Elements of Crime

Elements of a Crime (Actus Reus & Mens Rea)
Model Lesson Plan
Source: Original lesson plan. Handout #2 from David Crump, Criminal Law: Cases, Statutes, And Lawyering Strategies, Lexis Nexis 2005 pg. 117-18.

I. Goals: by the end of this class students should have a strong foundation for reading criminal statutes and differentiating similar crimes.

II. Objectives

a. Knowledge objectives: as a result of this class students will be better able to:
i. define “Actus Reus” and “Mens Rea” ii. understand the different gradations of Mens Rea iii. understand the differences between Washington’s homicide statutes
b. Skills objectives: as a result of this class students will be better able to:
i. read a statute carefully and apply it to fact patterns ii. present and defend their interpretations of the law
c. Attitude objectives:
i. Students should understand that the severity of criminal punishments can vary greatly depending on the defendant’s mental state in a manner that is largely consistent with the general societal belief that intentionally wrongful acts are worse than unintentional, but still wrongful acts. ii. Students should carefully consider the potentially harsh results that occur when legislatures replace mens rea with strict liability.

III. Methods

(1) Distribute Handout #1 (Hypos)

(2) Read the introductory hypothetical aloud as a class. Ask for volunteers to answer the questions.
a. The class should come to the conclusion that Frank did “cause” Bill’s death in the sense that if he hadn’t moved the mirror in the particular way he did at that exact time, the window washer wouldn’t have been blinded and Bill wouldn’t have slipped. This is a good example of “but for” or “actual causation” as used in Handout #2. However, the law typically only imposes liability where the defendant’s conduct is the “proximate cause” of the harmful event/ crime.
b. However, it seems like Frank didn’t do anything “wrong.” Try to elicit why this result seems wrong and write the class’s ideas on the whiteboard.

(3) Distribute Handout #2 (Elements)

(4) Handout #2 Walk through the Elements handout. Be careful to explain that not all of the elements are always present in a criminal statute. For example, attempted murder doesn’t have a harm element and parking violations don’t have a mens rea element, e.g. one can receive a parking citation for parking in a handicapped spot even if it was unintentional or an accident. Furthermore, the elements aren’t perfectly discrete and there is some overlap.

(5) Distribute Handout #3 (Statutes)
a. Explain that the groups will be analyzing the hypos with respect to the statutes provided in Handout #3. The Grades of Homicide are meant to demonstrate the changes mens rea.
b. Walk through the statutes and give a thumbnail sketch of
i. First degree murder:
1. Premeditated killing. An intentional killing that was deliberate and contemplated prior to the killing.
2. Extreme Indifference. Covers the possibility that someone knows that what they are going to do will result in the death of another person, but at the same time doesn’t “intend” to kill. See the bomb hypo in handout # 1. ii. Second degree murder
1. Intentional killing without premeditation. The classic example is a passion killing where the homicide occurs in the heat of the moment. iii. First degree manslaughter
1. Recklessness. Conscious awareness of an unacceptable risk to human life. Recklessness is similar to extreme indifference, but the risk that human life will be lost is less. iv. Second degree manslaughter
1. Criminal negligence. Gross deviation from standard of care.
v. Statutory rape
1. No mens rea. Strict liability with a limited affirmative defense where minor misrepresents age. In an effort to protect minor children, state legislatures have placed an increased burden to ascertain age on the older party.

(6) Break into groups of 3-5 to apply statutes to Hypos 1-5. Have groups designate a reporter and a recorder. The recorder should write each of the group members’ names on the top of handout #1 and also record the group’s answers on the space provided. The Reporter is responsible for explaining the group’s reasoning and conclusion when the class reconvenes.

(7) Reconvene Class: call on each group to present their analysis of one hypo. Ask questions to push them in the right direction if you think they missed something or ask questions forcing them to defend their answers if you think they got it right.
Note to teacher: suggested answers to the hypotheticals are on a separate sheet at the end of this lesson plan.

(8) Take-away: mens rea standards vary widely from premeditated intent to strict liability. You need to read statutes carefully to determine the correct standard.

IV. Evaluation
a. Group performance on written responses to Hypos1-5 and class discussion.
V. Assignment
a. Write a one page response to the following question: Should Melvin be punished for his relationship with Laura? If not, please explain why. How do you think Washington’s statutory rape statute should be changed? If you think that Melvin should be punished, please explain why.

Handout #1: Hypothetical Scenarios
Introductory Hypo:
Frank is helping his friend move into a downtown Seattle condo. While unloading a large mirror from the moving truck, the bright sunlight hits the mirror and reflects against the 40th floor of the skyscraper across the street which temporarily blinds a window washer and causes him to stumble. During this moment of temporary blindness, lasting about a second and a half, the window washer inadvertently kicks over his window washing bucket onto the street below. The water and soap from the bucket hit the sidewalk right in front of Bill the jogger. Bill was unable to stop before stepping on the slippery sidewalk, causing him to lose his balance and fall. When Bill fell, he hit his head on the sidewalk. Bill died two weeks later from his head injury.

Suppose that Washington law provides: Anyone who causes the death of another person shall be guilty of murder.

Would Frank be guilty of murder under this law? Should he be?

Group Exercise Hypos

Instructions: Nominate someone in your group to be the recorder and another person to be the class reporter. Read each hypothetical and determine which statute, if any, applies to the facts of the hypothetical and whether the defendant has violated the statute.

Hypo #1: Sarah is held at gun point by Roger on a rooftop. Roger tells Sarah that she must shoot and kill Steven. Sarah pleads with Roger to let her go and that she does not want to kill Steven. Roger tells Sarah that unless she successfully shoots and kills Steven, he will kill Sarah and her entire family. Roger has a violent reputation and Sarah has no reason to believe that Roger will not follow through with his threat. Roger identifies Steven walking on the other side of the street and tells Sarah to take the shot. Fearing for the safety of her family and herself, Sarah takes careful aim at Steven, gauges the wind and change in elevation, and fires a precise shot penetrating Steven’s heart. What crimes if any has Sarah committed? Explain

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hypo #2: Mildred comes home from work early only to discover her husband Robert in the midst of a lewd affair with their neighbor Gladys. In sudden fit of rage, Mildred grabs a flower vase and smashes it over Gladys’ head knocking her unconscious. With a broken shard of ceramic from the vase, Mildred stabs Robert in the neck. Robert dies from sudden blood loss within seconds. After killing Robert, Mildred drags Gladys’ unconscious, but still breathing, body into the garage where she ties Gladys to a folding chair and duct tapes her mouth shut to keep her from screaming. Mildred then returns to the house, prepares a cup of hot tea and takes a long bubble bath contemplating what she should do with Gladys. After finishing her bath, Mildred brainstorms in a note book for several hours about what she might do with Gladys. Ultimately, Mildred decides that Gladys must die for what she has done. Mildred then returns to the garage where she calmly shoots and kills Gladys with a pistol at point blank range. What crimes if any has Mildred committed? Explain

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hypo #3: One day, George decides that he would like to see what would happen if he were to drop several pounds of high explosives from a freeway overpass into busy fast-moving traffic. George purchases several pounds of high explosives over the internet and then goes to a nearby overpass overlooking I-5. He drops the explosives in front of a large semi-truck and mutters to himself, “I sure hope nobody gets hurt.” When the explosives hit the pavement below they instantly detonate and blow-up the semi-truck killing its two occupants. In addition, five more motorists are killed in the ensuing pile-up. What crimes if any has George committed? Explain

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hypo #4: Jim is driving down the freeway when he spills his bag of Skittles onto the front passenger floor. Not wanting to lose a single sugary morsel, Jim leans down to retrieve the handful of lost Skittles. In so doing, Jim takes his eyes completely off the road for 8 seconds. While reaching for the last Skittle, Jim inadvertently jerks the steering wheel which veers his car into the next lane. Jim’s car strikes another car forcing it into the ditch. Upon entering the ditch, the other car flips into the air and lands on its roof. All three occupants are crushed to death. What crimes if any has Jim committed? Explain.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hypo #5: Melvin is 21 years old. He has been held back several grades and reads at approximately a 6th grade level. Laura is 15 ½ years old. She is a very bright student and takes nearly all AP classes. Laura and Melvin live in the same neighborhood. Laura has always felt sorry for Melvin and was friendly to him even when the neighborhood kids teased and taunted him. As their friendship grew, their relationship, at Laura’s suggestion, became sexual. Melvin never asked Laura how old she was nor did Laura ever tell Melvin her age. When Laura’s father discovered the relationship, he turned Melvin into the police. What crimes if any has Melvin committed? Does he have any defenses? Explain

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Handout #2: Elements of a Crime

1. Actus Reus. Actus reus is often characterized as the physical part of a crime. In most cases, it describes what the offender must do. A murder statue will require the offender to “kill,” an arson law will punish people who “set fire to” a structure, and theft may require someone to “take” something
a. Voluntary Act: The defendant’s act must be voluntary.
b. Circumstances: Many Crimes occur only in a specifically described situation. For example, bribery of a juror requires that the person bribed have been a juror (not another official).
c. Harm or result: Many criminal laws require a specific harm to have occurred before the statute applies. In murder, there must be a person killed, and in arson, there must be a burned structure.
d. Causation: Often a statute requiring harm (such as death or an explosion) also requires that the defendant cause that harm. Causation links the defendant’s conduct to the result.
i. “But for,” “Cause in Fact,” or “Actual” causation is the simplest form of causation. It simply provides that a particular result (such as death) would not have occurred without the defendant’s action. ii. Proximate causation is narrower than “but for” causation. Proximate causation is limited to the foreseeable consequences of the defendant’s actions.
2. Mens Rea. Mens Rea is often characterized as the mental requirement in a criminal law. Modern statutes often use four categories of mens rea: intentionally (or purposefully or willfully), knowingly, recklessly, and with criminal negligence.

Handout #3: Statutes
First Degree Murder: RCW 9A.32.030
(1) A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when:

(a) With a premeditated intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of such person or of a third person; or

(b) Under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life, he or she engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to any person, and thereby causes the death of a person; or

(c) [Felony Murder—not covered in this exercise]

Second Degree Murder: RCW 9A.32.050
(1) A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:

(a) With intent to cause the death of another person but without premeditation, he or she causes the death of such person or of a third person; or

(b) [Felony Murder—not covered in this exercise]

First Degree Manslaughter: RCW 9A.32.060
(1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:

(a) He recklessly causes the death of another person; or

(b) He intentionally and unlawfully kills an unborn quick child by inflicting any injury upon the mother of such child.

Second Degree Manslaughter:
(1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.

Rape of a Child in the third Degree (Statutory Rape): RCW 9A.44.079
(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the third degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.

Defenses: RCW 9A.44.030

(2) In any prosecution under this chapter in which the offense or degree of the offense depends on the victim's age, it is no defense that the perpetrator did not know the victim's age, or that the perpetrator believed the victim to be older, as the case may be: PROVIDED, That it is a defense which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the offense the defendant reasonably believed the alleged victim to be the age identified in subsection (3) of this section based upon declarations as to age by the alleged victim [i.e. over the age of 16 or less than 48 months apart in age] FOR THE TEACHER: Answer Key to Hypothetical Questions

Introductory Hypo: The point of the introductory hypo is to realize that there are two types of causation. “Simple” causation or “cause in fact” might describe how a physicist would define causation. Under this type of causation, event A is a cause of the later event B, if B would not have occurred “but for” the occurrence of event A. Therefore, in the example, the event of Frank moving the mirror is a cause in fact of Bill’s death in this sense because if Frank hadn’t moved the mirror in the way he did, the sequence of events that led to Bill’s slip would not have occurred and Bill would not have died. However, in a legal context, “cause in fact” is a necessary but not sufficient element. To be legally liable for a particular action, one’s conduct must be the proximate cause of the liability generating event. Proximate cause is a subsection of “cause in fact” and is limited to events that are foreseeable. Therefore, Frank would not be criminally liable for the death of Bill under existing criminal law frameworks because Bill’s death was not foreseeable.

Hypo #1: The issue here is whether Sarah is liable for some level of homicide offense. Since Roger held Sarah at gunpoint and Sarah knew that Roger was a violent person one could argue that Sarah did not shoot Steven voluntarily even though she had the clear intent of shooting Steven because she took careful aim, adjusted for the wind, and placed a precise shot. Duress is a defense to most crimes. However, duress is not a defense to homicide, so Sarah is potentially liable for either murder or manslaughter (duress can reduce a crime that would otherwise constitute murder to manslaughter under certain circumstances). You might ask students: How do you think a prosecutor would or should handle this case? Should he or she use his or her discretion to not file charges against Sarah?

Hypo #2: There are two homicides in this case: Gladys and Robert. Mildred’s killing of Robert would be murder in the second degree because in a fit of sudden rage (no premeditation) she intended to kill her husband by stabbing him in the neck. Robert’s death is the classic “passion killing.” However, Mildred’s killing of Gladys would be murder in the first degree because after dragging her body to the garage, she took time and deliberated about what she was going to do and then killed Gladys. Gladys’s murder was premeditated.

Hypo #3: Is George guilty of murder? George did not have a clear intent to harm anyone when he dropped the bomb onto the interstate. However, under subsection (b) of Washington’s first degree murder statute, George manifested “an extreme indifference to human life” that created “a grave risk of death to any person.” Therefore, even though George didn’t intend to kill anyone, he could be found guilty of murder in the first degree.

Hypo #4: One could argue that Jim should be guilty of murder in the first degree under the extreme indifference prong, but Jim’s conduct is not nearly as abhorrent as George dropping a bomb onto the interstate. Motorists do dangerous things in the car all the time that are distracting and cause accidents. Therefore, reaching over to pick up some Skittles is probably not “extreme indifference.” Jim is most likely guilty of first or second degree manslaughter. The difference between the two is that manslaughter one requires “recklessness” whereas manslaughter two requires only “criminal negligence.” Negligence is the lower standard and asks only whether Jim should have known better than to reach for the skittles, whereas recklessness is a subjective standard which would require that Jim knew what he was doing was dangerous. From the facts of the case, it appears that Jim did not recognize the danger in what he was doing and would most likely only face a charge of manslaughter in the second degree. Note: Vehicular homicide might also be charged in this case.

Hypo #5: Despite the sympathetic circumstances, Melvin is liable for statutory rape. Laura is younger than 16 (the age of consent in WA) and Melvin is more than 4 years older than her. The limited defense of misrepresentation of age by the minor does not apply because Laura never represented her age in the first place. There is no mens rea element to statutory rape. Rather, it is a strict liability offense in the same way that parking offenses and speeding tickets are strict liability, i.e. if you speed or park in the wrong spot, you can still be sanctioned even if you didn’t mean to do either.