The unlawful killing of a living human being, without justification or
3 types of malice:
EXPRESS: Actor acts with an intent to kill
IMPLIED: Actor acts with an intent to cause grievous bodily injury,
and death results
3 types of malice:
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea:
An act does not make the doer of it guilty unless the mind be guilty
Refers to the level of carelessness or deliberateness with which an accused has
performed the actus reus.
1.A Police Officer undertook to arrest Fan for throwing a pop bottle that hit a baseball umpire.
Police Officer did not see Fan throw the bottle, but was informed that he had thrown it by
"Robbie the Rat," Fan's mortal enemy.
In the following scenarios, state whether the actor has satisfied the
actus reus element AND why or why not:
Elizabeth, jealous that her boyfriend Bob was also dating Connie:
drove her car directly at Connie while Connie
1.Roberta, angry at Raoul and wanting to kill him, pointed a loaded pistol at his
head while he was asleep and pulled the trigger. The gun discharged, killing
Raoul. Did Roberta cause Raouls death?
2.Charlie enters a hotel room to steal valu
There can be no crime without an act
Why require an Act?
In order to impose criminal liability, there must be some sort of an
ACT or external state of affairs
because criminal codes are designed to control behavior, thus we
look to behavior fir
An implicit element in every crime prohibiting a certain result
Actual cause (cause-in-fact)
Proximate cause (cause-in-law)
But-For test: but for the defendants conduct, would the social
harm (i.e., prohibite
Common Law Analysis:
Is the D's conduct a "but-for" cause? If NO, end of issue (D can't be a proximate cause of
the social harm if not an actual cause of the social harm). If YES, then D is an actual
cause of the social harm. Now look to see