Crim vocab, common law, MPC Part 2 Flashcards Preview

Criminal > Crim vocab, common law, MPC Part 2 > Flashcards

Flashcards in Crim vocab, common law, MPC Part 2 Deck (64)
Loading flashcards...

under the MPC for foreseeability in causation what is the Doctrine of Transferred Intent?

if A unlawfully kills B while intending to kill C, A will still be guilty of murdering B despite how unforeseeable the killing may have been (blameworthy mental state) 2.03(2)(a)


cases involving foreseeability (causation)

1) people v. Acosta (but-for causation is not enough; the harm must also be objectively foreseeable; held def was proximate cause)
2) people v. Arzon
3) people v. Warner Lambert Co.


the ultimate harm is something which should've been foreseen as reasonably related to the defendant's acts (greater standard than tort liability)

Sufficiently Direct Cause of Death (common law)


what are the 2 types of causation?

1) factual cause
2) proximate cause


but-for causation; the harm would not have occurred in the absence of the defendant's act

factual cause


the act must bear a sufficiently close relationship to the resulting harm

proximate cause


what is the test for proximate cause?



what causation is a required element of a crime?

both types must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt


what doesn't break the chain of causation and why?

medical malpractice because foreseeability of gross medical negligence is not foreseeable


voluntary action of responsible human actor breaks the chain of causation, even if the action was foreseeable

subsequent human action


cases for causation

1) Campbell (instead of foreseeability, the court uses free will which make def not liable)
2) Kevorkian (court reasons that there is a diff between assisting in events leading up to commission of final act causing death and being an actor in the final act)
3) Stephenson (involuntary act will NOT break the chain of causation even when the act is unforeseeable)
4) Root (stricter standard than proximate cause in civil liability)
5) Attencio


law of causation treats physical events that follow from a person's actions as caused by him, but does not treat VOLUNTARY human actions that follow from initial actor's conduct caused by the actor, even when the subsequent human action is entirely foreseeable

assumption of free will


disregarding foreseeability, when do we convict for homicide what must be proved ?

1) deceased was irresponsible when she tried to kill herself
2) def unlawful acts caused her irresponsibility


what is the rule for causation of assisted homicied under the MPC?

permits convicting a person of criminal homicide for causing another to take his life BUT only if he purposefully causes such suicide by force, duress or deception


how does the MPC view foreseeability?

considers it because it ask whether the harm was within the scope of the risk that the actor was aware of or should've been aware of


under the MPC what is the rule for causation for felony-murder (strict liability causation)

you need to find the actual result is probable result of the actor's conduct


what are the 2 reasons that we punish for attempt?

1) deterrence
2) retribution


why do we punish attempt less severely than the completed crime?

1) because there was no actual harm done (less need to retaliate)
2) provides an incentive to stop
3) give an incentive for people to stop


What is the common law rule for the Mens Rea for attempt?

every attempt requires specific intent to commit the target crime even if the completed crime does not require specific intent.


why is specific intent required for the Mens Rea for attempt?

to attempt something is to try to accomplish it, and it cannot be said to try if one does not intend to succeed. un


under common law what is the rule for attempt in felony-murder?

there is not such thing as attempted felony-murder


why is there no such thing as attempted felony-murder?

because for an attempt conviction you have to intend the RESULT and not just the underlying conduct (ex. if you went to rob a bank w/ a toy gun and someone died of a heart attack in the bank, you wouldn't be convicted of felony-murder but if no one dies, you can't be convicted o attempted felon-murder because there was no intent)


what is the paradox of attempt that comes out of Smallwood?

higher mens Rea threshold for the completed crime


under the MPC what does attempted murder require?

purpose (Smallwood)


under the MPC, what is said about attempted murder?

mens rea is the same as the completed crime (ex. Murder- intent to kill, gross recklessness) (purposely engage s in conduct which would constitute the crime if the circumstances were as he believes them to be)


regarding the result element under the MPC what is the view of attempt?

allows knowledge as well as purpose (this applies to Smallwood because murder requires the result of death, it is unsure if Smallwood knew (knowledge) or intended (purpose) for that result.


what is the mens Rea required for attended circumstances with regard to attempt?

same for attempt as the crime itself (ex. statutory rape - strict liability for the crime as well as for attempt) (parity principle)


what is the actus reus for attempt?

need some act that makes clear the actor's intent


does mere preparation constitute a criminal attempt?

no because there's room to change one's mind (locus penitential)


what is the proximate cause rule for the actus reus of attempt under common law?

must be dangerously proximate