Mens Rea + Actus Rea + Causation = Crime
Actus Rea
Action must be a product of free and conscious choice therefore it must be a voluntary act, i.e. “you have to chose and your choice has to be wrong.”
Words define the act
The totality of the circumstances goes to proving actus reaus
Affrimative act: engage is some action that result in a prohibited act
Examples: having drugs, selling drugs
Ommision to act: must find a legal duty forcing that person to normally act and therefore the omission to act is a crime
Examples: status (parent/child, attorney/client, doctor/patient), contracts, harm, rescue (if you start the action of aid, did you reasonably attempt to finish the task) and law
Mens Rea
Mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime, hard to prove must be based upon the circumstances of the crime, this is “wholly subjective”-what did THIS person desire at the time of the act.
All crimes except for strict liability crimes must have a mens rea
Motive is different from intent—motive will help prove intent
Defined by statues therefore controlled by juristdiciton
Four Kinds of Mental states
1. Intentional/ purposeful
the defendant intends the natural and probable result of their conduct
not the same as intending the conduct (intend to pull the trigger of the gun, but believe the gun to be unloaded, it is not fires and kills a person, did not intend to kill the person only intended to pull the trigger.)
conscious desire to engage is proscribed conduct
2. Knowingly
the defendant is practically certain that their conduct will cause the result
awareness that conduct is of a particular nature or will cause a particular result (practical certainty)
example: a puts a bomb on a plane to destroy the cargo. The bomb goes off destroying the cargo but also killing all on board, A did not intend to kill the people on the plane but she was aware that her act of putting the bomb on the plane, death was practically certain to follow.
3. Reckless
subjective awarness
gross deviation from reasonable care that a law abiding person would observe
defendant must be consciously “aware of the risk” of their action but chose to do other wise
conscious decision to ignore a risk, of which the defendant is aware; subjectively chose to disregard that risk
consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk
example: A places a bomb on a plane to go off the next night at 8:30—A does not know if the plane will be in use at this time, but A does know that the plane is used frequently and that anyone in the vicinity of the plane may be seriously injured or killed. B is loading the plane when the bomb goes off and is killed. A did not intend to kill B not has A acted knowingly because A was not aware that B’s death was practically certain. The evidence suggests that A was aware of the substantive and unjustifiable risk that A ‘s conduct would result in death or GBH.
4. Negligently
A reasonable and prudent person in the defendant’s circumstances would have known of the risk.
The risk must be the same sort required for reckless—they share the conduct but awareness is where they differ
Objective/subjective because how much of th
ion may be accomplished through the use of an innocent third party
“Use” by itself does not assporation of proptery
can steal from yourself if you have give D+C to another
Larceny By Trick
At what point did the goods change hands (the X what the deception and the giving)
No trespass is nesseassary
Future fact can be used to
Your vics. Stupidity is not an affirmative defense
Larceny by False Pretenses
What does the defendant rely on
The crime occurs when the transfere occurs
Previously exitining fact must be reylied upon by the the victim
False future facts in maojirty juriusdictions can not be relyied upon to create a false pretense; minority however does if prosictuion can prove the d never intended
Misprepresentation does not have to be to the victim
Misrepresentiontation can be the proffering of token or symbol, act or word
Money does not self tittle, only has ownership
Embezzlement:
Can be property
Fundamental nature of embezzlement is coming into possession of property honestly, by virtue of one’s trust, and then converting it to one’s own use in violation of trust.
Larceny by Conversion
Robbery
Common Law Burglary
Intrumontality
What is the def. of night—one min after sun set one min before sunrise
Model Jurisdiction Burglary
