MPC - Elements of Criminal Statutes
Components of a Criminal Statute
1. In general crime contains two components:
a. Actus reus
iv. Physical or external part of the crime
c. Mens rea
i. Mental or internal ingredient
2. Elements of Criminal Offenses
a. Mens Rea
b. Actus Reus
i. Voluntary Act (or Omission)
ii. Social Harm (conduct, result, attendant circumstances)
iii. Causation
1. Actual Cause (“Factual” Cause)
2. Proximate Cause (“Legal” Cause)
Contents
1. Breaking Down a Criminal Statute: Analysis
a. Page 16-17
2. Actus Reus
a. Page 18
3. Causation
a. Page 18-19
4. Mens Rea
a. Page 20-21
Breaking Down a Criminal Statute: Analysis
1. Identify the mens rea and the actus reus elements in the criminal statute
2. Label each actus reus element as “conduct,” “attendant circumstance” or “result.”
3. Figure out what the required mental state is for each of the actus reus elements (purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently)
a. Purposely
i. Result or Conduct: “conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.”
ii. Attendant Circumstance: “is aware of the existence of such circumstances” or “believes or hopes they exist.”
b. Knowingly
i. Result: “Actor is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.”
ii. Conduct or Attendant Circumstance: “is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such attendant circumstances exist.”
c. Recklessly
i. “Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.”
1. “Substantial and unjustified”: 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.
ii. Defendant must be subjectively aware of the risk.
d. Negligently
i. Defendant “should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.”
ii. Defendant need not be subjectively aware of the risk. Defendant should have been aware of the risk.
4. Determine what the prosecution must prove by plugging specifics of the act element into the mental state definition.
a. *Culpability is required with respect to each material element of the offense.
b. WHEN NO MENS REA IN STATUTE, ALL LEVELS OF CULPABILITY ARE SUFFICIENT BESIDES NEGLIGENTLY
Examples:
Statute: requires defendant to “purposely break and enter into the dwelling of another with the purpose to commit a felony therein.”
1. Mens rea: “Purposely” and “purpose to commit a felony therein”
Actus reus: “break and enter into the dwelling of another”
2. Result/Conduct: “break” and “enter”
Attendant Circumstances: “dwelling of another”
3. “Break”: purposely
“Enter”: purposely
“Dwelling of another”: Purposely
4. Defendant had conscious object to break into the dwelling
Defendant had conscious object to enter into the dwelling
Defendant was aware it was a dwelling of another
Defendant’s conscious object was to commit a felony therein
Statute: prohibits “knowingly giving false information to any law enforcement officer with the purpose to implicate another.”
1. Mens rea: “knowingly” and “purpose to implicate another”
Actus reus: “giving false information to any law enforcement officer.”
2. Conduct: give information
AC: “false information” and “to a law enforcement officer”
3. Give: knowingly
False information: knowingly
Law Enforcement: knowingly
Implicate: purposely
4. Defendant was aware they were giving information
Defendant was aware the information was false
Defendant was aware the recipient was a police officer
Defendant’s conscious object was to implicate another
Actus Reus
1. Actus Reus Elements
a. Result Crime: Defined in terms of prohibited result.
i. Example: Criminal Homicide
b. Conduct Crime: Prohibit specific conduct, without requiring any particular result.
i. Example: Driving Under the Influence
c. Some offenses can have both conduct and result elements
i. Example: “Operating a vehicle in a reckless or culpably negligent manner, causing the death of another person.”
1. Conduct: Operating a vehicle
2. Result: Causing the death of another person
d. Attendant Circumstance: A fact or condition that must be present when the actor performs the prohibited conduct or causes the prohibited result.
i. Example: The house of another
2. Voluntary Act
a. Liability must be based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable
i. Not voluntary acts:
1. A reflex or convulsion
2. A bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep
3. Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion
4. A bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual
3. Omissions: “Negative Acts”
a. General Rule: Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless:
i. The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or
ii. A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
Actus Reus: Causation
1. Actual Cause
a. But/For Rule
b. But for the defendant’s voluntary act or omission, would the social harm have occurred when it did?
2. Proximate Cause
a. Abolishes the varying and sometimes inconsistent proximate causation factors developed by the common law.
b. For crimes requiring Purpose or Knowledge:
i. Whether the result “involves the same kind of injury or harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability.”
ii. Generally, focused on foreseeability.
c. For crimes requiring Negligence or Recklessness:
i. Whether the result “involves the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability.”
ii. Generally, focused on foreseeability of probability of the harm
Mens Rea
1. Purpose of MPC is to “obliterate ill-defined, confusing common law language and concepts and replace them with four specifically defined hierarchal levels of culpability.”
a. Adopts the elemental definition of mens rea
b. Abolishes the distinction between general and specific intent
c. Adopts four carefully defined culpability terms, getting rid of all other mens rea terms used in criminal codes
2. Culpability is required with respect to each material element of the offense.
3. Four types of Mens Rea (For details, see Elements of A Crime Analysis)
a. Purposely
b. Knowingly
c. Recklessly
d. Negligently
4. “Willful Blindness”
a. “When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of the offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence.”
i. Willful blindness to a fact is knowingly when what is involved is a matter of existing fact, but not when what is involved is the result of the defendant’s conduct.
5. Problems in Statutory Interpretation
a. MPC applies same interpretation as SCOTUS
b. The mens rea term at the beginning of a statute “goes all the way down” the statute and applies to all of the actus reus elements.
c. Mens rea only applies to what comes after it in the statute, not before it.
6. Strict Liability
a. MPC does not adopt strict liability, except for:
i. Violations: civil offenses subject only to a fine, no imprisonment or probation
ii. “Subject to an exception for ‘violations,’ no conviction may be obtained unless the prosecution proves some form of culpability regarding each material element of the offense.”
b. If MPC statute lacks a mens rea component, culpability required at minimum is “recklessness”
7. Mistake of Fact
a. The MPC adopts an elemental approach to all cases raising a mistake of fact question.
b. General rule:
i. A mistake of fact is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any material element of the offense.
c. Exception:
i. Mistake of fact is not a defense if the defendant would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed.
ii. In such a case, the defendant is liable for the other offense.
8. Mistake of Law
a. General rule:
i. Unless the definition of a crime so provides, “[n]either knowledge nor recklessness or negligence as to whether conduct constitutes a crime or as to the existence, meaning or application of the law determining the elements of an offense is an element of such offense.”
ii. (Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, unless the definition of a crime provides otherwise)
b. Exception #1:
i. The defendant acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in:
1. A statute, judicial decision, administrative order or grant of permission; or
2. An official interpretation by a public official responsible for interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law.
ii. No defense:
1. Reliance on one’s own interpretation of the law, even if the interpretation is reasonable.
2. Reliance on erroneous advice provided by a private attorney.
c. Exception #2.
i. A mistake of law is a defense if it negates a material element of the offense or if the law expressly provides for a mistake-of-law defense.
Components of a Criminal Statute
1. In general crime contains two components:
a. Actus reus
iv. Physical or external part of the crime
c. Mens rea
i. Mental or internal ingredient
2. Elements of Criminal Offenses
a. Mens Rea
b. Actus Reus
i. Voluntary Act (or Omission)
ii. Social Harm (conduct, result, attendant circumstances)
iii. Causation
1. Actual Cause (“Factual” Cause)
2. Proximate Cause (“Legal” Cause)
Contents
1. Breaking Down a Criminal Statute: Analysis
a. Page 16-17
2. Actus Reus
a. Page 18
3. Causation
a. Page 18-19
4. Mens Rea
a. Page 20-21
Breaking Down a Criminal Statute: Analysis
1. Identify the mens rea and the actus reus elements in the criminal statute
2. Label each actus reus element as “conduct,” “attendant circumstance” or “result.”
3. Figure out what the required mental state is for each of the actus reus elements (purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently)
a. Purposely
i. Result or Conduct: “conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.”
ii. Attendant Circumstance: “is aware of the existence of such circumstances” or “believes or hopes they exist.”
b. Knowingly
i. Result: “Actor is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.”
ii. Conduct or Attendant Circumstance: “is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such attendant circumstances exist.”
c. Recklessly
i. “Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.”
1. “Substantial and unjustified”: 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.
ii. Defendant must be subjectively aware of the risk.
d. Negligently
i. Defendant “should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.”
ii. Defendant need not be subjectively aware of the risk. Defendant should have been aware of the risk.
4. Determine what the prosecution must prove by plugging specifics of the act element into the mental state definition.
a. *Culpability is required with respect to each material element of the offense.
b. WHEN NO MENS REA IN STATUTE, ALL LEVELS OF CULPABILITY ARE SUFFICIENT BESIDES NEGLIGENTLY
Examples:
Statute: requires defendant to “purposely break and enter into the dwelling of another with the purpose to commit a felony therein.”
1. Mens rea: “Purposely” and “purpose to commit a felony therein”
Actus reus: “break and enter into the dwelling of another”
2. Result/Conduct: “break” and “enter”
Attendant Circumstances: “dwelling of another”
3. “Break”: purposely
“Enter”: purposely
“Dwelling of another”: Purposely
4. Defendant had conscious object to break into the dwelling
Defendant had conscious object to enter into the dwelling
Defendant was aware it was a dwelling of another
Defendant’s conscious object was to commit a felony therein
Statute: prohibits “knowingly giving false information to any law enforcement officer with the purpose to implicate another.”
1. Mens rea: “knowingly” and “purpose to implicate another”
Actus reus: “giving false information to any law enforcement officer.”
2. Conduct: give information
AC: “false information” and “to a law enforcement officer”
3. Give: knowingly
False information: knowingly
Law Enforcement: knowingly
Implicate: purposely
4. Defendant was aware they were giving information
Defendant was aware the information was false
Defendant was aware the recipient was a police officer
Defendant’s conscious object was to implicate another
Actus Reus
1. Actus Reus Elements
a. Result Crime: Defined in terms of prohibited result.
i. Example: Criminal Homicide
b. Conduct Crime: Prohibit specific conduct, without requiring any particular result.
i. Example: Driving Under the Influence
c. Some offenses can have both conduct and result elements
i. Example: “Operating a vehicle in a reckless or culpably negligent manner, causing the death of another person.”
1. Conduct: Operating a vehicle
2. Result: Causing the death of another person
d. Attendant Circumstance: A fact or condition that must be present when the actor performs the prohibited conduct or causes the prohibited result.
i. Example: The house of another
2. Voluntary Act
a. Liability must be based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable
i. Not voluntary acts:
1. A reflex or convulsion
2. A bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep
3. Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion
4. A bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual
3. Omissions: “Negative Acts”
a. General Rule: Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless:
i. The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or
ii. A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
Actus Reus: Causation
1. Actual Cause
a. But/For Rule
b. But for the defendant’s voluntary act or omission, would the social harm have occurred when it did?
2. Proximate Cause
a. Abolishes the varying and sometimes inconsistent proximate causation factors developed by the common law.
b. For crimes requiring Purpose or Knowledge:
i. Whether the result “involves the same kind of injury or harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability.”
ii. Generally, focused on foreseeability.
c. For crimes requiring Negligence or Recklessness:
i. Whether the result “involves the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability.”
ii. Generally, focused on foreseeability of probability of the harm
Mens Rea
1. Purpose of MPC is to “obliterate ill-defined, confusing common law language and concepts and replace them with four specifically defined hierarchal levels of culpability.”
a. Adopts the elemental definition of mens rea
b. Abolishes the distinction between general and specific intent
c. Adopts four carefully defined culpability terms, getting rid of all other mens rea terms used in criminal codes
2. Culpability is required with respect to each material element of the offense.
3. Four types of Mens Rea (For details, see Elements of A Crime Analysis)
a. Purposely
b. Knowingly
c. Recklessly
d. Negligently
4. “Willful Blindness”
a. “When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of the offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence.”
i. Willful blindness to a fact is knowingly when what is involved is a matter of existing fact, but not when what is involved is the result of the defendant’s conduct.
5. Problems in Statutory Interpretation
a. MPC applies same interpretation as SCOTUS
b. The mens rea term at the beginning of a statute “goes all the way down” the statute and applies to all of the actus reus elements.
c. Mens rea only applies to what comes after it in the statute, not before it.
6. Strict Liability
a. MPC does not adopt strict liability, except for:
i. Violations: civil offenses subject only to a fine, no imprisonment or probation
ii. “Subject to an exception for ‘violations,’ no conviction may be obtained unless the prosecution proves some form of culpability regarding each material element of the offense.”
b. If MPC statute lacks a mens rea component, culpability required at minimum is “recklessness”
7. Mistake of Fact
a. The MPC adopts an elemental approach to all cases raising a mistake of fact question.
b. General rule:
i. A mistake of fact is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any material element of the offense.
c. Exception:
i. Mistake of fact is not a defense if the defendant would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed.
ii. In such a case, the defendant is liable for the other offense.
8. Mistake of Law
a. General rule:
i. Unless the definition of a crime so provides, “[n]either knowledge nor recklessness or negligence as to whether conduct constitutes a crime or as to the existence, meaning or application of the law determining the elements of an offense is an element of such offense.”
ii. (Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, unless the definition of a crime provides otherwise)
b. Exception #1:
i. The defendant acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in:
1. A statute, judicial decision, administrative order or grant of permission; or
2. An official interpretation by a public official responsible for interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law.
ii. No defense:
1. Reliance on one’s own interpretation of the law, even if the interpretation is reasonable.
2. Reliance on erroneous advice provided by a private attorney.
c. Exception #2.
i. A mistake of law is a defense if it negates a material element of the offense or if the law expressly provides for a mistake-of-law defense.
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire