1. Basic Consideratons

2. Elements of a Crime How many of you like to bake?
What are the ingredients of a cake?
Flour
Eggs
Sugar
Milk
Salt
What if you leave out one ingredient?
Is it a cake?

3. The Cake
It might smell like a cake and look like a cake, but it is NOT a cake!!!!
Without each and every ingredient, it is not a cake, no matter how much you want it to be a cake!!!

4. Actus Reus No exact translation Probably “guilty act”
Not used outside American jurisprudential circles
Establishes principle that one can only be punished for acts, thoughts alone are not sufficient
Only “voluntary” acts

5. Actus Reus Can failure to act constitute “actus reus?”
Not without some “duty”
By operation of law
(Status of relationship)
By voluntary assumption
By doing something that created the circumstances of the crime
Can “possession” constitute Actus Reus?
Actual
Constructive
“Knowing” possession!

6. Mens Rea
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (an act does not make guilty unless the mind be guilty)
“Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law)

7. Mens Rea2 A nebulous concept, it probably means “guilty mind”
Unknown in early English law
By the 12th century the influence of Roman and Canon law led to a requirement of a guilty mind
Now the law focuses on what the purpose of the criminal is in acting

8. Mens Rea3
Some scholars consider Mens Rea to be the same as “Intent.” Others say intent is only part of Mens Rea – i.e., intent does not include negligence or recklessness
Certain - Mens Rea and Motive are NOT the same
Certain – Difficult to define. The U.S. code uses 79 words to do it!!!

9. Mens Rea4
Whatever it is, it is probably better understood by references to
General Intent: Requires that a criminal only intend the conduct he is doing
Specific Intent: Requires that a criminal not only intend the conduct but also intend a result. Eight “specific intent” crimes: Larceny, Burglary, Fraud, Attempt, Solicitation, Assault, Conspiracy and Homicide
Constructive Intent: Recklessness, negligence, disregard for a risk
Transferred Intent: Bad Aim?
Strict Liability Crimes

10. Mental States Required
Model Penal Code and Connecticut General Statutes use the following language:
Purpose
Knowledge
Recklessness
Negligence-usually not by itself
And:
Corruptly, willfully, maliciously, wantonly, recklessly, and fraudulently

11. C.G.S. 53a-5, e.g.
Sec. 53a-5. Criminal liability; mental state required. When the commission of an offense defined in this title, or some element of an offense, requires a particular mental state, such mental state is ordinarily designated in the statute defining the offense by use of the terms "intentionally", "knowingly", "recklessly" or "criminal negligence", or by use of terms, such as "with intent to defraud" and "knowing it to be false", describing a specific kind of intent or knowledge. When one and only one of such terms appears in a statute defining an offense, it is presumed to apply to every element of the offense unless an intent to limit its application clearly appears.

12. An Old English Illustration
“A anarchist throws a bomb into the royal carriage, killing the King, the King’s valet, the Royal Coachman and a bystander on the street. The assassin's purpose was to kill the King (purposely). He knows that the bomb would also kill the King’s valet, who was riding in the coach (knowingly). He told a friend that his actions might also kill the coachman, but he hoped the coachman would survive (recklessly). He was unaware, however, the bomb might also kill a bystander (negligently)”

13. Joinder of Act and Intent
Act and intent must take place simultaneously, not ad seriatim
Act, then Intent
Intent, then Act
Now hear this! Now hear this!
Intent is never presumed, it must be proven by the government beyond a reasonable doubt

14. Causation
The “But for . . .” test. But for the defendant’s actions, would the result have occurred?
Was the defendant’s actions a “substantial factor” in causing the harm?
Was the defendant the “proximate cause” of the harm? (AKA “Legal Cause)
Dependent Intervening Causes
Foreseeable?
Independent Intervening Causes

15. Causation Flowchart No Causation Is there Factual Causation?
“But for” the defendant’s actions would the
result have occurred
No Causation Or
Was the defendant’s act a “substantial factor”
In bringing about the result? No
Yes
Is there “Proximate Causation?”
Any “independent” intervening factors
Yes
N o
Causation Exists

16. Order of Proof at Trial Opening Statements (Prosecution and Defense)
Not in Connecticut
State’s Case-in-Chief
Must offer proof of each and every element of the offense
Direct Examination by Prosecutor (testimony, exhibits, demonstrations, etc.)
Cross-examination by defense attorney
Re-direct examination by prosecutor (no “new” matters)
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (MJOA)
Tests the legal sufficiency of the case
When viewed in the light most favorable to the state, did the prosecutor offer proof of every element?

17. Order of Proof at Trial2 Defendant’s Case
(MUST it me done?)
Direct Examination by Defense (testimony, exhibits, demonstrations, etc.)
Cross-examination by prosecutor
Re-direct examination by Defense (no “new” matters)
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (MJOA)
Tests the legal sufficiency of the case
When viewed in the light most favorable to the state, did the prosecutor offer proof of every element?

18. Order of Proof at Trial3 State’s Rebuttal Case
No new matters ; can rebut onlt issues raised by the defense. If No defense, no rebuttal
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (MJOA)
Tests the legal sufficiency of the case
When viewed in the light most favorable to the state, did the prosecutor offer proof of every element?
Closing Arguments
State
Defense
Verdict (Guilty or Not Guilty)
Motion for Acquittal Notwithstanding the Verdict (Non obstante veredicto or NOV)