I. Basic Definition – Act + Mental State + Result = Crime – Defenses
II. Actus Reus – a voluntary act, omissions do not usually count.
A. Voluntary Act
Common Law
MPC
Differences
Requires a voluntary and a social harm An act is voluntary if D willed the action or if she was sufficiently free that she could be blamed for her conduct. The social harm is the wrong caused by D’s voluntary act. If there is one voluntary act in the D course of conduct, then he could be criminally responsible.
Breaks actus reus into three components: conduct (physical behavior), circumstance (real world condition), and result.
B. Exceptions
1. Omissions
Common Law
MPC
Differences
No crime unless there is a legal duty to act
Types of duties:
Statute
Contract to provide care (nursing home)
Special Relationship
Assumption of Care
Creation of Peril
Duty of Landowner
Duty when there is a statute (income tax) or civil law imposes a duty (parent to child)
None
Notes
Not obtaining reasonably available help can make D liable, no matter what D’s physical capabilities.
2. Involuntary AcT
Common Law
MPC
Differences
Can negate the action or serve as an affirmative defense. Done in a state of unconsciousness
Involuntary acts: reflex, convulsion, movements during sleep, movements under or the result of hypnosis, and unconscious movements.
MPC extends CL such that acts done under hypnosis and in states of unconsciousness are “no action.”
3. Possession
Common Law
MPC
Differences
Courts look at proximity of individual to item and their ability to reduce an object to control and dominion
Person’s possession is sufficient for criminal liability if after becoming aware of possession, the possession is not terminated.
III. Mens Rea – A mental state is required for most crimes. Strict liability and public welfare offences are the exception. To prove an offense, the prosecution must prove mens rea as to every element of the offense
A. Types
Common Law
MPC
Differences
Common law very confusing here b/c there are so many types of mens rea
Intentionally – to consciously cause the result or when one is virtually certain that the object will occur as a result of D’s conduct.
Transferred intent- limited to the type of harm as was actually intended. Intent follows the bullet.
Oblique intent- Means that if Δ knew that if he acted a certain result would be practically certain even if it wasn’t the goal (shooting someone in the chest meaning to scare them)
Specific v. General Intent
Knowingly/Willfully- Δ need not intend a result, just know that a result is virtually certain(almost identical to oblique intent)
Recklessness – Δ must know of risk and disregard it
Negligence – Objective fault D should have been aware that his conduct created a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the social harm would result.( in many jurisdictions it is difficult to differentiate between negl. And reckless)
Maliciously – when one intentionally or grossly reckless causes the social harm prohibited by the statute.
Purpose – conscious object with conduct & results. Must be aware of the existence or believe or hope that such circumstances do exist (transferred intent is retained)
Knowledge –(similar to oblique intent in CL) Conscience awareness that results are practically certain to occur
Recklessness – Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Negligence – Should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Rule of thumb
Purpose = desire for a certain outcome
Knowledge = indifference to a certain outcome
MPC splits intentionally into purpose and knowledge
MPC clear distinction between negligence and recklessness – not on the degree of risk involved but on D’s knowledge of the risk.
MPC provides that when it is not clear which element a mens rea applies to, apply it to all elements of the offense
Where the statute is silent on Mens Rea, recklessness is required.
Willful Blindness
MPC – if one deliberately avoids knowledge because
ould have committed another crime if the mistake hadn’t been made. In that case the degree of the offense is reduced to as if the mistake hadn’t been made.
MPC is generally the same as CL.
E. interpretting mens Rea in statutes Involuntary AcT
Common Law
MPC
Differences
-Even w/o explicit mens rea term the prosecution must prove one (supreme court uses “knowingly as the default mens rea term)
-statutes dealing with similar subjects are interpreted similarly(in pari materia) (similar punishments help reinforce this)
-statute should be read by its plain meaning (e.g.- if the mens rea term grammatically only goes with the verb then that is all it applies to)
-real v. jurisdictional elements- mens rea doesn’t apply to minor parts of statute
-adopt element analysis just like Common law
-makes “reckless” the default mens rea term.
Different default mens rea terms
F. Mistake of fact; mistake of law
Common Law
MPC
Differences
-Ignorance of law (not knowing act is criminal) isn’t a defense
-mistake of fact (knowing the law, but thinking what you’re doing isn’t illegal) works if mistake was reasonable
– mistake of law is usually irrelevant except with regards to strict liability crimes and where the civil law supplements
-No mistake of fact (just deals with it as it pertains to the mens rea element)
-No mistake of law except when there is reasonable reliance on an official interpretation from a public officer, an official statement of law(reliance on a lawyer doesn’t work as a defense), a statute, or a judicial opinion. (also allowed when a statute has not been “reasonably made available”)
