4.1 Elements of a crime

Elements of a crime form the foundation of criminal law, defining what actions and mental states constitute illegal behavior. This topic explores the key components: actus reus (guilty act), mens rea (guilty mind), and how they must coincide for criminal liability.

The notes delve into types of criminal acts, causation, mens rea standards, and strict liability offenses. They also cover inchoate crimes and affirmative defenses, providing a comprehensive overview of how criminal culpability is determined in the legal system.

Actus reus vs mens rea

• Actus reus refers to the physical element or guilty act of a crime, while mens rea is the mental element or guilty mind required for criminal liability
• Both actus reus and mens rea must be present for a person to be guilty of most crimes, establishing the principle that an act alone is not enough to constitute a crime
• The specific requirements for actus reus and mens rea vary depending on the crime and jurisdiction (common law vs statutory crimes)

Types of criminal acts

Acts vs omissions

Top images from around the web for Acts vs omissions

• 

  Texas Government 1.0, The Judicial Branch, Chapter 9.2: Types of Law and Jurisdiction | OER Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Types of Law and Jurisdiction | Texas Government 1.0 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  9.10. Restorative Justice – SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Texas Government 1.0, The Judicial Branch, Chapter 9.2: Types of Law and Jurisdiction | OER Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Types of Law and Jurisdiction | Texas Government 1.0 View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Acts vs omissions

• 

  Texas Government 1.0, The Judicial Branch, Chapter 9.2: Types of Law and Jurisdiction | OER Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Types of Law and Jurisdiction | Texas Government 1.0 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  9.10. Restorative Justice – SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Texas Government 1.0, The Judicial Branch, Chapter 9.2: Types of Law and Jurisdiction | OER Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Types of Law and Jurisdiction | Texas Government 1.0 View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Criminal acts involve affirmative actions that violate the law, such as assault, theft, or murder
• Omissions are failures to act when there is a legal duty to do so, such as failing to report a crime or failing to provide necessary care for a dependent
• Liability for omissions is more limited than for acts and typically requires a special relationship or legal duty (parent-child, doctor-patient)

Voluntary vs involuntary acts

• Voluntary acts are those done with conscious control and awareness, meeting the requirement for actus reus
• Involuntary acts, such as reflexes, seizures, or acts committed while sleepwalking, generally do not satisfy the actus reus requirement
• Some involuntary acts may still result in criminal liability if the defendant's prior voluntary actions put them in a position to cause harm (driving while intoxicated)

Concurrence of elements

Conduct and mental state

• The actus reus and mens rea of a crime must occur simultaneously for criminal liability to attach
• If the required mental state is not present at the time of the criminal act, the concurrence element is not satisfied (forming intent to kill after the fatal blow is struck)

Attendant circumstances

• Some crimes require specific attendant circumstances to be present in addition to the prohibited conduct and mental state
• Attendant circumstances are external factors that must be proven to establish guilt, such as the age of the victim in statutory rape or the value of stolen property in theft crimes
• The mens rea requirement often extends to attendant circumstances, requiring the defendant to have knowledge or awareness of those circumstances

Causation in criminal law

Actual vs proximate cause

• Actual cause, or "cause-in-fact," requires proof that the defendant's conduct was a necessary condition for the harmful result, often determined by the "but-for" test
• Proximate cause is a legal limitation on liability, requiring that the defendant's conduct be closely related to the harm and not too remote or unforeseeable
• Proximate cause is determined by factors such as foreseeability, intervening causes, and the defendant's degree of culpability

Intervening causes

• Intervening causes are events that occur between the defendant's conduct and the harmful result, potentially breaking the chain of causation
• Foreseeable intervening causes, such as a victim's pre-existing medical condition, do not typically relieve the defendant of liability
• Unforeseeable or superseding intervening causes, like a third party's intentional criminal act, may break the causal chain and absolve the defendant of responsibility

Mens rea standards

General vs specific intent

• General intent crimes require only that the defendant intended to commit the prohibited act, without any additional mental state (battery, rape)
• Specific intent crimes require proof of a particular mental state or purpose beyond the basic intent to act, such as the intent to permanently deprive in theft or the intent to kill in murder
• The distinction between general and specific intent affects the availability of certain defenses, like voluntary intoxication

Knowingly vs recklessly vs negligently

• Knowingly committing a crime involves awareness that one's conduct is practically certain to cause the prohibited result
• Recklessness is conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, going beyond mere negligence
• Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonable person would under the circumstances, without any conscious disregard of risk
• The required mens rea standard varies by crime and affects the degree of culpability and punishment

Strict liability offenses

• Strict liability crimes do not require proof of any mens rea, only the commission of the prohibited act
• Common strict liability offenses include traffic violations, regulatory offenses, and some statutory rape laws based on the age of the victim
• The rationale for strict liability is to protect public welfare and safety by encouraging greater care and responsibility in certain activities (driving, food production)
• Strict liability is controversial due to its departure from the traditional requirement of a guilty mind for criminal punishment

Inchoate crimes

Attempt vs conspiracy vs solicitation

• Inchoate crimes are incomplete or preparatory offenses that punish conduct preceding the commission of a target crime
• Attempt requires an intent to commit a crime, along with a substantial step towards its completion that goes beyond mere preparation
• Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, often requiring an overt act in furtherance of the agreement
• Solicitation involves encouraging, requesting, or commanding another person to commit a crime, regardless of whether the crime is actually attempted

Substantial step requirement

• The substantial step requirement for attempt liability ensures that the defendant's conduct is strongly corroborative of criminal intent and not just mere preparation
• Factors in determining a substantial step include the proximity to the completed crime, the degree of preparation, and the unequivocality of the defendant's actions
• The Model Penal Code lists several examples of substantial steps, such as lying in wait, surveilling the contemplated victim, or possessing materials to be used in the crime's commission

Affirmative defenses

Justifications vs excuses

• Affirmative defenses are raised by the defendant to avoid or mitigate criminal liability, even if the essential elements of the crime are proven
• Justifications, such as self-defense, necessity, or defense of others, claim that the defendant's conduct was legally permissible or even desirable under the circumstances
• Excuses, like insanity, duress, or intoxication, argue that the defendant should not be held fully responsible due to a lack of moral culpability or free choice

Common law vs statutory defenses

• Common law defenses, such as self-defense and necessity, have developed through judicial precedent and case law
• Statutory defenses are codified in state or federal legislation, often modifying or replacing common law rules
• The availability and scope of affirmative defenses vary by jurisdiction, with some states recognizing broader or narrower versions of certain defenses (castle doctrine, stand your ground laws)
• Defendants bear the burden of proving affirmative defenses by a preponderance of the evidence in most cases, while the prosecution must disprove them beyond a reasonable doubt if raised