Act + Mens Rea + Attendant Circumstances + Causation = Crime
I. An Act: Must be voluntary A. Without the consent of will, human actions are not culpable, except if induced by alcohol or drugs B. Omissions: Duty to act applies only in certain relationships 1. Statute imposes duty 2. Certain status relationship to another (i.e. master-shipman) 3. Contractual duty to care for another 4. Voluntary assumption to care for another 5. If person creates risk of harm to another (i.e. crash into someone else’s car) ● Must be a legal duty imposed by law or contract-not moral obligation ● Difference b/w act/omission can be very fine C. Result Crime: law punishes the outcome of an act (i.e. homicide) D. Conduct Crime: law punishes dangerous behavior (i.e. DWI) Attendant Circumstance: Condition that must be present, in conjunction w/the prohibited conduct or result, in order to constitute the crime A. Example: “It is an offense to drive an automobile in an intoxicated condition.” ● Conduct: driving an automobile ● Attendant Circumstance: drunk Driving w/o being drunk is not a crime, being drunk w/o driving is not illegal B. A person acts knowingly w/respect to attendant circumstances when he is aware those circumstances exist (i.e. letting an underage girl strip if her age is known) 1. Deliberately avoiding knowledge is not a defense (i.e. not asking for ID) Mens Rea: Mental state of mind necessary in accompaniment of the act A. 4 Classifications 1. Purposefully/Intentionally/Willfully a. conscious object to engage in conduct and cause result b. wrongful motive, bad faith, violation of a known legal duty 2. Knowingly/Aware (depraved indifference) a. consciously aware that such a result is practically certain to be caused by his conduct 3. Recklessly a. substantial and unjustifiable risk of circumstances known to D 4. Negligence a. a Rx person would be aware of…. b. conduct is a gross deviation from standard of care B. Intent (by statute): intentionally or knowingly 1. General Intent: no particular mental state set forth in statute a. permit conviction on lesser state of mind (Reck/Neg) 2. Specific Intent: statute includes mens rea element (intent/knowledge) a. Special mental element required above and beyond any mental state required in respect to the actus reus i. intent to commit a future crime (assault with the intent to rape) ii. special motive iii. awareness of an attendant circumstance (sale of cigarettes to a person known to be under 18)
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Malicious (by statute): intentionally, knowingly or recklessly Presumption is that one intends the natural and probably consequence of his actions E. Transferred Intent: Liability is given to D for attempting to kill A but killing B instead, b/c society is harmed equally 1. Legal Wrong Doctrine: if D’s conduct, based on the facts as he believed them to be, constitutes a crime, he may be convicted of a more serious offense than he is factually guilty of committing F. Mistake of Law is not an excuse: misinterpreting a statute is not an excuse Exception: Entrapment by Estoppel: when D reasonably relied on an official statement of the law later determined to be wrong (i.e. a parolee on advice from parole officer) G. Mistake of Fact is an excuse: because w/o knowing the fact one can not establish the specific intent required for conviction Strict Liability Offenses: No mens rea required A. Usual test for whether a mens rea element is required: If punishment for the act is harsh, mens rea is probably required; if punishment is light, such as a fine and no imprisonment, mens rea is probably not required B. Example: Statutory Rape Law: mistake of age is not an excuse b/c statutory rape is strict liability offense and no mens rea (bad intent/knowledge) is necessary Causation: Antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred A. “But for”Test: the death would not have occurred but for… B. Substantial Factor Test: if D’s conduct was a substantial factor in the death… 1. but for D’s conduct the death would not have occurred when it did C. Finding of medical causation must be based on expert testimony of a medical certainty, not speculation or conjecture D. Proximate Cause vs. Cause in Fact 1. Cause in Fact is too general, and not sufficient in and of itself to prove causation 2. Proximate Cause: a person can not be the proximate cause w/o being the actual cause, but can be the actual cause w/o being the proximate cause a. Intervening Cause: Come into play after D’s action but before the social harm occurs. Can be: i. act of god ii. act of a third party iii. act or omission of the victim b. Coincidence: If intervening act was a coincidence, and the result was unforeseeable to D, the culpability for D is removed (i.e. if leave someone on side of road and get struck by lightning) c. Response: If intervening act is a response or foreseeable to circumstances created by D, culpability remains (i.e. person on side of road being hit by car) d. Any intended consequence of an act is proximate (even if it happened not as planned) e. Apparent Safety Doctrine: when person reaches position of safety, the original wrongdoer is not longer responsible f. Once a voluntary human act is discovered the law will not trace back the causal chain any further Intentional Killings: Knowing, premeditated, malice aforethought, deliberate A. No time is too short for a man to frame his mind for a scheme of murder 1. Know before the act even for “a blink of an eye”
C. D.
B.
VI.
VII.
There must be some period b/w the formation of intent to kill and the actual killing to indicate the killing is by prior calculation and design C. Common Issue: What circumstantial evidence is proof of premeditation? D. Manslaughter: Heat of Passion Killings 1. Difference b/w manslaughter and malice is the presence/absence of malice 2. Rule of Provocation: Did the victim and surrounding circumstances provoke the homicide? 4 elements: a. There must have been adequate provocation i. must be calculated to inflame the passion of a Rx man and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason b. The killing must have been in the heat of passion c. Must have been sudden heat of passion: killing must have occurred before a Rx opportunity for the passion to cool i. Rx time for the circumstances d. A causal connection b/w the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act 3. Three groups automatically qualify: a. discovering a spouse sexing another b. mutual combat c. assault and battery, and harm to a family member d. words accompanied by conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause bodily harm. 4. The entire factual situation, including the characteristics of the accused, must be considered. 5. To be entitled to the defense of Passion, D must show his reaction was Rx Unintentional Killings: Unjustified Risk-Taking A. Implied Malice: Actual appreciation of a high degree of risk that is objectively present. B. Three Elements: High probability the act done will result in death and it must be done with a base antisocial motive and with wanton disregard for life. 1. Prior knowledge of the hazards 2. Element of viciousness C. Must show extreme indifference to human life to human life by demonstrating: 1. High probability the conduct will cause death 2. D’s awareness, of the risk of the conduct or that the conduct is unlawful D. Death by “abandoned and malignant heart” E. Death by gross negligence alone is manslaughter F. Ordinary negligence, the prudence of a Rx man, is the proximate cause of a child’s death, the parents are guilty of manslaughter Felony Murder: Strict liability for deaths committed in the course of one of enumerated felonies A. No limited to foreseeable events B. Felony must be the proximate cause of the death C. Inherently Dangerous Limitation: If felony is not inherently dangerous than it is not subject to felony-murder law; If the felony can not be committed without creating a substantial risk that someone will be killed. 1. Inherently Dangerous: Any act known to be dangerous to life and likely to cause death
VIII.
i. If you can commit the felony without creating substantial risk of death, then it is not inherently dangerous. ii. It is inherently dangerous if the particular manner in which the crime was committed on the present occasion there was substantial risk of loss of life. iii. Apply felony murder rule to either of the first two scenarios. D. Independent Felony Limitation: Merger Doctrine: Felony-Murder does not apply to felonies that are an integral part of, and included in fact within, the homicide E. Killing in the furtherance of a Felony: b/c the death was not caused by the felons in the furtherance of the felony, it is not subject to felony-murder 1. When the killing is so closely related in time, place and causal connection as to make it a part of the same enterprise 2. The thing imparted to a felon is malice, not the act, therefore the death must be a consequence of the felony F. Courts tend to use limitations such as C, D and E to preclude felony murder application. 1. Pretty much the only un-enumerated felony to which felony-murder applies is armed-robbery in many states G. Can not be held responsible for a killing unless it was actually or constructively committed by him: 1. it was committed by him 2. by someone acting in concert with him 3. furtherance of a common design or purpose H. Can not be held liable for consequences of a lawful act done by someone else Defenses: A. Justifications: a triggering condition permits necessary and proportional response. 1. Necessary: to protect or further the interest at stake 2. Cause only a harm that is proportional in relation to the harm threatened B. Self Defense: Unlawful and immediate threat, actual or apparent, of the use of deadly force against the defender. D must believe death or serious bodily harm was imminent, and that his response was necessary to save himself. 1. Issues: a. Was the amount of force justified? b. Who was the aggressor? c. Does sanctity of home apply? d. Is there a requirement to retreat? i. Majority: no ii. Minority: yes e. D must believe serious bodily injury was imminent ●Belief must be Rx in light of the surrounding circumstances ●Does not haven’t to be correct belief, but must be Rx C. Third Person Defense: 1. Two Requirements: a. Rx person would believe his intention necessary to defend 3 rd party b. The third person would be justified to use such force to protect himself c. To encourage helping others 2. Relationship of the parties matters (prisoner can not use third person defense against jail guard b/c guard has privilege to use force)
D.
E. F.
G. IX.
Defense of Property 1. Justifiable homicide applies only to violent felonies, if D Rx believed there was a threat of harm 2. Statutory response: defending home is OK by Rx means Battered Woman Syndrome 1. The threat must be imminent 2. Can be no other alternatives at the time Necessity: (Needle Exchange) D is faced with… 1. Clear and imminent danger 2. D can Rx expect his action will be effective to abate the danger 3. no legal alternative to abate danger 4. the legislature has not banned such action 5. Standard: Justified as choice between evils Law Enforcement Defenses 1. Deadly force is available if probable cause to believe escapee presents serious threat
X.
Excuses A. Duress (drug smuggler case): normally not an excuse to murder 1. Immediate threat of harm 2. Well grounded fear 3. No means of escape 4. MPC: duress may excuse homicide (normally murder is a greater evil), or at least lower charge to manslaughter B. Voluntary Intoxication 1. If mens rea is a material element then voluntary intoxication can be used to show no mens rea 2. Only evidence—not outright excuse 3. PA Statute: can only reduce degree of crime, not negate an element C. Involuntary Intoxication 1. Did not know … 2. Drug was the cause of the intoxication 3. Due to the drug, D could be called temporarily insane D. Insanity 1. Mnaughten Test: at the time of the act, D was under defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act, or that the act was wrong 2. Irresistible Impulse: “complete destruction of the governing power of the mind” 3. Durham Product Test: “product of mental disease or mental defect” a. based on expert testimony 4. Federal Statute: As a result of severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts a. note: appreciate vs. knowledge Inchoate Offenses A. Attempt: 1. Mens Reas a. Intent to commit act b. Can’t attempt negligent ____ b/c ... no intentional act c. Can attempt to do something reckless 2. Actus Reus
B. C.
D.
2 circumstances fro attempt i. “appreciable fragment” of the crime (set the crime in motion) so that it would be completed if not for interruption by something other than the attempter --“last act” towards committing the crime ii. attempting the act and failing b. Standard i. “dangerous proximity to success” ii. conduct that would constitute crime if circumstances were as perp believed them to be iii. “substantial step” toward commission of crime iv. Possession of tools for crime at or near scene of crime w/no other purpose for possession 3. Defenses a. Impossibility: i. not a defense as long as what perp believes what he is doing is a crime, and it is a crime ii. if believe act is a crime and it’s not, there’s not attempt iii. Majority: can’t commit attempt if the crime is impossible iv. MPC: intent to commit crime should be enough b. Abandonment i. if still contemplating attempt—not if attempt has started already ii. MPC and some jurisdictions say abandoning an attempt is a defense iii. The Q = where do we draw the line? Assault: attempt to cause bodily injury 1. MPC: attempt to cause fear is an assault—like tort law Solicitation: asking, enticing, inducing or counseling another to commit a crime 1. Merger Doctrine 2. New Mexico: “actual communication” is necessary—unless statute says it’s not 3. MPC: conduct designed to certain effect is sufficient—communication is not necessary Conspiracy: 1. Actus Reus: the agreement is the crime in itself a. may be inferred from circumstances based on knowledge of/participation in the crime and/or presence at the scene b. Agreement may be implied/inferred c. urging/cheering on is not sufficient d. must be prior to crime—accomplice does not necessarily = conspirator 2. Mens Rea: a. Dual Intent i. intent to combine with others ii. intent to accomplish the illegal objective b. can’t conspire to commit implied malice murder or a negligent crime c. Knowledge of illegal use AND intent to further that use is sufficient to prove mens rea
a.
XI.
XII.
i. Stake in venture ii. volume outside or normal legal use iii. aggravated nature of crime itself 3. Does not merge with substantive crime 4. All conspirators are liable for the acts of other conspirators a. If Rx Fx consequence of the agreement (Pinkerton) 5. Unilateral: as long as one person communicates to another an intent to agree he can be a conspirator even if the other party doesn’t intend to commit the crime, but agrees a. jurisdictions split: some accept unilateral, some insist on bilateral Accomplice Liability 1. Based on actor’s state of mind at the time of his actions and whether that state of mind is commesurate to the state of mind required for the commission of the crime 2. Can be accomplice to negligent act if actor has mens rea necessary for negligent act 3. No distinction b/w principle and accomplice liability or mental state 4. Natural and Probable Consequence Doctrine a. liability for an accomplice exists where the RxFx consequence of their criminal enterprise is a secondary crime that does not have a different mens rea i. actor intended to promote the primary crime ii. commission of the secondary crime was a Fx consequence of the actor’s participation in the crime 5. Standards: a. one should advocate or encourage the crime b. active participation c. knowledge or mere presence is not sufficient 6. Lookout: prearranged AND has intent of furthering the crime a. seeks by his actions to make the crime succeed Larceny A. Take with the intent to steal (only possession, not title) B. Bailee who “breaks bulk” commits larceny C. One who acquires property for a limited purpose only acquires custody 1. Going from custody to possession = trespassory D. Robbery = larceny with force E. Where there’s no market value of an article, the actual value should be proved 1. usage or time can’t be a good or chattel F. Mens Rea 1. intent to deprive owner permanently of the property a. exceptions i. D intends to “sell” the property back to owner ii. D wants to claim a reward for “finding” the property iii. D intends to return to owner for refund --b/c the right to sell/return implies a claim of ownership G. Embezzlement 1. the conversion of property received by the wrongdoer in a nontrespassory manner a. usually an element of entrustment is needed H. Larceny by False Pretenses
1.
Through false representations with intent to steal obtains both possession and title a. Standard i. injured party must have been induced by reliance on the false representation ii. the misrepresentation need not be the sole inducing cause