Proof” defense occurs when a defendant argues the prosecution has not met its burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justification

For justification, the defendant admits committing the underlying act but asserts that, for some reason, the act was so socially or morally desirable that it does not fall within the ambit of conduct the criminal law is meant to deter and punish. Justification defenses include necessity, self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property. The burden of proof rests on the government to disprove.

Self Defense (Justification)

Self-defense applies when the defendant is not the aggressor and reasonably believes force is necessary, proportional, and in response to an imminent, unlawful threat. Courts consider physical characteristics and history of violence, and deadly force is only justified for threats of imminent death, serious bodily harm, or forcible felonies like r*pe, kidnapping, and armed robbery.

Necessity (Justification)

Necessity is a crime committed to prevent a greater harm, where no reasonable alternatives existed to avoid the harm. There must be a threat of harm that is directed toward a person or property, and the defendant must have no legal alternative, come to the situation with clean hands, and the harm the defendant seeks to avoid must be more serious than the crime committed.

Defense of Others (Justification)

A person may defend a third party wherever it appears reasonably necessary to do so.

Defense of Property (Justification)

A defendant may use force if they believe it necessary to defend their property. They cannot use deadly force or any force if there are lawful measures. They must request the person posing the threat to desist. Property must be in the defendant’s rightful possession.

Excuse

The conduct is undesirable, but for some reason, this defendant should not be blamed for it. Excuses are usually phrased more generally, and the burden of proof rests on the defendant to prove. Only the defendant gets the benefit of the excuse.

Duress (Excuse)

Duress is the threat of unlawful force that comes from one person to another person. The threat is imminent, and the defendant believes the threat is genuine and can not have created the threat.

Insanity (Excuse)

Insanity exists when a mental disorder prevents a person from understanding the nature of their actions or distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the crime. This requires a total lack of cognitive capacity. The defendant does not know the nature and quality of their conduct or that it is wrong.

Voluntary Intoxication (Common Law)

Under common law, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to general-intent crimes. Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific-intent crimes. A person is not guilty of an offense if, as the result of his intoxication at the time of the crime, he was incapable of forming or did not in fact form, the specific intent required in the definition of the offense.

Involuntary Intoxication (Common Law)

Under common law, a person who is involuntarily intoxicated is entitled to acquittal in all circumstances in which voluntary intoxication is a defense. He should also be acquitted of any general- intent offense. However, he would not be acquitted for strict liability cases. Involuntary Intoxication only occurs under four circumstances (1) a person is coerced to ingest an intoxicant (2) a person ingests an intoxicant by innocent mistake (3) a person ingests prescribed medication (in the prescribed dosages); or (4) the person suffers from pathological intoxication—pre-disposing mental or physical condition.

Theft (MPC)

A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with the purpose to deprive him thereof. § 223.2 (also called "theft by unlawful taking")

Claim of right is a defense if the defendant must have an "honest claim of right to the property or services involved"
Theft of services is a separate crime. § 223.7

Larceny

Larceny is a trespassorial taking and carrying away of another's personal property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. It is a criminal conduct, so destruction or conversion is not necessary.

Exceptions:
Under the spousal exception, you cannot commit larceny against your spouse since both are considered to share ownership over personal property.

Animals such as dogs are not subject to larceny (not true for MPC).

Robbery

Burglary (MPC + Common Law)

The unlawful entry into a structure with the intent to commit a felony or theft within

Embezzlement (MPC + Common Law)

The defendant came into possession of personal property of another lawfully, (2) as the result of entrustment by or for the owner of the property, and (3) thereafter fraudulently or unlawfully converts or appropriates the property.

False Pretenses (Common Law)

Under common law, a person who knowingly and designedly by a (1) false representation of an existing fact (2) obtains title to the personal property from another person (3) with he intent to cheat or defraud the other person.

False Pretenses (MPC)

Under MPC, a person is guilty of theft if he purposely obtains property of another by deception. A person deceives if he purposely: (1) creates or reinforces a false impression, (2) prevents another from acquiring information which would affect his judgment of a transaction [information must be disclosed if there is a fiduciary duty]; or (3) fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced (theft by unlawful taking)