principals
parties whose conduct involves direct participation in a crime
accessories before the fact
persons who aid or assist others in commission of an offense
accessories after the face
persons who, with knowledge that a crime has been committed, conceal or protect the offender
act of omission
the failure to perform an act required by law
-by relationship of the actor to the victim
-by a statutory duty
-by contract between the actor and the victim
administrative-type act
a ministerial act performed by executive officers in carrying out a duty assigned by law
possession
the actual or constructive control or occupancy of real or personal property
actual possession
possession of something with the possessor having immediate control
-ex: when an item is within your reach
constructive possession
being in the position effectively to control something, even if it is not actually in one's possession
-either directly or through another person
motive
a person's conscious reason for acting; what someone seeks to accomplish by engaging in particular conduct
-must be distinguished from criminal intent
concurrence of act and intent
to constitute a crime, there must be a concurrence of the mens rea and the actus reas
general intent
the state of mind to do something prohibited by law without necessarily intending to accomplish the harm that results from the illegal act
general-intent statutes
define crimes that requires only general intent, as distinct from specific intent, on the part of the violator
specific intent
the mental purpose to accomplish a particular thing prohibited by law, such as the death of another person
specific-intent statute
a statute defining criminal conduct in which the offender must harbor specific intent to accomplish a prohibited result
constructive intent
criminal intent inferred by law as a result of circumstances surrounding a party's actions
the Model Penal Code (MPC)
attempts to identify, define and reasonably delimit the main culpable mental states involved in the criminal law
-intentionally
-knowingly
-recklessly
-criminal negligence
doctrine of transferred intent
doctrine originating in common law under which an actor's criminal intent associated with an act against an intended victim is transferred to an unintended victim who suffers the consequences of the defendant's act
censuation
the linkage between cause and effect. x can be said to cause y if x precedes y and y could not have occurred in the absence of x
proximate cause
the cause that is nearest to a given effect in a causal relationship
accomplices
persons who voluntarily unite with other in the commission of an offense
aiding and abetting
assisting in or otherwise facilitation the commission of a crime
the traditional elements of a crime are:
a person's wrongful act (actus reus) and criminal intent or guilty state of mind (mens rea)
to be found guilty of a crime and person must:
commit a voluntary act, and in most instances, such act must be committed with a criminal intent
the indispensable element in all crime is:
a wrongful act
-a person cannot be found guilty of an offense based solely on criminal intent
the actus reus requirement can't be fulfilled by a person's failure to act where there is:
a family relationship or statutory or contractual duty to act
in some instances possession can be a:
criminal act
-ex.: possession of concealed weapons and contraband
the law recognizes that a person's status cannot be criminalized, but there has been a disagreement on the supreme court as to what constitutes status in certain instances:
-the law can NOT criminalize the status of being addicted to narcotics
-the law can punish an alcoholic for the act of public intoxiation
in most instances a prosecutor must establish the defendant's criminal intent as well as the commission of a prohibited act. this is because:
unlike the civil law, the criminal law generally does not punish people for unintentional wrongs
-laws allowing criminal liability irrespective of intent or in cases where there is culpable negligence are exceptions to this rule
at common law, crimes were classified as requiring either:
general intent or specific intent
general intent is the intent to:
do an act but not necessarily to cause the results that occur from that act
specific intent refers to:
an actor's mental purpose to accomplish a particular result beyond the act itself
there are 2 reasons why it is essential to determine whether a particular offense is a general-intent or specific-intent crime:
1. the intent requirement in a criminal statute determines the extent of proof that must be offered by the prosecution
2. in certain crimes the intent that must be proven determines whether particular defenses are available to the defendant
when an offense is defined in a manner that requires that a specific result must occur, the concept of _______ becomes important
causation
-most commonly associated with homicide offenses where various degrees of homicide require that to be guilty of murder or manslaughter (the accused's conduct must have resulted in the death of a human being
legal causation or "proximate cause
a cause that in a natural, continuous sequence, unbroken by any intervening causes, produces the consequences that occur
-satisfied if the result that occurs was foreseeable
the Model Penal Code (MPC), which has influence the criminal laws of some states, rejects:
the common-law terms for intent
the MPC recognizes 4 states of mind:
1. purposely
2. knowingly
3. recklessly
4. negligently
the MPC states that:
the prescribed culpability requirement applies to all material elements of an offense
Congress has NOT adopted the MPC, although:
in 1980 the Supreme Court alluded to the merits of the MPC classification of mens rea and often has made us of the MPC approach to mens rea in interpreting federal criminal statutes
certain offenses are classified as strict liability crimes and are exceptions to:
the common-law concept of requiring proof of a defendant's criminal intent
many mala prohibita crimes, usually "regulatory" or "public welfare" trypes of offenses are:
strict liability offenses and do not require proof of intent
the fact that a statute is silent on the matter of criminal intent does not necessarily mean that it defines a:
strict liability offence
if the prohibited conduct falls within a traditional common-law crime category, courts will likely:
interpret such statutes to contain a mens rea requirement
at common law, parties to felonies were denominated as:
principals in the first and second degree and accessories before and after the fact
an accessory before the fact was one who:
produced or counseled another to commit a felony but who was not actually or constructively present at the commission of the offense
an accessory after the fact was one who:
with the knowledge of the other's guilt rendered assistance to a felon in an effort to hinder the felon's arrest or punishment
the American approach has been to:
abolish the substantive and procedural distinctions between principals and accessories before the fact
federal law stipulates that:
whoever commits an offense against the united states or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal..."
-this reflects the statutory law of most of the states insofar as it abolishes the common-law d
in many states, the concept of an accessory after the fact:
remains a separate offense