Actus Reus & Mens Rea
Which mens rea requires that the defendant be aware of a risk but ignore it?
What is recklessness?
Common law conspiracy requires what two elements?
(1) an agreement and (2) intent to commit the unlawful objective?
Which type of causation asks, “Would the harm have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct?”
What is but for causation?
Under this test, a Defendant may plead insanity if, as a result of a mental defect, D was unable to control his conduct OR conform his conduct to follow the law
What is the Irresistible Impulse Test?
A crime requiring intent to commit the act and the further intent to achieve a specific result.
What is a specific intent crime?
An omission only counts as actus reus if what exists?
What is a legal duty to act?
Under modern rape law, is resistance required for conviction?
No.
Which homicide category applies when the defendant kills unintentionally but acts with extreme recklessness?
What is depraved-heart murder?
A defendant tries to commit a crime but fails because instead of a real wallet he grabbed an empty garbage bag. Under modern law, this kind of mistake is called this and generally does not excuse liability for attempt.
What is factual impossibility, mistake of fact?
Before deliberation, the judge gives the jury a set of directions explaining the law they must apply.
What is Jury instruction?
Under MPC hierarchy, which mens rea is satisfied if the defendant acts with the conscious objective to bring about a result?
What is purpose?
What doctrine states that a co-conspirator is liable for crimes foreseeable and committed in furtherance of the conspiracy?
What is Pinkerton liability?
A defendant intends to shoot A but kills B instead. What makes them liable for B’s death under this doctrine.
What is transferred intent?
Which type of impossibility is not a defense to attempt?
What is factual impossibility?
An event that breaks the causal chain between defendant conduct and harm.
What is an intervening cause?
A defendant suffers an unexpected seizure while driving and kills a child.
Under the doctrine of voluntariness, what is required for an act to be considered a “criminal act”?
It must be voluntary.
What distinguishes larceny from embezzlement?
Larceny requires trespassory taking; embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of property already in lawful possession.
Which type of cause asks whether the defendant’s conduct remains a “substantial factor” in the final harm when intervening events occur?
What is proximate cause?
Morissette distinguished mistake of fact from mistake of law by explaining that only one type can excuse conduct in traditional theft-type crimes. Which type, and why?
In Morissette v. United States, the Court explained that if a defendant mistakenly believes a fact that, if true, would make their conduct innocent (for example, believing property is abandoned), then the defendant lacks the required mens rea for theft. This is because the crime of larceny hinges on whether the defendant intended to take property that they knew belonged to someone else.
Thus:
A mistake of fact (e.g., “I thought the property was abandoned”) can negate the wrongful intent and therefore provides a defense.
A mistake of law (e.g., “I didn’t know this was illegal”) does not change what the defendant actually intended to do with someone else’s property, so it does not excuse liability.
What is the term used to describe a person who helps the principal prepare to commit a crime?
An accomplice
The town of Tenicar is in a Jurisdiction where leaving the scene of an accident is against the law. Troy was involved in a car accident in which the driver of the other car was seriously injured. Fearful that he would be unfairly blamed for the collision, Troy drove away without rendering aid or reporting the accident. Can Troy be successfully prosecuted for his conduct after the accident?
(1) Yes, being in the accident created a greater moral obligation on Troy's part.
(2) Yes, most states require immediate assistance and or reporting after being in an accident.
(3) No, there is no general duty to assist others.
(4) No, Troy was under no duty to assist others because he was not at fault in causing the collision.
While Troy is obliged to act here, it is because of a statutory duty. The statutory mandate concerning those involved in serious accidents is an explicit exception to the generally accepted rule of no duty to others.
A felon robbed a bank at gunpoint. During the course of the robbery, a security guard fired a gun at the felon and missed, inadvertently killing a customer.
Under which approach to causation is the felon LEAST likely to be convicted of murder of the customer under the felony-murder rule?
(1) The Agency Approach
(2) The Reasonable Cause Approach
(3) The Proximate Cause Approach
(4) The Intervening Act Approach
(1) The Agency Approach
and Douglas went riding on Robert's motor boat. Robert said that there was a great area by a rocky outcrop to enjoy water skiing. Douglas, concerned, pointed out the signs near the outcrop which read, “DANGER — Do not swim, boat, or water ski.” Robert insisted and drove the boat toward the rocks. After drinking several beers they had onboard, Douglas decided to try waterskiing. Because Douglas had become drunk, he improperly attached the water skis, lost control, and drowned. Is Robert guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
(1) Yes, because Robert insisted on illegally boating in a dangerous location.
(2) Yes, because Robert is responsible for all results of his illegal act.
(3) No, because the cause of Douglas' drowning was his being drunk.
(4) No, because Douglas was contributorily negligent in assessing the risk.
(3) No, because the cause of Douglas' drowning was his being drunk.
For a conviction of involuntary manslaughter, there must be a causal relationship between the illegal act and the death. Douglas did not drown as a result of boating or waterskiing in a location where those activities were illegal. Douglas fell into the water and drowned as a result of his intoxication. If Douglas had been boating in another area, he would still have drowned, so his proximity to the rocky outcroppings was unrelated to his drowning (think about foreseeability).
Answer 1 is not correct because violating the rule against boating or waterskiing near the rocks was not the cause of Douglas's death. Robert would be responsible if the drowning had occurred while Douglas skied and Robert, while operating the boat, steered in a manner that caused Douglas to crash into a rocky outcropping. In that case, Robert would be liable because he was in control of the boat and had insisted on boating and skiing in an unsafe location. For that reason, answer 2 is also not the best answer. Douglas is responsible for his own actions, including drinking excessively while on the lake.
Answer 4 is not right because the tort defense of contributory negligence does not exist in the criminal law.
Abigail, an eccentric medical student, believes her rival, Bartholomew, is planning to poison her with a rare, deadly synthetic venom. Determined to preemptively neutralize the threat, Abigail formulates what she believes to be a perfect antidote.
One evening, seeing Bartholomew pass out at a bar, Abigail approaches him. She sincerely believes that the only way to save his life from the "poison" he must have taken is to inject him immediately with her antidote. She secretly administers the injection.
The next day, police approach Abigail. It turns out Bartholomew was not poisoned; he had simply drunk too much alcohol and passed out. Furthermore, the "antidote" Abigail injected was not an antidote at all, but a harmless, non-toxic saline solution, as her chemical synthesis had completely failed. Abigail is charged with Attempted Murder and Battery.
Which of the following defenses is LEAST likely to successfully relieve Abigail of criminal liability for Attempted Murder?
(1)
🧠 Criminal Law Hypothetical: The Attempted Anti-Poisoning
Facts:
Abigail, an eccentric medical student, believes her rival, Bartholomew, is planning to poison her with a rare, deadly synthetic venom. Determined to preemptively neutralize the threat, Abigail formulates what she believes to be a perfect antidote.
One evening, seeing Bartholomew pass out at a bar, Abigail approaches him. She sincerely believes that the only way to save his life from the "poison" he must have taken is to inject him immediately with her antidote. She secretly administers the injection.
The next day, police approach Abigail. It turns out Bartholomew was not poisoned; he had simply drunk too much alcohol and passed out. Furthermore, the "antidote" Abigail injected was not an antidote at all, but a harmless, non-toxic saline solution, as her chemical synthesis had completely failed. Abigail is charged with Attempted Murder and Battery.
Which of the following defenses is LEAST likely to successfully relieve Abigail of criminal liability for Attempted Murder?
1. Mistake of Fact (as to the Victim's Condition)
2. Legal Impossibility
3. Factual Impossibility
4. Insanity
4. Insanity: The facts do not provide any indication of a severe mental disease or defect; they only describe her actions as "eccentric," "determined," and based on a sincere but incorrect belief.
Why the other defenses are applicable:
A. Mistake of Fact: This is a strong defense for the Battery charge. Abigail mistakenly believed the fact that Bartholomew was poisoned, which might negate the mens rea (intent) required for Battery because her intent was not to harm, but to save.
C. Factual Impossibility: This is the most relevant defense for the Attempted Murder charge. Under the majority modern view, Factual Impossibility is NOT a defense to attempt. Her failure to complete the crime (murder) was due to an unknown factual condition (the harmless saline), but her intent (specific intent to murder) remains. A prosecutor would successfully argue that because she intended to administer a poison/lethal substance, the fact that it was actually saline is merely a factual barrier to success, which does not excuse the attempt.
B. Legal Impossibility: This is generally a valid defense (though often confused with Factual Impossibility). It applies when the defendant does everything they intended, but their completed act is simply not a crime (e.g., trying to smuggle a legal substance, mistakenly thinking it's illegal). Here, Abigail's ultimate act (injecting someone with saline to save them) is not a crime, but because she is charged with Attempted Murder (a crime requiring specific intent), courts often focus on the criminal intent, making Factual Impossibility the more relevant, but unsuccessful, argument.
Juanita was the manager of a flower store. As such, she had full responsibility for ordering and pricing goods, hiring and firing employees, and promoting the store generally. One day she took home a fancy plant, sold it to her friend, and kept the money. What crime has she committed?
(1) Embezzlement
(2) Larceny.
(3) False pretenses.
(4) Robbery.
(1) Embezzlement
Juanita was in “possession” of the plant, meaning that she had authority regarding the legitimate use and maintenance of the good, a key requirement for embezzlement.
Answer 2 is wrong, as larceny involves a theft committed by someone not in possession, but only in mere custody, of the goods.
Answer 3 is also wrong as the title (ownership) did not pass here (the rightful owner was not giving the plant to Juanita), an essential element of the crime of false pretenses.
Answer 4 is not correct, as a robbery is defined as the taking of property by force or threat of force, not present here