CRIMINAL LAW-Professor Green Fall 2016
DEFINITION: Act (OR Omission to Act) + Mens Rea (Mental State) + Causation= Crime- Defenses
SIMPLIED DEFINITION: Act+ Mental State= Crime
ACTUS REUS
DEF: A voluntary act, omissions usually do not count
A) VOLUNTARY ACT
COMMON LAW
MPC- §2.01(1)
DIFFERENCES
Two Components:
1) Voluntary Act (OR Omission)à a willed
(controlled by mind of actor) muscular
contraction or bodily movement by the
actor
2) Social Harmà People are not punished for conduct, but rather for conduct that results in social Harm
*Strict liability does not require mens rea, but it does require an act
1) A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable
2) Breaks Actus Reus of Offense Into Material
Elements (MPC- §1.13(9):
A) CONDUCTà physical behavior of actor
B) RESULTà consequence or outcome caused
by actor’s conduct
C) ATTENDANT (AKA CIRUMSTANCES)à
is a fact that exists at the time of actor’s conduct,
or at time of a particular result, which is required
to be proved in the definition of the offense
N/A
B) EXCEPTIONS
1) INVOLUNTARY ACT(S)
COMMON LAW
MPC- §2.01(2)
DIFFERENCES
Very similar to involuntary acts listed in MPC, but NOT AS BROAD
Acts done in state of unconsciousness
Able to negate actions or serve as affirmative defense
The following are not voluntary acts:
Reflex, convolution, a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep, conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnosis, body movement that is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor
MPC is MORE BROADà Specifically mentions hypnosis
2) OMISSIONS
COMMON LAW
MPC- §2.01(3)
DIFFERENCES
1) No criminal liability unless there is a
legal duty to act AND the person is
physically capable of doing so
2) TYPES OF DUTY TO ACT:
A) Statute
B) Status/Special Relationship (Ex: Parent to
child and Ship Captain to Crew)
C) Contractual Duty (Lifeguard)
D) Voluntarily assumed care and
secluded helpless person from others
E) Creating the peril for anotherà Gives
rise to a duty to save if initial act is
CRIMINAL
Liability for omission when:
1) Omission is made sufficient by the
law defining the offense
2) A duty to perform the omitted act
is otherwise imposed by law
(SAME AS CL)
N/A
MENS REA
DEF: The particular mental state required for the offense
COMMON LAW
MPC- §2.02(2)
1) General Intentà It is enough that the actor committed the actus
reus with a culpable state of mind (BROAD VIEW)
a) Often times there will be no explicit mens rea term in the
definition of the offense
b) Often times allow for conviction with less culpable mental
state such as knowledge, recklessness, or negligence
c) Intent can be inferred from the commission of the act
itself and the surrounding circumstances
d) Examples: Battery and Rape
2) Specific Intentà (Must have the act+required mental state)(NARROW
VIEW)
a) Needs to have intentional mens rea Intentional=Purposefully and
knowledge in MPC
b) Specific intent cannot be inferred from the commission of the act,
specific proof is required
c) Explicitly contains one of the following mens rea elements in its
definition:
1) The intent to commit some act over and beyond the actus
reus of the offense or commit some future act
(EX: Possession with intent to distribute)
2) A special motive for committing the actus reus of the offense
(EX: Offensive contact with intent to cause humiliation)
3) Awareness of a particular attendant circumstance(s)
(EX: Intentional sale of obscene material to person under 18
*Another good distinction between the two:
1) General intent is intent to engage in conductà Not necessary to prove D
intended the precise harm or precise result which eventuated. Rather, state
must prove D’s actions were intentional and voluntary rather than
unintentional and involuntary
2) Specific intent is intent to achieve a specific result. Person must have
conscious objective to cause such result
MENS REA TERMS DEFINED
1) Intentionallyà 1) To consciously cause the result OR when it is virtually
certain that the object will occur as a result of actor’s conduct, regardless of his
desires (THIS IS PURPOSE AND KNOWLEDGE IN MPC)
2) Maliceà 1) If person intentionally or 2) recklessly causes the social harm
3) Knowledge (Attendant Circumstances)à 1) Person is aware of fact; 2)
correctly believes the fact exists, or 3) suspects that the fact exists and
purposely avoids learning if his suspicion is correct (Third=Willful Blindness)
4) Recklessnessà A heightened criminal negligence or conscious
disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
5) Negligence=Gross Negligence=Culpable Negligenceà Objective fault D
should have been aware that his conduct created a substantial and unjustifiable
risk that the social harm would result.
1) Purposelyà Conscious object with conduct and results. For attendant
the but-for test should be held liable for the resulting harm
2) Direct Causeà No intervening cause, D is the direct cause
3) INTERVENING SITUATIONS à a but-for cause that
comes in after D’s voluntary act: a) Wrongs by third party,
b) V’s own act or omission that causes outcome, c) Acts of
God
DETERMING IF SUPERCEDING (*=Will Supersede)
*1) De Minimusà Minor but-for cause given less weight that
substantial
(EX: D shoots V, ambulance struck by lightening on way to
hospital=NOT Foreseeable, D NOT proximate cause)
2) Foreseeability
a) Responsive (Dependent) Intervening Cause=Foreseeable
*RELIVES ONLY IF UNFORESEEABLE
(EX: V goes to hospital, V dies of negligence)
*b) Coincidental Intervening Cause= Relieve D of liability
UNLESS FORESEEABLE
(EX: D shoots someone, ambulance gets hit by tree on
way to hospital)
*3) Apparent Safety Doctrineà Causal link is broken, D is no
longer responsible
*4) Voluntary Interactionà Causal link is broken, D is no
longer responsible
(EX: V decides to stay out in cold, not go inside
5) Omissionsà Can never supersede an action
6) Intended Consequencesà Cannot supersede
(EX: D wants to kill V. Places gun on counter, D child
picks up gun and shoots V).
1) MPC handles proximate cause within
the mens reaà whether the result was
too remote or accidental in occurrence
to have bearing on actor’s liability
A) Purp/Know: Causation not
established if the actual result is not
within the purpose of actor UNLESS:
1) Victim is just a different person
(Transferred Intent)
2) Injury less than intended (would
have been more serious)
B) Reck/Negl: Causation not
established if the actual result is not
within the risk of actor UNLESS:
1) Victim is just a different person
(Transferred Intent)
2) Injury less than risked (would
have been more serious)
1) MPC PROXIMATE CAUSE
HANDLED WITHIN MENS
REA IT IS NOT SEPARATE
2) BOTH MPC AND CL
RECOGNIZE TRANSFERRED
INTENT
