| A | B |
|---|
| Elements of a crime | Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Causation = Crime |
| ACTUS REUS Common Law | Voluntary act; a willed bodily movement “Knowing” possession: you intend to possess an illegal object or have knowledge that youpossess it |
| ACTUS REUS MPC | Voluntary act” means a bodily movement performed consciously or habitually as the result of the effort or determination of the defendant Possession is a voluntary act |
| People v. Decina | voluntary act to drive the car knowing that he is subject to epileptic seizures. |
| State v. Fox | Gary fox intended to possess the illegal object, as he lives in the house and owns it. He, also, had knowledge of it, as he livedthere and possessed books on how to grow it. |
| MENS REA | State of mind required for any offense |
| General Intent | intent to do the act or inaction |
| Specific Intent | the intent to cause a specific result/outcome. |
| Transferred Intent | “intent follows the bullet” |
| intentionally | you have the express purpose; Consciously engage in conduct, awareof circumstances, and object is to cause such result. You did what you intended to do |
| knowingly | you are aware that your actions are practically certain to result in the crime musbe aware of your conduct, circumstancest |
| recklessly | you are aware of the risk, and you disregard - consciously disregard asubstantial and unjustifiable risk. You are a jerk. |
| negligently | should be aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk. You are stupid. |
| State v. Trinkle | When proving “attempt” specificintent is necessary. When he shot at the door of the bar, did he intend to murder someone? No intent, no attempt! |
| State v. Rocker | specific intent to expose oneself can be proven. (on secluded beach sunbathing in nude.) |
| Morisette v. U.S | Intent must be proven. The jury must then decide. The bomb casings appeared abandoned. If so, he did not have the specific intent to steal. |
| CAUSATION Common law | The result, caused by AR & MR (which mustconcur), and must cause harm to society |
| CAUSATION MPC (Intentionally & Knowingly) | Intentional or knowing causation still found even if the result was not intended if:actual results differ from that intended OR the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as intended |
| Causation MPC (Recklessly & Negligently) | Reckless or negligent causation still found even if the result was not within the risk def. wasin or aware of if: actual results differ from that intended orcontemplated OR The actual result involves the same kind ofinjury or harm as the probable result |
| People v. Dlugash | still responsible for murder because he intendedto kill the victim |
| Preexisting Condition & “Eggshell” Rule | Take the victims as they come. |
| State v. Grose | claims that family’s decision toDNR was superseding to him shooting her. However, the infection does not come between AR (pulling the trigger) and result (bulletspenetrating skin). So no superseding defense. |
| Intervening & Superseding | comes between the AR and the result (between the cause and effect). |
