Define Me
What are "attendant circumstances?"
Attendant circumstances are conditions that must be present for a particular crime to occur
True or False
BOTH the common law and the MPC require voluntariness, in order for an act to be criminal
TRUE
What are the two general approaches to Mens Rea?
1) General (Culpability) Approach (common law & general intent crimes) "guilty mind" - Defendant is guilty of a crime if he commits the social harm of the offense with ANY morally blameworthy state of mind; it is not significant whether she caused the social harm intentionally or instead w/ some other blameworthy mental state (e.g. recklessness)
2) Specific (Elemental) Approach (modern trend & MPC) - Refers to the mental state the Defendant must have had with regard to the 'social harm' elements set out in the definition of the crime. By this definition, a Defendant is NOT guilty of an offense UNLESS he has the specific mental state required by the crime's definition (as set forth in statutes)
HINT: Regina v. Cunningham - stolen gas meter case is a great example of looking at an analysis that compares the two. The TC used general culpability (malice = wicked) while the appellate court used specific culpability (malice = intent OR recklessness)
A visitor to a secluded, outdoor shooting range
was shooting targets at the rifle range. One of the visitor’s rounds missed the target, and struck and killed a trespasser who was hidden in the nearby woods.
Did the visitor act purposefully, as defined by the Model Penal Code (MPC)?
A. Yes, because the visitor consciously desired to discharge the rifle
B. Yes, because the visitor's intent to shoot the target was transferred to the trespasser
C. No, because the visitor did not consciously desire to kill the trespasser
D. No, because the visitor did not have a motive to kill the trespasser.
C. No, because the visitor did not consciously desire to kill the trespasser
Under the MPC, there is no criminal liability without a culpable state of mind or mens rea. Under the MPC, there are four bases of mens rea: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently. Here, purposely seems to be most relevant. A purposeful state of mind means that an actor consciously desired to bring about a harmful result or else hoped that it would occur. MPC §2.02(2). Therefore, because the visitor did not consciously desire to kill the trespasser, the visitor did not act purposefully. Option A would be incorrect because the visitor's conscious desire to discharge the rifle was not the desire to bring about a harmful result and therefore, was not purposeful.
True or False
We, as a legal system, punish "thought crimes" regardless if is accompanied by some form of an act/conduct
FALSE
We, as a legal system, do NOT punish "thought" crimes, there must be some form of an act/conduct.
Define the following:
Actus Reus = ____
Mens Rea = ____
Actus Reus + Mens Rea = ____
Actus Reus = The Guilty Act; this is the external/physical component of criminal liability
Mens Rea = The Guilty Mind; this is the internal/mental component of criminal liability
Actus Reus + Mens Rea = Criminal Liability
What is the two-step process for differentiating between an "act" or an omission? (hint: Barber v. Superior Court - doctors accused of murder case)
Act v. Omission Two-Step Process
1) Characterize - define that behavior. Is it an act (voluntary or involuntary) or an omission?
If it is an act, stop. Is the act complained of criminal within the meaning of the statute?
If it is an omission, continue to Step 2
2) Duty - If the defendant's actions amounted to an "omission" was the defendant under a duty to act?
If no duty = no criminal liability
NOTE: In Barber court looked at if there was an affirmative act leading to death (i.e. an unlawful killing) or a failure to render aid/treatment (letting the patient die). Court found the doctor's actions to be omissions and found there was no duty to continue treatment that was futile
What is the looked at under the traditional common law approach to "intent?"
Under the traditional common law approach to "intent"
1) the person must desire or have as the person's "conscious object" the social harm of the offense OR
2) the person must engage in conduct with knowledge that the social harm of the offense is virtually certain to occur as a result of that conduct
*both involve subjective personal culpability
NOTE: this approach to intent includes the MPC concepts to both "purposely" and "knowingly" --> this could be important to note if you are comparing the MPC and CL approaches to intent
A. No, because the failure to act may never support criminal liability
B. No, because the facility's employees did not initially endanger the children
C. Yes, because the children could not rescue themselves
D. Yes, because the facility could be contractually bound to care for the children attending daycare
D. Yes, because the facility could be contractually bound to care for the children attending daycare.
Generally, for there to be criminal liability a person must commit a culpable act, with a culpable state of mind, that causes a harmful effect (either a result crime or conduct crime). A person may also be held criminally responsible for failing to act (i.e. for an omission), however for there to be criminal liability the person must have failed to do something that is legally required by them. Here, if the facility were contractually bound to care for the children attending daycare, this duty could provide the basis for finding the employees criminally liable for failing to attempt to rescue the children.
True or False
The MPC's definition of "knowledge" does NOT include willful blindness (i.e. when a person is aware of a high probability of the existence of a fact at issue)
FALSE
The MPC's definition of knowledge (§2.02(7)) does include willful blindness
State v. Nations - dancing minor case
The Void for Vagueness Doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.
Two reasons that a statute can be "Void for Vagueness" are the statute: 1) provides insufficient notice of prohibited conduct; or 2) authorizes/encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement
What are the 3 basic components of Actus Reus?
1) Conduct (foundation, key) - something has to be done or not done (actions, to be a crime . . no "thought crimes" --> either a Voluntary Act or an Omission
2) Attendant Circumstance - fact about the world that must be met, status of a thing (e.g. drugs, age of person, status as human being, etc.) --> AC + your conduct (w/in meaning of statute) = CRIME
3) Results - Certain results are required
Result Crime (e.g. murder) conduct must cause the result in result crimes (causation*)
Conduct Crime (e.g. driving drunk)
Non-Result Crime (e.g. drug possession)
What are the basic requirements of the Willful Blindness Doctrine under Common Law?
1) Defendant must subjectively (actually) believe there is a high probability a fact/circumstance exists
2) Defendant must take deliberate action(s) to avoid actually learning that fact/circumstance
What is the doctrine? The WB Doctrine holds that Defendant's cannot escape the reach of statutes that require knowledge of attendant circumstances by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances (i.e. they can't be an ostrich and bury their head in the sand so that they will not see or hear bad things, deliberately avoiding unpleasant knowledge)
NOTE: Under MPC, actual knowledge means knowledge (§2.02(8)) and awareness of high probability (§2.02(7)) satisfies this requirement UNLESS the Defendant actually believes it does not exist
A woman was home one evening when a man rang her doorbell. When she opened the door, the man opened a briefcase filled with jewelry. The man said that he was selling the jewelry at a big discount. The woman selected a diamond ring from the case and paid the man $100.
The woman was subsequently charged with possession of stolen goods under a statute that makes it a crime to knowingly purchase, obtain, receive, or possess any property that a person knows, or should know, is stolen, intending to keep it from its owner.
Which of the following, if true, would be LEAST helpful to the woman’s defense on the element of mens rea?
A. The man was known around the neighborhood to be a troublemaker.
B. The man was known around the neighborhood for his good character
C. The man's wife had recently died, and the woman knew that the wife had had a large jewelry collection
D. The man had told the woman that he was a traveling jewelry salesman
A. The man was known around the neighborhood to be a troublemaker.
The facts do not indicate that the woman actually knew that the jewelry was stolen. However, she could be said to have acted with willful blindness to the fact that the jewelry was stolen, and the mens rea requirement of knowledge may be imputed, if the circumstances indicated to her that it was highly likely that the jewelry was stolen, and she nevertheless failed to investigate to determine whether that was the case. If the man was known to be a troublemaker, that fact, along with the fact that she was able to purchase a diamond ring for $100, would tend to make it more likely that the woman must have suspected that the jewelry was stolen
How does the MPC define an "act" or "action?"
MPC §1.13(2) - "act" or "action" means a bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary
1. Purposely - must be one's conscious object to cause a result
2. Knowingly - one must be aware that it is practically certain that one's conduct will cause such a result
3. Recklessly - one must consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that one's conduct will produce such a result. This disregard of risk must involve a "gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe: in the situation (i.e. one must actually perceive a 'substantial and unjustifiable' risk AND choose to disregard it)
4. Negligently - one should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that one's conduct will produce such a result. The actor's failure to perceive such a risk involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a RP would observe in the actor's situation
Under State v. Utter (father stabbed son case), what did the court say an "act" in the criminal context is? Why is this important?
In that case, it found that an "act" in the criminal context = "a voluntary act" AND a "conscious act"
This is important because in the criminal context to act relates to a voluntary choice to do something. This is why certain bodily movements (e.g. reflexes, seizures, etc.) don't count as criminal "acts"
What is the Transferred Intent Doctrine?
When a Defendant intends to cause harm to one person but accidentally causes the same harm to another, the law will "transfer" his intent to the second person
Two teens were throwing large rocks from a highway overpass onto the cars driving beneath it. The teens were trying to hit and kill the driver of a Volkswagen Beetle. One of the rocks thrown by the teens shattered the windshield of a Ford Focus, causing the driver to lose control of her car and and crash into the guardrail. The driver was killed in the accident. The teens were charged with murder under a state statute that defined the crime as the purposeful or knowing unlawful killing of a living person. The teens’ defense was that because they did not intend to kill the driver of the Ford Focus, they did not have the required mens rea to be convicted of murder.
Which of the following grounds would support a finding that the teens had the required mens rea to be convicted of murder?
A. The teens acted without mistake of fact.
B. The teens acted knowingly.
C. The teens acted with transferred intent
D. The teens acted with motive
C. The teens acted with transferred intent.
Under the MPC §2.02 (which is similar the state statute), a purposeful state of mind means that an actor consciously desired to bring about a harmful result or else hoped that it would occur. Sometimes, someone intends to purposely harm a particular person but harms another person instead. In that situation, the actor is deemed to have acted with “transferred intent.” The actor's intent to kill a particular person is transferred to the actual victim. Here, the teens acted purposely because they were throwing large rocks intending to hit and kill the driver of the Volkswagen Beetle. However, they did not hit and kill their intended target but instead through their actions killed the driver of the Ford Focus. Therefore, a finding that the teens acted with transferred intent would support a finding that they had the required mens rea to be convicted of murder.
What is the difference between "conduct crimes" and "result crimes?"
"result crimes" require that a certain result occur due to the defendant's act(s) . . . e.g. someone dies, someone is injured, something is burned, etc.
"conduct crimes" require only that a certain type of conduct occur . . . e.g. someone appears in public intoxicated (Martin v. State), someone drives faster than the speed limit, etc.
Do individuals generally have a duty to actively care for another?
If so, what are situations where one can have an affirmative duty of care?
No. In general, you do NOT have a duty to actively care for another, even when failing to do so could result in death of the other & even when you could do so easily, w/ no risk to yourself UNLESS you have some sort of special relationship to the other. No legal duties based on mere moral obligation*
There are situations where one can have an affirmative legal duty of care and they are:
1) Where a statute imposes a duty (e.g. teacher has duty to report child abuse)
2) Where one stands in a certain relationship to another (e.g. spousal, parent/child)
3) Where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another (e.g. caretaker at nursing home)
4) Where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid (duty based on undertaking)
5) When a person creates a risk of harm to another/placing another in a perilous position (e.g. driving neg. and hitting a pedestrian - probably duty to ensure victim receives aid)
When determining which part of the sentence of a statute does mens rea apply to, what are some tools of statutory interpretation the court will look at?
Tools of Statutory Interpretation
- Text: plain meaning (sometimes CL meaning; used in State v. Miles)
- Structure: look at other similar statutory provisions
- Legislative Purpose: broad & flexible --> ask: What was the legislature trying to do with the creation of the statute? Look to legislative history (source) to show legislative intent (reason for it)
- Social Policy: is the world going to be a better place with a broad or narrow reading?
- Canons: Rule of Lenity (tie-breaker); Constitutional Avoidance; Absurdity Doctrine
- English Grammar: how is the word used in everyday grammar? (used in Flores-Figueroa v. US)
- Precedent (ties into all the tools)
Drawing a distinction between general and specific intent offenses, how would you categorize the following offenses?
A. Common law larceny: "Trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to steal"
B. Common law rape: "Sexual intercourse by a male with a female, not his wife, without her consent"
C. "Intentional receipt of stolen property with knowledge that it is stolen"
D. Common law burglary: "Breaking and entering the dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein"
A. Common law larceny: "Trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to steal"
Specific Intent
B. Common law rape: "Sexual intercourse by a male with a female, not his wife, without her consent"
General Intent
C. "Intentional receipt of stolen property with knowledge that it is stolen"
Specific Intent
D. Common law burglary: "Breaking and entering the dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein"
Specific Intent