Crim_Law_02

1) NO CRIME without a PHYSICAL ACT (as a general rule)

2) ACT = VOLUNTARY bodily movement (NB, "voluntary" includes acts under coercion or duress)

1) FAILURE TO ACT can be basis for criminal liability (in limited situations)

2) ELEMENTS (need all 3)

• LEGAL DUTY to act (e.g., statute, contract, status (i.e., parent-child, spouse-spouse), voluntary assumption of care, ∆ creates peril)
• KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS giving rise to the legal duty
• ABILITY TO HELP (minimal ability, e.g., crying-out for help)

1) DESIRE to do the ACT and the desire to ACHIEVE A RESULT

2) 11 SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES ("FIAT")

> First-Degree Murder

> Inchoate Crimes (CATS)

• Attempted crime
• Solicitation
• Conspiracy

> Assault with intent to commit battery

> Theft crimes

• Larceny
• Embezzlement
• False Pretenses
• Robbery
• Forgery
• Burglary

1) ACTING INTENTIONALLY or with RECKLESS DISREGARD as to an obvious or known risk.

2) COMMON LAW MALICE CRIMES

• Murder
• Arson

1) GENERAL AWARENESS of the factors constituting a crime—desire to achieve a specific result not necessary. Note: Jury may infer GI simply from the doing of the act

2) EXAMPLES

• Battery
• False imprisonment
• Kidnapping
• Forceable rape

1) SIMPLY DOING THE ACT results in a crime—no mental state needed!

2) TWO TYPES of strict liability crimes

• Public welfare (e.g., selling alcohol to minor, selling contaminated food, corrupting the morals of a minor)
• Statutory rape

1) ANY MISTAKE of fact, even an unreasonable one, is a defense

2) only a REASONABLE MISTAKE of fact is a defense

3) NEVER A DEFENSE

1) GENERAL RULE. Mistake of law is NOT A DEFENSE

2) EXCEPTIONS (mistake of law IS a defense)

• Statute expressly requires KNOWLEDGE of the law as an element of the crime
• Statute was NOT PUBLISHED
• ∆ REASONABLY RELIED on a statute or judicial decision that was DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL or OVERRULED
• ∆ REASONABLY RELIED on an official interpretation or advice from someone charged with ENFORCEMENT, administration, or interpretation of the law***

***erroneous advice from a private attorney is not a defense

When it is the ∆'s CONSCIOUS OBJECT to accomplish a PARTICULAR RESULT—i.e., the ∆ MEANT to do reach the result

When ∆ is AWARE of what he is doing

When ∆ is AWARE of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and CONSCIOUSLY DISREGARDS that risk

***requires showing of ∆'s subjective knowledge

When ∆ SHOULD HAVE KNOWN about a substantial and unjustifiable risk

***∆'s subjective knowledge is irrelevant

No mental state required (similar to common law)

1) MISTAKE OF FACT is a DEFENSE IF the mistake NEGATES the required mental state

2) APPLICATION—for crimes of

• PURPOSE, KNOWLEDGE, or RECKLESSNESS—a mistake of fact (EVEN AN UNREASONABLE one) is a defense
• NEGLIGENCE—only a REASONABLE mistake is a defense
• STRICT LIABILITY—never a defense

NEVER—no exceptions (still a crime, even if ∆ doesn't know about the law)

BUT-FOR TEST

• ∆ is an "actual cause" if the bad result would not have a happened BUT-FOR the ∆'s conduct
• NB: an ACCELERATING CAUSE is an actual cause

1) PROXIMATE CAUSE if the bad result is a NATURAL AND PROBABLE consequence of the ∆'s conduct

2) KEY CONCEPTS

• Foreseeability
• Fairness

3) THIN-SKULLED VICTIMS—∆ will be proximate cause even if victim's PRE-EXISTING WEAKNESS contributed to bad result

4) INTERVENING CAUSES—∆ will NOT be proximate cause if an UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING EVENT causes the bad result

YES—surgeon's negligence was foreseeable result, even if it was an intervening cause

1) ∆ must have MENTAL STATE at the time he engages in the ACT

2) Concurrence issues most frequently arise as to the crimes of

• Larceny
• Burglary