Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Criminal law doesn't just ask you to memorize definitions. It tests whether you understand how crimes are constructed and why certain elements must be proven for conviction. Every crime you'll encounter on an exam breaks down into the same foundational building blocks: the physical act, the mental state, the connection between conduct and harm, and the timing of these elements. Master these concepts, and you'll be able to analyze any crime, even ones you've never seen before.
You're being tested on your ability to distinguish between crimes that look similar but differ in intent, conduct, or harm caused. An FRQ might give you a fact pattern and ask which crime applies, or whether any crime occurred at all. Don't just memorize that robbery involves force; know why that element elevates it above larceny and how the mental state requirement changes the analysis. Understanding the underlying principles lets you reason through novel scenarios instead of hoping you memorized the right definition.
Before analyzing specific offenses, you need to understand the four foundational elements that prosecutors must prove. These elements work together like a checklist: if any is missing, there's no crime.
This is the physical component of a crime. It can be a voluntary act, an omission when there's a legal duty to act, or sometimes possession of a prohibited item.
This is the mental state required for criminal liability. It's what distinguishes accidental harm from criminal conduct.
Causation links the defendant's conduct to the prohibited result. It's required for all result crimes (crimes defined by a particular harm, like homicide or battery).
The mens rea and actus reus must exist at the same moment. Intent formed after the act doesn't count.
If someone accidentally hits a pedestrian with their car and only later thinks, "Good, I'm glad that happened," there's no crime based on that later thought. Criminal law punishes choosing to do wrong, not just causing bad outcomes. The guilty mind must drive the guilty act.
Compare: Mens rea vs. motive. Mens rea is the legal mental state required for the crime (intent, knowledge, recklessness). Motive is why someone acted (jealousy, greed, revenge). Motive isn't an element of any crime, though prosecutors often use it as evidence. If an FRQ asks what the prosecution must prove, focus on mens rea, not motive.
These offenses protect bodily integrity and life. The key distinctions involve the type of harm, the level of intent, and whether death results.
Murder requires malice aforethought, which can be established in four ways:
First-degree murder typically requires premeditation and deliberation on top of intent to kill. "Premeditation" means the defendant thought about killing beforehand, though even a brief moment of reflection can suffice in many jurisdictions. Second-degree murder encompasses all other malice killings.
Manslaughter lacks malice:
Battery is the unlawful application of force to another person. Any harmful or offensive touching without consent satisfies the actus reus. It doesn't need to cause injury; spitting on someone counts.
Assault has two forms:
Aggravated versions involve serious bodily injury, use of a deadly weapon, or assault on protected persons (police officers, children). These carry harsher penalties and are typically graded as felonies rather than misdemeanors.
Rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse. Traditional common law required proof of force and resistance by the victim, but modern statutes have shifted the focus to lack of consent.
Kidnapping is the unlawful confinement and movement (asportation) of a victim. Some jurisdictions require substantial movement; others require only slight movement, as long as it isn't merely incidental to another crime.
Compare: Murder vs. voluntary manslaughter. Both can involve intentional killing, but manslaughter requires adequate provocation that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. Classic examples include discovering a spouse in the act of adultery. If an FRQ describes a "heat of passion" killing, analyze two things: (1) whether the provocation was legally adequate, and (2) whether sufficient cooling time passed before the killing.
Property crimes protect ownership and possession rights. The critical distinctions involve how property is taken, what type of property is involved, and whether force or deception is used.
Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of another's personal property with intent to permanently deprive. It's the foundational theft offense, and every element matters:
Robbery is larceny plus force or threat of immediate force against a person. The force must be used to accomplish the taking, not merely to escape afterward.
Burglary is the breaking and entering of a structure with the intent to commit a felony inside. The crime is complete upon entry with the requisite intent.
Arson is the malicious burning of a structure. It requires actual damage to the structure itself (charring of the building material), not just smoke damage or burning of contents inside.
Compare: Robbery vs. larceny. Both involve taking property with intent to permanently deprive, but robbery requires force or threat of immediate force against a person. Picking someone's pocket without them noticing is larceny, not robbery, because there's no force or intimidation. This distinction frequently appears on exams testing whether you understand the force element.
These crimes punish conduct before the target offense is completed. The policy rationale is preventing harm and punishing dangerous intent, even when circumstances prevent the crime from being finished.
Attempt requires specific intent to commit a crime plus a substantial step toward completion that goes beyond mere preparation.
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime, plus (in most jurisdictions) an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The overt act can be minor; even a legal act like buying supplies counts.
Solicitation is asking, encouraging, or commanding another person to commit a crime. The offense is complete upon the request, regardless of whether the other person agrees or acts.
Compare: Attempt vs. conspiracy. Attempt is a unilateral crime (one person acting toward completion), while conspiracy requires an agreement between parties. A person can attempt a crime alone, but conspiracy by definition involves coordination. Both require specific intent, but conspiracy adds the danger of group criminality: people acting together are generally more likely to follow through and harder to stop.
| Concept | Examples |
|---|---|
| Specific Intent Crimes | Burglary, larceny, attempt, solicitation, conspiracy, first-degree murder |
| General Intent Crimes | Battery, rape (modern statutes), arson |
| Malice Crimes | Murder (malice aforethought), arson (malicious burning) |
| Crimes Requiring Force | Robbery, kidnapping, rape (traditional definition) |
| Property Crimes | Larceny, robbery, burglary, arson |
| Inchoate Offenses | Attempt, conspiracy, solicitation |
| Crimes Against Persons | Homicide, assault, battery, rape, kidnapping |
| Result Crimes (Causation Required) | Homicide, battery |
What distinguishes robbery from larceny, and why does this distinction result in significantly different penalties?
A defendant breaks into a house planning to steal jewelry but gets scared and leaves without taking anything. Has a crime been committed? Which one(s), and what elements are satisfied?
Compare voluntary manslaughter and second-degree murder. What element present in murder is negated by adequate provocation?
If a defendant agrees with a friend to rob a bank, and the friend shoots a guard during the robbery, can the defendant be charged with murder even though they didn't fire the shot? What doctrine applies?
Explain why factual impossibility is generally not a defense to attempt, but legal impossibility is. Give an example of each.