DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Kanagaroo Kort
  HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Criminal Law
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 66--------------------------------------------------
       Criminal Law Overview of Elements
       By: Penny22 Date: February 17, 2011, 10:03 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Elements
       Actus Reas
       Action
       Voluntary, Volitional Act (bodily movement)
       Not a reflex (shockunconsciousness—Newton; sleepwalking—
       Cogdon)
       Not a status (addict—Robinson)
       Not a movement against ’s will (drunk in public—Martin)
       Crime caused by addiction (out of control alcoholic act, but
       first drink taken voluntarily—Powell)
       Epileptic seizure (choice to drive = actus reas seizure—Decina)
       Omissions: failure to act—includes duties to care req’d by
       statute, relationship, contract, voluntary assumption of care
       No duty to save house guest (baby dead from beating—Pope)
       No duty to save lover (overdose—Beardsley)
       Parent’s duty to save child (abusive situation—Cardwell)
       Brother’s duty to sister (Stone)
       Duty to save after creating risk (seclusion &
       spoonoverdose—Oliver; rape &
       remorsedrowning—Jones)
       Issue
       Common Law
       MPC
       Mens Rea
       Choice
       Specific intent :  has some future purpose or actual
       knowledge of fact/circumstance . (murder, attempt, burglary,
       larceny, robbery)—sort of like purpose/knowledge in MPC
       MPC§2.02 Levels of Culpability
        can prove level req’d or level higher.  If there is a
       level mentioned in part of the statute that level applies for
       the other elements.
       General intent  aware of conduct & has knowledge, but no
       particular desire/purpose to bring about new circumstances
       Conduct (bodily movement)
       Circumstance (conditions)
       Result
       (not always element)
       Must have mens rea for each charge:
       Not using stop tap when stealing money from the gas
       meterleaklife in danger—Cunningham
       Sailor intends to get rum but burns the whole ship down in the
       process—Faulkner
        is assumed to intend reasonably foreseeable
       consequences of action (inability to find corrupted juror
       doesn’t bar specific intent—Neiswender)
       Deliberate ignorance = mens rea.  Awareness of probability of
       crime sufficient for mens rea (presence of marijuana in the
       trunk—Jewell)
       Purpose (Required for attempts)
       Conscious objective/desire
       Awareness, belief or hope
       Conscious objective/desire
       Knowledge
       Aware
       Practically certain
       Recklessness (default culpability level)
       Indifference
       Subjective awareness ( did actually know) of substantial
       & unjustified risk that is gross deviation from what law abiding
       person would do
       Negligence Inattentiveness
       Objective/reasonable person would have been aware, gross
       deviation from standard of reasonable care based on: 1) gravity
       of harm that foreseeably would result from ’s conduct,
       2) probability of harm; 3) burden to  of not engaging in
       risk
       Conditional Intent: §2.02(6) Does condition take  out of
       realm of people meant to be convicted by statute (negatives the
       mens rea)? (conviction upheld in conditional [“if you don’t
       cooperate, I’ll kill you”] carjacking—Holloway)  Common law or
       MPC?
       MPC 2.02(7) Where knowledge is req’d, a high probability of fact
       will suffice
       Mistake of Fact
       Mistake of Law
       General Intent
       Honest & reasonable mistake of fact is a defense
       Sherry: Must be both honest & reasonable
       Specific intent
       Honest mistake of fact is a defense b/c it overcomes mens rea
       Reynolds: Just honest & not reckless  Kelly: Honest
       §2.04 (1) Ignorance/Mistake of fact or law is a defense if (a)
       it negatives the rq’d culpability level; (b) the law allows it.
       (2) Defense is not allowed when the  would have been
       guilty of another offense if the circumstances were as she
       thought they were; this will reduce the grade of the offense.
       (3) Mistake of law is a defense when (a) doesn’t know of
       law & it’s unpublished; (b) acts in reasonable reliance
       on official statement of law later determined to be invalid
       Only a defense when afterwards the law is deemed
       invalid—Albertini
       Ignorance of law is no defense unless code allows it—Marrero
       (misinterpretation of law ≠ defense)—common law case
       General Intent
       Mistake of law ≠ defense
       Hopkins –even where relying on an official b/c official doesn’t
       determine law
       Wood—quickie divorce
       Specific intent
       Honest mistake of law is a missing element
       Smith—where  is missing specific intent (thinks he is
       ripping up own floorboards)
       Strict Liability
       Usu. involves newer statutory regulatory crimes where mens rea
       hard to prove
       “Wrong in itself’no need for mens rea
       If it’s a strict liability statute, mistake of fact doesn’t
       matter (underage girl—Prince; leaving pregnant wife—White)
       Old crime that doesn’t mention a req’d intent ≠ strict
       liability (accidental theft of casings—Morrisette)
       Only where explicitly stated in statute
       Can’t hold owner crim liable under a regulatory crime making it
       illegal to serve underage alcohol b/c of stigma, costs of crim
       conviction—Guminga
       Can hold  liable for strict liability speeding law w/
       stuck cruise control despite lack of control—Baker
       *****************************************************