Actus
What is actus Reus?
The guilty act
What is mistake of fact?
What is mistake of law?
Mistake of fact: in order to prevent — or negate — the requisite mens rea for an alleged offense.
Mistake of law: it's a defense that a criminal defendant might use, arguing that they didn't intend to break the law because they misunderstood it
What is Mens Rea
Guilty mind- denotes the required mental state for criminla culpability
Under the Pinkerton Doctrine of Conspiracy as a mode of liability, how are conspiracy members liable?
Bonus: Under this doctrine are you charged as an accomplice?
all members of a conspiracy are liable for the crimes that are committed by any other member of the conspiracy that are reasonably foreseeable and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Bonus:
Don’t charge people with “being an accomplice,” you are charging the target offense
All criminal offenses require which of the following:
•A. Actus reus
•B. Mens rea
•C. Attendant circumstances
•D. Actus reus and mens rea
•E. Actus reus, mens rea and attendant circumstances
A. Actus reus
What are the three types of actus reus?
Explain each of them for full points
–1. Voluntary Act
•The conduct constituting an offense
•Must be willful or volitional
–2. Culpable Omission
•A physically able person’s omission to perform a legal duty
•Omission + Legal Duty = Criminal Omission
–3. Possession as an Act
•A person knowingly in possession of contraband for some time sufficient to terminate the possession
•Only recognized under MPC, not common law
What is general mens rea
What is specific mens rea
Bonus: is General and Specific apart of the MPC or CL
General mens rea element – actuates or sets in motion a criminal act
Specific mens rea element – an intent to produce some result beyond the actus reus of the offense.
Bonus bonus: CL
What specific type of crimes don't require mens rea?
Can you name a few?
Strict Liability
Statuory rape, bigamy, adultery
Who is the principal in Accomplice liability
Who is the accomplice
Bonus: Under this doctrine is the D charged with accomplice or with the target offense?
–The principal is the individual who does the actus reus of the crime;
The accomplice is someone who aids and abets the principal by providing aid, assistance, or even encouragement to the principal with the specific intent that the crime is committed.
Bonus: The accomplice is charged with that target offense and treated as if he committed that offense
Howard was arrested for his role in a fight at local bar. Howard was sitting at the bar drinking a beer when Eddie, someone Howard didn’t know, placed his hand on Howard’s right shoulder in an effort to move closer to the bar to order a drink. Howard, using his right arm/hand immediately struck Eddie, knocking him unconscious. What is Howard’s strongest argument that he did not commit a criminal act?
•A. That he struck Eddie as the result of having consumed multiple energy drinks.
•B. That he struck Eddie as the result of having consumed multiple alcoholic drinks.
•C. That he struck Eddie as the result of having ingested methamphetamine.
•D. That he struck Eddie as the result of a neurologic condition involving his right shoulder/arm/hand.
The correct answer is D.
Answers A-C all involve voluntary introduction of different substances. While Howard may try to argue that energy drinks/alcohol/meth “made him” strike Eddie not thus rendering the striking involuntary, Courts will reject that argument on several grounds, notably including that even if the substances did trigger an involuntary response (a very dubious proposition), Howard voluntarily introduced them into his system. Evidence that Howard had a neurological condition in his right arm/hand could, in theory, mean that the strike was involuntary. This question is also designed to reinforce to students that when answering multiple choice questions, if three of four answers are clearly wrong then the remaining answer is the “strongest argument”.
What are some exceptions to Act by Omission under the bystander rule
A personal relationship – You fail to save your minor child from drowning
Statute – There is a law that requires you to act in a certain situation (i.e., Olympic swimmers by law are required to save people drowning)
Contract – A lifeguard hired usually has the requirement to save people from drowning in their employment contract
Voluntary assumption of care – A bystander who tries to save someone drowning but abandons the effort
Creation of peril – You pushed someone (a person you knew that was not a great swimmer) into the pool which led to them drowning
What is the doctrine of innocent instrumentality
–Where a defendant uses an innocent agent to commit the actus reus—such as an individual who engages in legally justified conduct—and does so with the mens rea necessary to prove a crime resulting from the agent’s act or omission, the actus reus is treated as if it was committed by the defendant.
List the CL mens rea
List the MPC Mens Rea
CL: Malice, Intent, Willful, reckless, criminal negligence
MPC: Purpose, knowledge, recklessness, criminal negligence
What is the mens rea for accomplice liability?
Most states require specific intent that the principal commit the offense.
A minority of states say that it is sufficient that the accomplice knows the assistance given will result in the commission of a crime
•Barney and Fred have been neighbors for years but have never gotten along. Many of their arguments end with one—or both—wishing out loud that the other would die. One day, Barney observes Fred trying to operate a new piece of yard equipment. In the process, Fred badly cuts himself. The cut is so deep that Fred needs both hands to apply pressure. Fred sees Barney next door sitting on his porch and talking on his phone. Fred yells to Barney to call 911. Barney hears Fred, ends his call and begins filming Fred and posting video segments to the website “Am I the Dummy?” Barney remains on his porch the entire time. He does not call for help, and Fred bleeds to death in Fred’s front yard. Barney’s actions—and inaction—cause an uproar in the community and there are calls for police to arrest Barney. Which of the following most accurately reflects Barney’s legal liability, if any?
•A. Criminal liability requires a culpable act. Barney’s recording Fred and posting the video to a website constituted one or more culpable acts.
•B. Barney did not owe a legal duty of care to Fred as his neighbor. Because of that, Barney’s subsequent inaction was not a culpable omission.
•C. Barney owed a legal duty of care to Fred as his neighbor. Barney’s subsequent failure to call 911 constitutes a culpable omission.
•D. Criminal liability requires a culpable act. There is no way for someone who does nothing/takes no action (like Barney) can commit a culpable act.
The correct answer is B.
While Barney’s inaction may seem morally repugnant, there is no general legal duty of care to one’s neighbor. Students should recognize that the issue is one of omission, Barney not calling for help constituting the actus reus. But for omissions to constitute the actus reus they must be culpable omission and the culpability results from a duty of care. Because there was no duty of care, Barney’s omission was not culpable and couldn’t constitute the actus reus.
How does the mistake of fact defense affect these General and specific mens rea?
What about MPC?
–Specific Intent: The mistake must be honest but can be unreasonable.
–General Intent: The mistake must be both honest and reasonable.
–Purpose and knowledge - the mistake only needs to be honest to negate the mens rea because it is purely subjective.
–Recklessness or negligence – the mistake must be both honest and reasonable because it has an objective component.
What are the two Mistake of law situations?
Elemental Theory: the rare case where knowledge of the law was a requisite mens rea element of the alleged offense. This is rare because very few crimes require proof that the defendant knew his conduct violated the law as an element of the offense.
Estoppel Theory: where a defendant detrimentally relies on an official statement of the law and engages in illegal conduct, proof of reliance on this mistaken statement is a complete defense.
Surprise Q:
What are the three cause-in-fact types
Describe each of them!
•But For
•The defendant was the but-for cause of death, meaning but-for the defendant’s act or omission, the victim would still be alive.
•i.e., but for the defendant's act of shooting, the victim would still be alive
•2. Acceleration
•The defendant’s act or omission speeds up an inevitable death.
•This does not satisfy the but-for test because the death would have happened anyway without the defendant’s interference.
•3. Substantial Factor
•In a criminal homicide case, where more than one actor who engages in an act (or criminal omission) that is sufficient to cause death, each of them may be considered the cause in fact of the death.
What is the natural and probable consequence doctrine
Bonus: Is it different from the Pinkerton Doctrine *how*
Any crime that naturally and foreseeably blossoms out of the crime the accomplice aided and abetted is attributable to both the principal and the accomplice.
Bonus: Yes
The State Statute defines 1st Degree Murder as follows: “The knowing or intentional and premeditated unlawful killing of a human being. All other murder is murder in the 2nd Degree.” Under which set of facts would a defendant be least likely to be convicted of 1st Degree murder for causing the death of a victim?
A. Defendant, believing he would only cause customers to get sick for a few days, sprinkles a small amount of a toxic substance on the food bar to protest animal food products.
•B. Defendant, angry at his neighbor, sets the neighbor’s house on fire. When questioned by police Defendant says he saw the victim in the home but intended only to destroy the home and believed the victim could easily get out of the house.
•C. Defendant suddenly snaps and shoots another customer in a bar. Defendant admits he intended to kill the victim but the jury concludes he did not have sufficient time to premeditate.
A. Defendant, believing he would only cause customers to get sick for a few days, sprinkles a small amount of a toxic substance on the food bar to protest animal food products.
Bodily movement is the key component of the criminal law act requirement.
•A. True
•B. False
The correct answer is B.
The bodily movement must be willed or volitional to serve as the act requirement. This question is designed to help students realize the level of detail and precision required.
•During a camping trip in a state park, Rose discovered metal signs near a rubbish heap stating, “Natural Wildlife Area—No Hunting.” She took two of the signs and used them to decorate her room at home. She is charged with violation of a state statute which provides, “Any person who appropriates, with intent to permanently deprive, property owned by the state shall be guilty of a crime and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” At trial, Rose admits taking the signs but says she believed they had been thrown away. In fact, the signs had not been abandoned. Based on this evidence, Rose should be found:
•A. Guilty, because this is a public welfare offense and therefore her mistake is irrelevant.
•B. Guilty, because she reasonably should have known the signs were not abandoned.
•C. Not guilty if the jury finds she honestly believed the signs had been abandoned.
•D. Not guilty unless the jury finds that the state had taken adequate steps to inform the public that the signs had not been abandoned.
C is the correct answer
because if the jury finds that she honestly believed the signs had been abandoned then she did not form the specific intent element of the statute. She did not have the mens rea to permanently deprive the state of the property because she did not believe the state owned the property and that it was abandoned.
•Defendant works on an Army base. Each day he drives to and from work he sees a pile of old tires in a field. He wants to take some to make some tire swings for kids in his neighborhood. One of his neighbors is a labor attorney who works for the human resources office on the base. He asks him if it is OK to take the tires and the neighbor says, “I’ve also seen them and it seems to me they are abandoned so go for it.” That Sunday, while loading tires into his pickup truck, he is approached by a federal police officer who cites him for theft of government property. During his trial, he plans to request a mistake of law instruction based on his reliance on his neighbor’s advice. You are the judge. Will you grant this instruction?
•A. Yes
•B. No
B is the correct answer because the requirements of detrimental reliance for mistake of law are not satisfied here.
The attorney he asked was a labor attorney, not an official that he could rely on as an authoritative voice about government property.
•John hopes to “set up” a man named Bob. John really hates Bob as a result of an incident that happened years ago between John’s father and Bob, but Bob doesn’t even remember John. John hears Bob is involved in drug trafficking and works his way into Bob’s organization. After several months of association, Bob tells John that he trusts him enough to let him be part of a major transfer of drugs to a buyer. John makes Bob believe he is going along with the plan, but actually notifies police with the details. Police agents tell John to continue to play along with the plan, which he does. When John, Bob and 4 members of his gang show up for the scheduled transfer, police swoop in to arrest them. A gun battle ensues, and a police officer is killed by a member of Bob’s gang. Bob and the gang members are all arrested. Based on these facts, who is guilty of murder based on conspiracy liability?
–A. John only.
–B. Bob only.
–C. John and Bob.
–D. Bob and the 4 other gang members.
–E. John, Bob, and the 4 other gang members.
The correct answer is D.
Based on these facts, Bob and the gang members are guilty of murder, because the murder was a foreseeable outgrowth of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy. John is not guilty of either conspiracy or the murder because he never actually agreed to commit the crime; he merely feigned agreement. As he was not a member of the conspiracy, he is not liable for the killing pursuant to the Pinkerton doctrine.
•Stewart runs a small bed-and-breakfast which has only six guest rooms. During a regular, periodic inspection undertaken by the state licensing agency that oversees the operation of such establishments, Stewart was cited under a criminal statute for three separate violations for having available for use three old, antique cribs that contained lead-based paint.
The statute in question made it a petty misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 for an operator of an inn or bed-and-breakfast to “offer or provide for use or otherwise place in the stream of commerce, on or after the effective date of this act, a full-size or non-full-size crib that is unsafe for any infant using the crib because” of a number of specified, unsafe conditions, including the presence of lead-based paint.
Stewart explained to the regulatory agency that he had no idea that the cribs contained lead-based paint and that he would immediately have them stripped and repainted. The regulatory agency responded that the paint needed to be removed as he described, but added that he would still be prosecuted and subject to a criminal fine of $3,000. Which of the following is most accurate:
•A. Stewart is not likely to be convicted of these offenses because he had no knowledge of the presence of lead-based paint.
•B. Stewart is not likely to be convicted of these offenses because he did not intentionally or recklessly violate this statute.
•C. Both (a) and (b) are true.
•D. Stewart is likely to be convicted of these offenses.
•D. Stewart is likely to be convicted of these offenses.