Actus Reus
Define Actus Reus
"guilty act" the physical act or conduct that constitutes a criminal offense.
Define Mens Rea
"guilty mind" refers to the mental state or intent of a person at the time they commit a crime.
Cheech was growing a small marijuana patch in his backyard garden. Possession of marijuana remains a crime in this jurisdiction. A neighbor observed the marijuana, alerted the police, and Cheech was arrested. He has been charged with possession of marijuana.
Cheech can convince a jury that he honestly believed that it was not against the law to grow a small amount of marijuana for one’s own personal use in that jurisdiction, would that be a good defense?
A. Yes, but only if the possession of narcotics statute in his jurisdiction is a strict liability statute.
B. Yes, but only if his belief was a reasonable one.
C. No, it would not be a good defense.
D. Yes, but only if the possession of narcotics statute in his jurisdiction includes a mens rea element of purposeful, intentional, or knowing behavior.
C. No, it would not be a good defense.
define textualism
the interpretive approach that focuses on the ordinary meaning of the words in statutes, emphasizing the text itself without considering legislative intent or context.
Maria was driving her car at a lawful rate of speed down a crowded, residential street when she suffered an unprovoked seizure, lost consciousness, and the car careened out of control, hitting and killing a small child who was playing in her front yard. Maria had never had a seizure previously and her doctors have not been able to determine for sure why she had this one. Which of the following is most accurate:
A. Maria did not commit a criminal act because her act of losing control of the car was involuntary.
B. Maria committed a criminal act because people are responsible for the proximate consequences of their own medical conditions.
C. Maria committed a criminal act because an act is not involuntary when it is the product of a person’s external body movement.
D. Both (b) and (c) are correct, and (a) is incorrect.
A. Maria did not commit a criminal act because her act of losing control of the car was involuntary.
Roger, the host of a weekly podcast, falsely claimed on several of his shows that Marvin, the owner of a popular pizza shop, was a sexual predator. Roger claimed that Marvin was imprisoning and sexually abusing children in the basement of his shop. Although these claims were entirely untrue, Maria, a regular listener, believed them. Ignoring the possibility that if these claims had actually been true, there might be children trapped in the basement, Maria nonetheless set fire one night to Marvin’s pizza shop. The shop burned, scaring but not injuring Stephanie, a nighttime cleaning person who was working inside and who managed to escape the flames. Maria has been charged, inter alia, with the crime of risking a catastrophe, which is defined in this jurisdiction as “recklessly creating a risk of catastrophe in the employment of fire, explosives or other dangerous means.” Recklessness is defined in this jurisdiction the same way as it is defined in the Model Penal Code: “A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law‑abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.”
Which of the following is most accurate:
A. Maria is guilty of risking a catastrophe if but only if she realized that Stephanie was present in the pizza shop when she set fire to it.
B. Maria is not guilty of risking a catastrophe because her intention was not to actually hurt anyone but rather to prevent the crimes of someone she believed was a sexual predator.
C. Maria is guilty of risking a catastrophe because she ignored the possibility that there may have been children detained in the basement of the pizza shop when she set fire to it.
D. None of the above answers is true.
D. None of the above answers is true.
Suni was growing a small marijuana patch in her backyard garden. Possession of a small amount of marijuana for one’s own personal use is no longer a crime in this jurisdiction. However, Suni believed that marijuana possession was still a crime, but she simply didn’t care that she was committing a criminal act. A neighbor who observed the marijuana and who also believed that such possession was still a crime alerted the police and Suni was arrested and charged with attempted possession of marijuana.
Which of the following is most accurate:
A. Suni is guilty of attempted possession of marijuana because she tried to commit a criminal act but failed only because of her mistaken belief that marijuana possession was still a crime.
B. Suni is not guilty of attempted possession of marijuana because possession of marijuana was not a criminal act in that jurisdiction at that time.
C. Suni is guilty of attempted possession of marijuana because she possessed a guilty mens rea and only failed to commit a crime because of a mistake of law.
D. None of the above answers is true.
B. Suni is not guilty of attempted possession of marijuana because possession of marijuana was not a criminal act in that jurisdiction at that time.
define porposivism
the interpretive approach that seeks to understand statutes by considering the purpose and objectives behind the law, focusing on the intent of the lawmakers and the broader goals of the legislation.
Sergio has a sleep disorder that causes him occasionally to wander around his home late at night and to make other movements without being aware that he is doing so. One night, Sergio, while sleepwalking in his living room, tripped over an electrical cord and fell onto and seriously injured a friend, Ilsa, who was sleeping on the living room couch.
Which of the following is most accurate:
A. Sergio did not commit a criminal act because his actions were involuntary since he was sleepwalking at the time he injured Ilsa.
B. Sergio did commit a criminal act if but only if the crime with which he is charged is a strict liability offense.
C. Both (a) and (b) are correct.
D. Neither (a) nor (b) is correct.
A. Sergio did not commit a criminal act because his actions were involuntary since he was sleepwalking at the time he injured Ilsa.
A manufacturer has released five times the permitted amount of dangerous gas into the air, in violation of a state criminal environmental statute. Courts in this jurisdiction have construed this statute as strict liability. Which of the following is most accurate:
A. The manufacturer cannot be convicted of violating the statute if it can show that it did not know the gas was being emitted.
B. The manufacturer has a strong defense that it was not aware of the statutory requirements and did not intend to violate the law.
C. The manufacturer has no possible mens rea defense in these circumstances.
D. Answers (a) and (b) are true, and answer (c) is untrue.
C. The manufacturer has no possible mens rea defense in these circumstances.
Cheech was growing a small marijuana patch in his backyard garden. Possession of marijuana remains a crime in this jurisdiction. A neighbor observed the marijuana, alerted the police, and Cheech was arrested. He has been charged with possession of marijuana.
If Cheech can convince a jury that he honestly and reasonably believed that the marijuana plants growing in his garden were actually oregano, would that be a good defense?
A. Yes, but only if the possession of narcotics statute in this jurisdiction is a strict liability statute.
B. Yes, it would be a good defense with respect to a strict liability mens rea element, but only if his belief was a reasonable one.
C. No, it would not be a good defense.
D. Yes, but only if the possession of narcotics statute in his jurisdiction includes a mens rea element and his belief was a reasonable one.
D. Yes, but only if the possession of narcotics statute in his jurisdiction includes a mens rea element and his belief was a reasonable one.
Defendant visited a fellow college student, James, in James’s dormitory room. They drank some
beer. James produced a box containing marijuana cigarettes and asked if Defendant wanted one. Defendant, afraid of being caught, declined and urged James to get rid of the marijuana. James refused.
Shortly thereafter, both went out to get more beer, leaving the door to James’s room standing open. Making an excuse about having dropped his pen, Defendant went back into James’s room. Still apprehensive about their being caught with the marijuana cigarettes, he took the cigarettes and flushed them down the toilet. He was sure James was too drunk to notice that the cigarettes were missing.
Defendant is charged with larceny and burglary (the latter defined in the jurisdiction as
breaking and entering the dwelling of another with intent to commit any felony or theft). He should be found guilty of
(A) burglary only.
(B) larceny only.
(C) both burglary and larceny
(D) neither burglary nor larceny
(B) larceny only.
Sergio has a sleep disorder that causes him occasionally to wander around his home late at night and to make other movements without being aware that he is doing so. One night, Sergio, while sleepwalking in his living room, tripped over an electrical cord and fell onto and seriously injured a friend, Ilsa, who was sleeping on the living room couch.
Which of the following is most accurate:
A. If Sergio had realized that he possessed this sleep disorder, his actions which resulted in injuring Ilsa may not have been involuntary.
B. Even if Sergio had realized that he possessed this sleep disorder, his actions which resulted in injuring Ilsa were still involuntary.
C. If Sergio’s sleepwalking on the night in question was shown not to have been a direct result of his sleep disorder, but resulted instead from drunkenness resulting from the fact that he had drunk a great quantity of tequila before going to bed, his actions were still involuntary.
D. Both (b) and (c) are correct, and (a) is incorrect.
A. If Sergio had realized that he possessed this sleep disorder, his actions which resulted in injuring Ilsa may not have been involuntary.
Sandy knew that the brakes on his truck were failing. He simply did not have the money to get them repaired for a couple of weeks, until after he got paid. Finally, payday came and Sandy had enough money in the bank to take his truck to a service station for repair. Unfortunately, on his way to the service station, his brakes failed completely as he tried to come to a complete stop at a red light and he rolled right through the intersection and smashed into the passenger side of a car, killing the front-seat passenger, Tim.
Sandy has been charged with first degree murder. In the jurisdiction where these events took place, first degree murder has a mens rea element of “purposeful” conduct, i.e. to be guilty of first degree murder, the prosecution must prove, inter alia, that the accused had the “conscious object to cause” the resulting death of the victim. Which of the following is most accurate:
A. Sandy acted purposefully in killing Tim.
B. Sandy did not act purposefully in killing Tim.
C. Sandy did not act purposefully in killing Tim if but only if it is true that he did not have the money to repair the truck’s brakes prior to the accident.
D. Sandy did not act purposefully in killing Tim if but only if his actions were reckless.
B. Sandy did not act purposefully in killing Tim.
Donald pointed a gun at the head of his husband, Edward, and pretended that he was going to shoot him. Donald did not really intend to shoot Edward. He just wanted to scare him, and he thought the gun was unloaded. He had seen one of his friends, the owner of the gun, remove all of the bullets from the gun. Or so he thought. This friend even told Donald that “the gun’s unloaded now.”
In fact, however, the friend and Donald were both mistaken. Although bullets had been removed, there was still one bullet left in the firing chamber of the gun. So when Donald pulled the trigger and thought that he was pretending to shoot his husband, Edward, he actually shot him in the head, killing Edward instantly.
Donald has been charged with first degree murder. In the jurisdiction where these events took place, first degree murder has a mens rea element of “purposeful” conduct, i.e. to be guilty of first degree murder, the prosecution must prove, inter alia, that the accused had the “conscious object to cause” the resulting death of the victim.
Donald’s defense counsel argues that he is not guilty of first degree murder because he mistakenly thought the gun was unloaded. Which of the following is most accurate:
A. Donald is guilty of first degree murder.
B. Donald is not guilty of first degree murder because he did not consciously intend to kill Edward as he reasonably and mistakenly believed the gun was not loaded.
C. Donald is not guilty of first degree murder because a person cannot be found guilty of any homicide crime where he or she did not actually intend to kill the victim.
D. Both (b) and (c) are true, and (a) is untrue.
B. Donald is not guilty of first degree murder because he did not consciously intend to kill Edward as he reasonably and mistakenly believed the gun was not loaded.
In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be not guilty of the
charge made?
(A) Police arrested Thief and recovered goods he had stolen. At the direction of the
police, Thief took the goods to Defendant. Defendant, believing the goods to be
stolen, purchased them. Defendant is charged with attempting to receive stolen
property.
(B) Defendant misrepresented his identity to secure a loan from a bank. The banker
was not deceived and refused to grant the loan. Defendant is charged with
attempting to obtain property by false pretenses.
(C) Believing that state law made it a crime to purchase codeine without a
prescription, Defendant purchased, without a prescription, cough syrup
containing codeine. Unknown to Defendant, the statute had been repealed and
codeine could be legally purchased without a prescription. Defendant is charged
with attempting to purchase codeine without a prescription.
(D) Defendant, intending to kill Selma, shot at Selma. Unknown to Defendant, Selma
had died of a heart attack minutes before Defendant shot at her. Defendant is
charged with attempted murder.
(C) Believing that state law made it a crime to purchase codeine without a
prescription, Defendant purchased, without a prescription, cough syrup
containing codeine. Unknown to Defendant, the statute had been repealed and
codeine could be legally purchased without a prescription. Defendant is charged
with attempting to purchase codeine without a prescription.
Estelle was driving her car on an interstate highway, when she was stopped by a state trooper for speeding. After asking Estelle for her driver’s license and car registration, the trooper believed from her slurred speech that she was drunk and had her get out of the car and perform some simple sobriety tests, all of which she failed. Estelle was then arrested for driving while intoxicated. Her car was subsequently towed to an impound lot and an inventory search of its contents was performed.
The inventory search turned up two, small baggies containing crack cocaine, both of which were found inside a backpack that was in the trunk of the car. The backpack belonged to Estelle’s friend, Thomas.
Assume that Estelle did not know that Thomas had left crack cocaine in his backpack in her car. Which of the following is most accurate:
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.
Sylvie was arrested by a local police officer for walking her dog, Trixie, in a park near her home without Trixie being on a leash. The criminal statute under which she was arrested provides that “[n]o dog shall be permitted except on leash within any park or wildlife management area except in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources, and whoever shall be the owner of any dog at large within any park or wildlife management area, knowing that this conduct is unlawful, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”
When she was arrested, Sylvie told the arresting officer that she did not know that she needed to have Trixie on a leash. The officer responded, “I’m sorry, but that’s irrelevant, ma’am. Ignorance of the law is no defense.” Assuming that Sylvie’s statement that she did not know that she needed to have Trixie on a leash is truthful, is that a defense?
A. No, it is not a good defense.
B. Yes, but only if her belief was a reasonable one.
C. Yes, it is a good defense.
D. Yes, but only if the statute also includes a mens rea element of purposeful, intentional, or knowing behavior.
C. Yes, it is a good defense.
Vance had cheated Dodd in a card game. Angered, Dodd set out for Vance’s house with
the intention of shooting him. Just as he was about to set foot on Vance’s property, Dodd
was arrested by a police officer who noticed that Dodd was carrying a revolver. A statute
in the jurisdiction makes it a crime to “enter the property of another with the intent to
commit any crime of violence thereon.”
If charged with attempting to violate the statute, Dodd should be found
(A) not guilty, because the statute defines an attempted crime and there cannot be an
attempt to attempt.
(B) not guilty, because to convict him would be to punish him simply for having a
guilty mind.
(C) guilty, because he was close enough to entering the property and he had the
necessary state of mind.
(D) guilty, because this is a statute designed to protect the public from violence and
Dodd was dangerous.
(C) guilty, because he was close enough to entering the property and he had the
necessary state of mind.