Criminal Law Concepts and Cases Quiz

The guilty act or criminal conduct that is required for a crime. It's one of the two main elements of crime, alongside mens rea.

The guilty mind, or the mental state of the perpetrator. It refers to the awareness and intent behind a criminal act.

A level of intent in criminal law. It requires the defendant to have acted with a specific goal or purpose in mind. They knew the outcome would happen.

A level of intent in which a defendant was aware of a substantial risk of harm, consciously disregarded it, and acted anyway. It's a more subjective standard.

A level of intent where the defendant was unaware of the risk they created, but should have been aware of it. It's an objective standard judged by a reasonable person.

A crime where the defendant's mental state is not relevant. The act itself, regardless of intent, is enough for conviction.

Crimes that are inherently wrong, such as murder or theft. These crimes usually require a guilty mind (mens rea) to be proven.

Crimes that are wrong because they are prohibited by law. The act itself is not inherently evil, but society has deemed it unlawful.

The cause-and-effect relationship between a defendant's actions and the resulting harm. It's a key element in proving a crime, especially when a specific result is required for the crime.

A legal test used to determine if the defendant's actions were a necessary and direct cause of the harm. It asks: 'But for the defendant's action, would the harm have occurred?'

A defense argument that the defendant was unaware of the illegal nature of their actions, due to their reasonable reliance on legal information or a mistaken understanding of the law.

A significant event that intervenes between the defendant's actions and the resulting harm, breaking the chain of causation and reducing the defendant's liability.

The legal determination of how closely related the defendant's actions are to the resulting harm. It considers the foreseeability of the harm, whether it was too remote, or if another intervening factor played a role.

A legal principle where a person is held responsible for the actions of another, even if they did not directly participate in the crime.

A legal principle where a crime is considered complete even though the intended result did not occur. This applies to crimes like attempted murder or robbery, where intent is the main focus.

A legal doctrine where the defendant's actions are considered the cause of the harm, even if other factors contributed, as long as their actions played a significant part in the chain of events.

A legal principle where the defendant's actions are considered the primary and most significant cause of the harm, leading to criminal liability for the defendant.

A mistake about the law that is the subject of the prosecution. For example, a person mistakenly believes that a certain action is legal, but it is actually illegal under the law they're charged with breaking.

A mistake about a law different from the one the person is charged with. This type of mistake generally doesn't provide a defense for general intent crimes, as the defendant still had the required mental state for the crime.

A situation where the defendant would be guilty of a less serious crime if the facts were as they believed them to be. This can reduce the severity of the charges, but doesn't completely excuse the defendant.

A situation where the law that the defendant violated is: 1) not public, 2) not available to the public before the alleged conduct. This defense allows the defendant to escape liability because they couldn't have known about the law.

A situation where a defendant can use a defense based on a mistake of law if they reasonably relied on a statement of the law by a government official, but the statement was later found to be incorrect. This could include statutes, judicial decisions, administrative orders, or official interpretations of the law by a government official.

In a mistake of law defense, the defendant must prove that they made a mistake of law by a preponderance of evidence. This means the defendant must provide enough evidence to make it more likely than not that their mistake of law is true.

This clause outlines the legal principle that a law must be focused on one single subject, preventing the inclusion of unrelated topics.

An attempt to commit suicide, even when assisted, is not a homicide because the person taking the act is the one ending their own life.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The intention to kill, a key element in murder charges. This requires a conscious and deliberate decision to cause death.

A legal concept where the defendant's actions are considered the cause of the harm, even if other factors contributed, as long as their actions played a significant part in the chain of events.

A legal doctrine where a crime is considered complete even though the intended result did not occur. This applies to crimes like attempted murder or robbery, where intent is the main focus.

The focus is on whether the act was foreseeable or not, regardless of the actor's intent. This concept deals with situations where an unplanned event occurs, leading to an unintended outcome.

When a person's actions are not the direct cause of harm, but another person's independent act intervenes, becoming the substantial cause of the outcome. The argument is that this intervening act broke the causal chain, making the original actor not the proximate cause.

The defendant intentionally (purposefully) or recklessly caused the intervening act that led to the outcome. This can be a defense argument against the original actor’s liability.

A principle in criminal law where the intent to harm one person is transferred to someone else who is unintentionally harmed. If an actor intended to kill someone and accidentally kills another, the intent is transferred, and they are still guilty of intentional killing.

A complex legal question concerning whether medical negligence, including mistakes or complications during treatment, can break the chain of causation from an initial injury. If the original injury was a substantial cause of death, even with medical negligence, it may still be considered the proximate cause.

The original injury was a significant factor in the victim's death, even though medical negligence was also present. The defendant cannot escape liability simply because the hospital may have contributed to the death.

The defendant's actions, like fleeing police, can still be the proximate cause of death even if the police officer's actions (or lack of action) contributed to the death. The jury must determine which action was more directly responsible for the outcome.

The defendant's actions were the primary cause of the victim's death, even though there were other factors involved, such as hospital negligence. Their actions were not nullified by the subsequent events.