MBE Criminal Law - Fundamentals

Actus Reus (voluntary, physical act);

Mens Rea (mental state);

Concurrence (requisite mens rea must exist at the time of the actus reus); and

Causation (cause-in-fact/actual + proximate cause) (usually needed, but not always, e.g. attempted murder)

Beyond a reasonable doubt

Voluntary physical act or unlawful omission required by the crime

Yes

Reflexes;

Bodily movements during unconsciousness or sleep;

Actions during hypnosis; or

A bodily movement that is otherwise not the product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual

MPC §2.01(a))

No, unless:

D is aware that they have a condition that can result in involuntary actions; and

Fails to take reasonable steps to prevent such actions

Yes

⚠️ Note: duress can be a valid defense. See the deck on defenses.

There was a legal duty to act;

D was aware of such duty; and

D could have reasonably performed the act

Special relationship (ex. parent/child);

Statutory or contractual duty (ex. firefighter or lifeguard); or

Voluntary undertaking that leaves V worse off than before

Defendant created the peril/risk

D’s state of mind during a crime. D must have a “culpable state of mind” to be convicted of a crime.

No, it is sufficient that the act was performed

Remember MARS: “life is strict on Mars”

Morality crimes (bigamy)

Administrative crimes

Regulatory crimes

Statutory rape

Subjective intent to cause a specific outcome

Burglary

Robbery

Assault

Murder

Attempt

Conspiracy

Theft crimes (embezzlement, larceny, false pretenses, forgery)

Solicitation

Remember acronym “BRAM-ACTS”

D intended to commit the criminal act

⚠️ Note: Unlike specific intent, general intent crimes do not require subjective intent to bring about a certain result; only to commit the act itself

Battery

Rape

Kidnapping

False imprisonment

Manslaughter

Specific intent;

General intent;

Malice

Strict Liability

Purposely (subjective)

Knowingly (subjective)

Recklessly (subjective)

Negligently (objective)

With the conscious objective to produce the result or engage in the particular behavior

⭐️ Subjective standard

Brainscape Law Academy

Rate this card a five if you don’t need to see it again.

Discover:

* Our best tips on studying efficiently for the bar exam

* How to deal with bar exam anxiety

* How Brainscape’s bar exam flashcards were made (and continuously updated)

When he knows that a course of action will almost certainly produce a specific result

⭐️ Subjective standard

Purposely: D desires to produce a specific result

Knowingly: D is aware that a specific result is almost certain to occur

Ex. If Max shoots Brianne at close range and kills her, he has acted “purposely”

However, if Max means to kill Brianne, and he places a bomb in the car that he knows is carrying both Brianne and Mat, it is unlikely he could be charged with “purposely” killing Mat, but will likely be charged with “knowingly” killing Mat

When D “consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk”

⚠️ Note: Majority uses a subjective standard, minority uses an objective standard

When, regardless of whether D was actually aware of the risk, D should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk

Criminal negligence: gross deviation from the normal standard of care

Civil negligence: deviation from the normal standard of care

Actual cause ("cause-in-fact) and proximate cause

Concurrence between:

The mental state and the act; and

The mind and the result

⚠️ Note: If the result is too attenuated from the original intent, there will likely be no concurrence and no liability

"But for" causation: Criminal result would not have occurred "but for" D's act; or

Substantial Factor: D's acts were a substantial factor in causing the criminal result (e.g. D's acts shorten V's life or speeds up their inevitable death)

⭐️ The decision whether to use the "but for" test or "substantial factor" test is state specific.

Exists when the actual result involves the same kind of harm that the D "designed or contemplated" and is not too "remote or accidental."

(MPC 2.03(2)(b))

Is the connection between the act and the harm so attenuated that it is unfair to hold D liable for that harm?

D cannot be convicted of homicide if the victim died one year and one day after the offending act

If D intends to harm against one party but inadvertently harms another party, D's original intent is"transferred" to the actual victim

Yes.

For example, if Max shoots into a car intending to kill Kathy, but a jogger runs in front of the car at the exact moment the shot was fired and is killed, Max will still be liable.

Yes, if:

D directly caused V's harm

For example, D likely still liable even if the injury is different than what the D intended (shooting in the foot vs. the head) and even if harm occurs in a different way than what D intended;

V had a pre-existing condition that exacerbated the harm (Eggshell rule); or

V died from fright or stress

Yes, D will likely still be liable because the causal chain has not been broken.

Ex. Carly pushes Max while ice skating, and Max falls and breaks his hip on the ice. Causation exists because it is forseeable that Max would fall on the ice if pushed.

Unforeseeable intervening cause.

Absolves D of liability if both the act and the injury are unforeseeable.

For example, D punches V on the arm, after which V returns home, uninjured. That night, a burglar breaks into V's home and and shoots V in the arm. Causation for the gunshot does not exist for D.

Yes, unless the medical treatment was performed in a grossly negligent or reckless manner.

⚠️ Note: Medical treatment performed in an ordinarily negligent manner is NOT sufficient to supercede, it must be grossly negligent or reckless

(Ex. D shoots V and a bystander refuses to render aid that would have saved V)

No, never

No, generally not

Brainscape's "Hands-free" Bar Prep YouTube playlist

Brainscape's "Hands-free" Bar Prep Podcast

| Rate this card a five if you don't need to see it again.