Elements
This element is the external consequences of the actus reus
What is Social Harm?
A motorist collided with an oncoming car, killing the other driver.
Which of the following facts, if true, would support a finding that the motorist did not commit an actus reus?
A. The motorist did not see the other vehicle until the cars collided.
B. The motorist’s vehicle’s steering failed just before the collision.
C. The motorist collided with the oncoming car in order to avoid colliding with debris that was littering the road.
D. The motorist was trying to pass another car at the time of the collision.
B. The motorist’s vehicle’s steering failed just before the collision.
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 with purpose.
B. The teens acted without mistake of fact.
C. The teens acted with transferred intent.
D. The teens acted with motive.
C. The teens acted with transferred intent.
A man was diagnosed with terminal cancer and told he had less than a year to live. Six months later, as he was about to die peacefully at home, a robber broke into the man’s house and shot him, killing him instantly. The robber was arrested and put on trial for murder. The state follows the common law approach to the fundamental elements of crime.
Which of the following best describes the likely outcome of this prosecution on the fundamental issue of causation?
a. The robber was not the actual cause of the man’s death, and therefore the issue of proximate cause need not be considered.
b. The robber was the actual cause of the man’s death but was not the proximate cause of the man’s death.
c. The robber was the actual cause of the man’s death and was also the proximate cause of the man’s death.
d. The robber was the proximate cause of the man's death but was not the actual cause of the man's death.
c. The robber was the actual cause of the man’s death and was also the proximate cause of the man’s death.
A woman was suffering from end-stage lung cancer and repeatedly begged her husband to help her die. Her husband thought about the pros and cons of the situation, but he finally relented and affixed a lethal dose of transdermal pain medication to the woman. The woman fell into a deep sleep and died.
Under which murder theories can the husband be charged for, if any?
A. Willful, Deliberate, Premeditated
B. Abandon Malignant Heart
C. Grievous Bodily Harm
D. None
A. Willful, Deliberate, Premeditated
But-for the defendant's voluntary act, would the social harm occurred when it did?
What is the actual cause test?
Which of the following acts of a defendant is most likely to be considered an INVOLUNTARY act?
A. Striking someone in a fit of rage upon being provoked with a racial slur.
B. Accidentally hitting someone with a golf club in the follow-through after a missed shot.
C. Breaking into a neighbor’s house while sleepwalking, unaware of one's surroundings.
D. Hitting a jaywalking pedestrian while riding a bicycle after a night of heavy drinking.
C. Breaking into a neighbor’s house while sleepwalking, unaware of one's surroundings.
Which of the following best demonstrates a situation where the concept of transferred intent may satisfy the mens rea element of a crime?
A. Intending to shoot a particular person, a woman fired a loaded gun into a crowd of people, hitting a different person
B. Having no knowledge of a guest’s serious peanut allergy, a woman served a dish with peanuts at a party, and the guest had an allergic reaction after eating it.
C. Running late for a meeting, a woman was speeding while driving in a school zone, and accidentally hit a pedestrian who was not a student at the school.
D. Failing to properly douse a campfire, a woman inadvertently caused a fire that merged with a fire caused by someone else and subsequently injured a nearby homeowner.
A. Intending to shoot a particular person, a woman fired a loaded gun into a crowd of people, hitting a different person
In the context of the fundamental elements of a crime, which of the following is most likely to be considered a “responsive intervening cause” under the common law analysis of proximate cause?
a. An inevitable consequence of the defendant’s conduct.
b. A reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct.
c. An unforeseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct.
d. A consequence that was remote in time to the defendant’s conduct.
b. A reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct.
A defendant was charged with common-law murder after allegedly killing her sister.
Which of the following facts, if true, would most support a finding that the defendant acted with malice as aforethought?
a. The sister died from poisoning.
b. The sister died from manual strangulation.
c. The sister died from a single gunshot wound.
d. The sister died from injuries sustained in a fall.
a. The sister died from poisoning.
Coincidental- Defendant is not the proximate cause unless the intervening cause was foreseeable
Responsive- The defendant is the proximate cause unless the intervening cause is unforeseeable and truly bizarre
What is the proximate cause element?
A man overheard his roommate on the phone saying that he had purchased weapons and planned to carry out a shooting at his workplace the next day. The man did nothing, and the next day the roommate carried out his plan and killed several people before being killed by the police.
Which of the following issues is most likely to be legally significant to a prosecutor’s analysis of whether the fundamental requirement of actus reus, or a culpable act, can be established in charging the man with a crime?
A. Whether the state has a Good Samaritan law.
B. Whether the roommate had a history of violent episodes.
C. Intent, a victim, and harm.
D. A duty, a victim, and harm.
A. Whether the state has a Good Samaritan law.
Edgar was wearing a Frenchy's Insurance polo shirt. Tim is looking for a job and is interviewed by Edgar. During the interview, Edgar tells him that he is the owner of the company (he actually is only an associate insurance agent). Edgar hires Tim. Edgar tells Tim to fill out paperwork incorrectly, but Tim does not know it is incorrect. Prosecutor wants to charge Tim with Fraud, and in this jurisdiction, it is a specific intent crime. Does Tim have any defenses?
A. Yes. Mistake of Law because it is a specific intent crime.
B. Yes. Mistake of Fact because it is a specific intent crime and an unreasonable mistake is a defense.
C. No. Mistake of fact is not applicable because it is only a defense to general intent crimes
D. Yes, Mistake of Law. Mistake of law is a defense because he relied on an official interpretation of the law.
B. Yes. Mistake of Fact because it is a specific intent crime and an unreasonable mistake is a defense.
In the context of the fundamental elements of a crime, which of the following is most likely to be considered a “coincidental intervening cause” under the common law analysis of proximate cause?
a. Complications caused by a preexisting medical condition of the victim.
b. Injuries caused by a doctor’s negligent medical treatment of the victim.
c. Injuries caused by a third party’s mugging of the victim, during the victim’s flight from the defendant.
d. Injuries caused by a car accident, due to a third party’s negligent driving, during the victim’s flight from the defendant.
c. Injuries caused by a third party’s mugging of the victim, during the victim’s flight from the defendant.
Not a perfect answer but the best answer. The other ones depended on an original harm or negligent work. C was completely indpendent.
Felipe went to the Arkansas football game and was really disappointed about the loss. Felipe went to a bar and had 8 drinks in less than an hour to "forget about the game." Felipe stumbles to his car and attempts to drive home from Dickson street to his house, which is 5 miles away. While he is driving he is trying to find a good song to listen to. During this time he runs a light by Maple Street, and he hits a pedestrian driving 50 MPH. He looks at the pedestrian on the ground and drives off so he does not get a DWI. The pedestrian dies and they end up finding Felipe. What type of murder can they charge him with, if any?
a. Willful, Deliberate, Premeditated
b. Abandon Malignant Heart
c. Grievous Bodily Harm
d. Felony Murder
e. None
b. Abandon Malignant Heart
Failure to act when you have a legal duty.
What is an omission?
As a fundamental element of criminal culpability, what does the element of actus reus require?
A. An injury to a victim.
B. A causal connection between the culpable act and its harmful effect.
C. A culpable state of mind.
D. A voluntary act/omission and social harm
D. A voluntary act/omission and social harm
Paul attends a gun rights seminar where there are 20 lawyers holding a Q and A session answering questions about Gun Rights. During this session, 2 different lawyers tell the crowd that Act 1194 allows for a person to walk down the street with a Rocket Launcher, and one can shoot off as many rockets as they want, as long as they don't aim it at anyone. Paul leaves the seminar and goes home to get his Rocket Launcher. He then openly carries his Rocket Launcher and is shooting multiple rockets right into the air as he walks down a busy street. People are screaming and running. The police take him into custody and charge him with violating Act 1194. Does he have any successful defenses?
A. Yes, Mistake of Law, Same Law because he reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law that turned out to be erroneous.
B. Yes, Mistake of Law, Different Law, because he is relying on a separate law that the lawyers discussed at the seminar.
C. No, Mistake of Law, Same Law is the closest, but one could not reasonably believe that one can shoot a rocket launcher in public without consequences.
C. No, Mistake of Law, Same Law is the closest, but one could not reasonably believe that one can shoot a rocket launcher in public without consequences.
A vandal slashed the tires on a victim’s car, requiring that the car be towed to a shop for repair. After the victim’s car was hitched to the tow truck, the hitch suddenly broke. The car rolled backward, striking and killing the victim. The vandal was charged with destruction of property and manslaughter.
Which of the following types of causation is a court most likely to find with respect to the manslaughter charge?
a. Both actual and proximate cause.
b. Neither actual nor proximate cause.
c. Only actual cause.
d. Only proximate cause.
c. Only actual cause.
Here, but for the vandal’s slashing of the victim’s car tires, the victim’s car would not have been hitched to the tow truck. Therefore, there was actual, or but-for, causation. However, because the failure of the tow truck hitch—which resulted in the car’s rolling backward, and striking and killing the victim—was not the natural and probable consequence of the vandal’s conduct, there was no proximate cause.
Eli was at the mall, where he saw his ex best friend Jim. Eli ran up to Jim and started to beat him up to give him a warning not to text his girlfriend anymore. Jim went to the hospital where he later died. Eli did not try to kill Jim. What can Eli be charged with, if anything?
A. Willful, deliberate, premeditated
B. Grievous bodily harm
C. Other intentional killings
D. Nothing
B. Grievous bodily harm
2 Questions
1. A free-willed muscular contraction with narrow time framing.1. What is Common Law Voluntary Act?
2. What is MPC Voluntary Act?
A defendant challenged her criminal charges on the basis that she did not commit an actus reus.
Which of the following facts, if true, would most support the defendant’s claim?
A. The defendant’s conduct was not prohibited by statute.
B. The defendant was intoxicated at the time of the alleged act.
C. The defendant’s alleged act was not intentional.
D. The defendant was pressured to perform the alleged act.
A. The defendant’s conduct was not prohibited by statute.
Paul attends a gun rights seminar where there are 20 lawyers holding a Q and A session answering questions about Gun Rights. During this session, 2 different lawyers tell the crowd that the 2nd Amendment allows for a person to walk down the street with a Rocket Launcher, and one can shoot off as many rockets as they want, as long as they don't aim it at anyone. Paul leaves the seminar and goes home to get his Rocket Launcher. He then openly carries his Rocket Launcher and is shooting multiple rockets right into the air as he walks down a busy street. People are screaming and running. The police take him into custody and charge him with violating Act 1194, which does not allow for one to own explosive weapons. Does he have any successful defenses?
A. Yes, Mistake of Law, Same Law because he reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law that turned out to be erroneous.
B. Yes, Mistake of Law, Different Law, Paul honestly held belief in good faith about the 2nd Amendment which can negate the mens rea element.
C. No, Mistake of Law, Different Law because Paul relied on a different interpretation of the same law that he was charged with.
B. Yes, Mistake of Law, Different Law, Paul honestly held belief in good faith about the 2nd Amendment which can negate the mens rea element.
This is not a perfect answer, but it is the best answer Gallini likes to do questions like this.An aggressor in a bar broke a beverage bottle over a victim’s head. Unbeknownst to the aggressor, the victim had just been diagnosed with a fatal, inoperable brain tumor. The aggressor’s blow to the victim’s head caused the tumor to shift, interrupting critical blood flow within the victim’s brain and resulting in the victim’s death three days later.
Did the aggressor cause the victim’s death?
a. No, because the aggressor’s actions were not the but-for cause of the victim’s death.
b. No, because the victim’s condition was not reasonably foreseeable.
c. Yes, because the aggressor was an independent intervening cause of the victim’s death.
d.Yes, because the aggressor’s actions accelerated the victim’s death.
d.Yes, because the aggressor’s actions accelerated the victim’s death.
Craig broke into Emily's home. Emily comes home early from work and notices that someone is in the home. She tries to attack Craig, but Craig fends her off and then shoots her and kills her. Craig's lawyer is hoping for Voluntary Manslaughter. Will he likely get Voluntary Manslaughter?
a. Yes. Because Emily attacked him which would be adequate provocation.
b. Yes. Because Craig killed Emily immediately and never had time to cool off.c. No. Because Craig had time to cool off before he shot and killed Emily.
d. No. Because Craig did not have adequate provocation since he broke into Emily's apartment, and she was trying to defend her property.d. No. Because Craig did not have adequate provocation since he broke into Emily's apartment, and she was trying to defend her property.