Physical Element (Actus Rea) Act or omission in the face of a duty Must be voluntary Choice of Evils Assumption of Risk (Decina Principle) Before involuntary act, committed a voluntary one (getting drunk, pulling gun, deciding to drive). Reasonable person can foresee the consequences. Circumstances Results
Mens Rea
Specific Intent Crime (Faulkner) – spells out ANY required mental state “whoever knowingly, purposefully, maliciously, recklessly, negligently…”● Voluntary Intoxication may excuse a specific intent crime
General Intent Crime (Prince) – spells out/describes/proscribes an unlawful act; general intent is the mental element simply to have the intent to do the forbidden act (action results from a conscious intent to act). ANY mental element will do. ● Voluntary Intoxication never excuses a general intent crimeCollateral CrimesIf intended crime requires malice; collateral crime requires malice
Malice Aforethought:1) intent to kill 2) intent to cause serious bodily harm3) EXTREME recklessness (aware of death and don’t care – depraved heart)
MPC Mens ReaSpecific Intent:
Purpose – intentional; conscious desire to cause a certain result.
Defense: I did not intend to do it Knowledge – awareness that what you are doing will cause a certain result. Knowledge to a substantial certainty that conduct will cause the result Defense: I didn’t know I was doing it.General Intent: Recklessness (Subjective); Awareness of risk and consciously disregard the risk Aware of risk; probable risk; indifferent to it Know the injury is probable and did the act recklessly of such consequences (Faulkner) Defense: I wasn’t aware of the risk Negligence (Objective) – should have known about a substantial risk (being stupid) Requires community Standard – reasonable person would see the risk (but who is the community?) Defense: No reasonable person would have thought this was a riskTransferred Intent: intent for one crime can be transferred to another victim. The line moves from intended to unintended victim.
Strict Liability – does not require any mental element.
Affirmative Defense:
Mistake of Law – ignorance of law; NEVER an excuse to a crime
EXCEPTIONS: Law determined fact – treated as factual mistake Official misinformation (mislead by official)Reasonable reliance upon the authority, or apparent authority, of what he believed to be a responsible official.1) The reliance must be reasonable2) Is Defendant mistaken about whether the person has authority to give advice because they are mistaken about the law?
Law-Determined Fact – aware of a law; but does not think it applies in these circumstances – negates mental element. Mistake of fact because of mistake of law. The rules that establish the law are civil instead of criminal, and are collateral to the criminal act.
Mistake of Fact: Negates a particular state of mind that is essential to the offense.Specific intent crime – reasonable and unreasonable mistake of facts can be a defenseGeneral intent crime – only reasonable mistake of facts can be a defenseStrict liability crime – not mistake of fact is every a defense. Lesser-Wrong Principle – If you commit a crime, believing that you are committing a lesser crime, it doesn’t matter – you assume the risk that you might be wrong. The intent for the less crime is transferred to the bigger crime, BUT THE LESSER CRIME MUST HAVE THE SAME ELEMENTS OF HIGHER CRIME.● if higher crime has malice and lesser crime didn’t, it DOESN’T transfer.● Responsible for unintended, collateral consequences ● Applies when the defendant is mistaken about the circumstances that establish the more serious offense; presupposes some underlying fault in committing the lesser offense.
Seducer, guilty of fornication, does not know partner is underage Thief, guilty of petty larceny, underestimates the value of the stolen property and is charged with grand larceny.
EXCEPTION: unless they are completely unforeseen; elements of collateral crime are completely different from original crime (METEORITE)
Marrero – NY gun statute.David Smith – floorboards
Actual Causation/But-for Causation ● But-For – A defendant is an actual cause if the bad result would not have happened but for the defendants conduct. OR
● (SISSC) Simultaneous Independent Self-Sufficient Causation – two people kill the victim at the same time; the defendant is guilty even though the action of another would have caused the harm. *EXCEPTION TO BUTT-FOR RULE. There is no BUTT-FOR causation, but there is proximate causation. ANDProximate Cause (Legal Causation) ● Natural/DIRECT and Probable Consequences – a defendant is a proximate cause if the bad result is a natural and probable consequence of the defendants act. Original action controls the outcome; no outside uncontrollable force takes over.● Foreseeability – how foreseeable was the result? (Brady Style) If foreseeable, does not break causal chain. Doctor accidentally kills stab victim = foreseeable; not superseding cause. D kidnaps victim; she takes poison = foreseeable. Not responsible for unforeseeable, intervening events (meteorite) D shoots victim; victim goes to hospital and gets scarlet fever ● Intermeshing Agents (Arzon Style) When two separate acts come together to cause the harm. If two acts occur concurrently, they are both proximate causes and the causal chain is not broken. If two causes operate self-sufficiently, they DO NOT intermesh. ● Intervening/Superseding Cause – an additional act or occurrence that supersedes the Defendant’s act as the
will suffice. 2) Misdemeanor Manslaughter – killing while committing a misdemeanor
Premeditation
Split Second Jurisdiction
● Intent can be formed in the split second before act; no time is too short; goes hand-in-hand with intention. Meaningful Reflection Jurisdiction
● Does not occur in an instant; spontaneous killing doesn’t support premeditation. ● Requires proof of premeditation (motive, evidence of planning) ● Objectively adequate time for reflection AND subjective actual reflection ● Injury is tailored precisely to the offense (the very locus of the offense)
Mitigation – Negates Malice1) Heat of Passion Provocation (negates mental element of malice) – CAN ONLY BE BY THE POTENTIAL VICTIM
“Law” Provocation Jurisdiction = Bedder-Style (impotent boy kills prostitute after being insulted)
● Decided by the judge; don’t even reach the jury ● Unrecognized provocations: Insults, sexual intimacy (do not reach jury) ● Confession of adultery? (have to be married; just like witnessing it) ● Have to witness provoking behavior; cannot learn about provocative behavior through hearsay ● Cannot relyon circumstantial evidence ● Does not allow cooling time; act has to occur almost immediately after provocation ● Self Defense to Offenses: SERIOUS Assault, not non-verbal insults (kick to groan) ● Insults never suffice
“Fact” Provocation Jurisdiction = Camplin-Style ● Provocation gets to jury and jury decides if it’s adequate provocation. “Would it stir a reasonable person?” ● OBJECTIVE – Uses a rigorous community standard, dictated by the judge – would a reasonable member of the community become enraged upon hearing…. don’t get to hear about this particular person’s sensitivity and reasons ● Relevant Community – entire nation rather than a minority community of inhabitants of remote island ● Hypersensitivity/insults does not give defense, UNLESS insult is aimed at hypersensitivity – taunted (metaphorical “cyst” or pulling Pinocchio’s nose) – not relevant when offender is not taunted. The offense would be directed at the taunter. Cyst – aggravates the provocation, by allowing the jury, in slight departure from the usual objective standard, to consider the exacerbated effect of the provocation upon a reasonable person who bears the trait.
