� THE BODY OF THE CRIME
� �PROOF OF INJURY, HARM OR LOSS �
� BY CRIMINAL AGENCY�
� CORPUS NEED ONLY BE PROVEN PRIMA FACIE FOR CONVICTION
ELEMENTS OF A CRIME
� THE ACT �
� THE INTENT �
� AND CASE LAW (JUDICIALLY-IMPLIED ELEMENTS) �
� OF A STATUTE
� WHICH MUST BE PROVEN �BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT� FOR CONVICTION
EXAMPLE: STATUTORY ELEMENTS OF ROBBERY
� TAKING PROPERTY OF ANOTHER
� FROM THE OTHER�S PERSON OR PRESENCE
� AGAINST THE OTHER�S WILL
� BY MEANS OF FORCE OR FEAR
JUDICIALLY-IMPLIED ELEMENTS OF ROBBERY (CASE LAW)
� THE TAKEN PROPERTY MUST BE OF SOME VALUE
� THE TAKING MUST BE WITH THE INTENT TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE THE POSSESSOR THEREOF
CALIFORNIA JURY INSTRUCTIONS � CRIMINAL (CALJIC)
� CONTAINS STATUTORY ELEMENTS
� AND JUDICIALLY-IMPLIED ELEMENTS (CASE LAW) FOR EACH CRIME �
� IN EVERYDAY ENGLISH
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
� THE CORPUS OF ANY CRIME MAY BE PROVEN BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALONE
� THUS, A DEAD BODY IS NOT REQUIRED FOR A MURDER CONVICTION
IDENTITY OF THE PERPETRATOR
� IT CAN BE ESTABLISHED THAT A MURDER OCCURRED (CORPUS DELICTI)
� WITHOUT NAMING THE MURDERER
� IDENTITY AND THE PROOF OF THE ELEMENTS ARE NECESSARY FOR A CONVICTION
CORPUS DELICTI
PROVES A CRIME OCCURRED
PROVEN BY PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
ELEMENTS
PROVE A PARTICULAR PERSON COMMITTED THE CRIME
PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
THE CRIMINAL ACT
� SOMETIME PHYSICAL (SHOPLIFTING)
� SOMETIMES PASSIVE (FAILURE TO DISPERSE)
� SOMETIMES AN OMISSION TO ACT (CHILD NEGLECT)
� BUT NEVER JUST BEING SOMETHING
WHERE AN ILLEGAL ACT MAY BE PROSECUTED
� IF CRIME BEGINS, CONTINUES OR COMPLETED IN
CALIFORNIA
� MAY BE PROSECUTED HERE
� EVEN IF DEFENDANT OR VICTIM IN ANOTHER STATE
� OTHER STATE MAY ALSO PROSECUTE
IF A CRIME OCCURS IN MORE THAN ONE JURISDICTION (COUNTY) WITHIN CALIFORNIA �
� EACH COUNTY HAS JURISDICTION (CAN CONDUCT THE TRIAL)
� ONLY ONE TRIAL PER CRIME WITHIN ONE JURISDICTION
THE NUMBER OF CRIMES PER ACT
� ONE ACT CAN RESULT IN MORE ONE CRIME
� IF ONE BULLET KILLS TWO PEOPLE �
� TWO CRIMINAL HOMICIDES MAY BE PROSECUTED
THE ACCUMULATION OF ACTS
� SOMETIMES, SEVERAL SMALL ACTS CAN MAKE ONE BIG ONE
� IF THERE WAS ONE CRIMINAL
� MANY SMALL EMBEZZLEMENTS CAN EQUAL GRAND THEFT
MULTIPLE ACTS AND SINGLE CONVICTIONS
� IF SEVERAL CRIMINAL ACTS COMMITTED UNDER ONE CRIMINAL INTENT...
� SENTENCING MUST BE CONCURRENT
� OR IT�S DOUBLE JEOPARDY
PROXIMATE CAUSE
� MUST EXIST BETWEEN DEFENDANT�S ACT AND
PROHIBITED RESULT
� DEFENDANT CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR LOGICAL
CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS
� INTENT ASSUMED
�FELONY MURDER RULE�
� EVERY PERSON HELPING TO DO CERTAIN DANGEROUS FELONIES �
� RESULTING IN A DEATH �
� IS A MURDERER
�VICARIOUS LIABILITY DOCTRINE�
� EVERY PERSON AGREEING TO A MURDER �
� RESULTING IN A DEATH �
� IS A MURDERER
�PROVOCATIVE ACT THEORY�
� IF A VICTIM KILLS AN ACCOMPLICE IN A
CRIME �
� AFTER A PROVOCATIVE ACT OF ANOTHER ACCOMPLICE,
� SURVIVING ACCOMPLICE IS A MURDERER
CRIMINAL INTENT
� THE STATE OF MIND OF THE PERPETRATOR
� MAY BE PROVEN BY EVIDENCE OF SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES
� DIFFERENT CRIMES HAVE DIFFERENT INTENTS
TYPES OF INTENT (MORE ON EACH FOLLOWS)
� GENERAL INTENT
� SPECIFIC INTENT
� TRANSFERRED INTENT
� STRICT LIABILITY (NOT IN TEXT)
GENERAL INTENT
� THE INTENT FOR MOST CRIMES
� INFERRED BY THE MERE ACT OF DOING
� IT MUST ONLY BE PROVEN THAT THE ACT WAS NOT PURELY ACCIDENTAL
SPECIFIC INTENT
� SOME CRIMES REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT TO HAVE A SPECIFIC STATE OF MIND
� THE PHRASES �WITH INTENT TO� AND �FOR THE PURPOSES OF� USUALLY DENOTE SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES
� OFTEN INVOLVE ACTIONS WHICH ARE OTHERWISE LEGAL
� CONVICTION REQUIRES CONVINCING THE JURY THE DEFENDANT HAD THE SPECIFIC STATE OF MIND
� THESE CRIMES THEREFORE MORE DIFFICULT TO PROVE
TRANSFERRED INTENT
� HOLDING DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE FOR UNINTENDED BUT PREDICTABLE CIRCUMSTANCES
STRICT LIABILITY
� NO INTENT NEED BE PROVEN
� MOST OF CALIFORNIA'S VEHICLE CODE IS STRICT LIABILITY
PROVING INTENT
� DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS MOST USEFUL
� CONDUCT OF DEFENDANT BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER THE CRIME MAY BE USED
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
� OMISSION TO DO WHAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD DO UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES
� SIMILAR TO GENERAL INTENT, BUT NEGLIGENCE INVOLVES NOT DOING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE
FIVE FACTORS IN NEGLIGENCE:
� LEGAL DUTY
� REASONABLE KNOWLEDGE OF DUTY AND DANGER
� APPARENT ABILITY TO DO DUTY
� FAILED TO DO DUTY
� CAUSED INJURY
MALICE
� WILL BE DISCUSSED IN GREAT DETAIL IN CHAPTER ON MURDER
MOTIVE
� NEVER NECESSARY FOR CONVICTION
� BUT HELPFUL IN CONVINCING JURY OF GUILT
INTOXICATION AND INTENT
� IF VOLUNTARY, NEVER AN ACTUAL DEFENSE � BUT
� MAY BE USED TO NEGATE THE ABILITY TO FORM SPECIFIC INTENT
DIMINISHED CAPACITY
� ABOLISHED AS A DEFENSE BY PROP. 8 � BUT
� MAY BE CONSIDERED AT SENTENCING AFTER GUILT ALREADY ESTABLISHED