Introduction Criminal laws are made up of elements. You may think of the elements as the “ingredients” of the crime. Each ingredient is necessary to the recipe. Similarly, the government has to prove each element of the criminal charge. Therefore, knowing the elements is crucial to knowing what a strong defense to a charge will be. A strong defense targets the elements. Elements of a Crime Generally, crimes have three elements: An action that is prohibited by law The intent (or state of mind) of the acting individual The concurrence of the action and intention at the same time  Some crimes have a fourth element: causation and harm. This element means the concurrent action and intention caused a harmful or criminal outcome. Examples An example of a three element crime is attempt. Attempt does not require that the crime was completed–so there is no element of causation or harm. The only elements are the action and state of mind which concurrently show the defendant attempted a crime. A four element crime is murder. In addition to the concurrent action and intent of the defendant, the defendant’s conduct must have been the cause of the defendant’s death.  (1) The Act Element The first element of a crime—the act—is also known as the actus reus , which means “guilty act” in Latin. Depending on the crime, the act can be an action a defendant takes, or an action a defendant fails to perform. For example, a defendant takes action to commit a burglary. However, if the defendant has a legal duty to act, failing to do so is also a crime. A defendant can have a legal duty based on: A statute (such as a Good Samaritan Law) A contract (such as employment as a life guard) A special relationship (such as a parent and child) In these cases where there is a legal duty, failing to act (also known as omission to act) is criminal. Another key concept about the act element is that the act must be voluntary. This means that the act was in the defendant’s control. It can be sufficient if one act in a change of events is voluntary. For example, the voluntary act of drinking and then driving is sufficient for criminal liability, even if a subsequent act, like hitting a pedestrian, is involuntary.  (2) The Intent Element The second element of a crime is the intent (or state of mind) of the defendant. This is also known as the mens rea , which means “guilty mind” in Latin. Criminal law focuses on the state of mind because it helps differentiate between an innocent mistake and deliberate action. There are several states of mind that criminal law categorizes as different types of intent. These are explored fully in our Criminal Intent  article. For now, it helps to know that the criminal state of mind generally falls in one of two categories: Intention  Acting knowingly or deliberately to bring about the criminal result Criminal negligence  Acting so recklessly or negligently that it demonstrates a disregard for life A crime has occurred only when the criminal state of mind is paired with the criminal act. (3) The Concurrence Element The final, necessary element for any crime is concurrence between the intent and the act. These elements must concur at the same moment. For example, say Jane plans to murder Joe with a weapon. She drives to Joe’s house with the weapon in her car. Jane doesn’t see Joe in the street and accidentally hits him. Hitting Joe with the car by accident lacks the intent for murder, which is malice. At the moment Jane hit Joe, she did not do so maliciously. Hence, if Jane was driving recklessly, she may be charged with manslaughter, but her intent would likely not rise to the level of malice for murder.  The (Sometimes) Fourth Element All crimes require the concurrent act and intent. Some crimes are satisfied with just these three elements. An example is inchoate (or incomplete) crimes, such as attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation. These crimes do not need to be completed to cause a criminal result or harm. The attempt, planning, or solicitation of the crime is a crime in itself. By contrast, other crimes require a fourth element: causation and harm. Causation and harm means the defendant’s conduct (the concurring intent and act) directly or substantially caused the criminal result or harm. You will learn more about this in our  Causation and Harm  article. Where to Find the Elements of a Crime The elements of a crime are found in the statute that defines the crime. Elements are also listed in the jury instructions for the crime. This is because the jury must know what the elements are so that they can decide if the prosecution has proved each element beyond a reasonable doubt. In some states, there are common law crimes, which are defined by common law rather than statute. For these crimes, the elements are written in common law. California does not have common law crimes. Instead, crimes are defined in the statute (California Penal Code) and jury instructions. For example, robbery requires four key elements: 1) the unlawful taking of another person’s property; 2) through the use of force or fear; 3) with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property; 4) causing harm or the threat of harm. It is important to note that the intent and the use of force or fear must occur at the same time, meaning the defendant intended to steal while using force or fear to take the item. If the prosecution fails to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defense may be successful. Conclusion In conclusion, every crime generally has three elements: the act, intent, and their concurrence at the same time. Some crimes also have a fourth element: causation and harm. At trial, the government must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the defendant. You can learn more about this through our What Is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?  article. All in all, the elements of a crime are critical to its defense.

Criminal law defines crimes and punishments. Criminal procedure defines individual rights by providing the rules of how investigations, arrests, and trials are carried out. Introduction Criminal law and criminal procedure are part of our daily lives, even when we do not interact directly with the police or courts. We go about our days trusting that criminal laws will help to deter crime and improve our safety. We also trust that our security and individual rights will be protected by criminal procedure. A person who is accused of a crime can expect to have the right to a fair and speedy trial, access to an attorney, the right to remain silent, and more. Both criminal law and criminal procedure connect to the value we place on our freedom and privacy—and the checks we place on the government’s power to take those things away. Although they are interlinked, criminal law and criminal procedure differ significantly. Each has a different aim and focus. Criminal law focuses on defining crimes, their elements, and punishments. Criminal procedure focuses on defining the rules for the legal process so that individual rights can be protected. Procedure regulates every step: from investigation to search, arrest, interrogation, trial, and sentencing. Read on to learn more about the distinctions between—and equal importance of—criminal law and criminal procedure.  What Is Criminal Law?  Criminal law is a type of substantive law . Substantive law is the body of law that creates and defines duties, rights, punishments, and more. The sources of substantive criminal law include common law, the Constitution (federal and state versions), statutes, and case law. Statutes are laws passed by the government. Examples include federal statutes such as the United States Code and state statutes such as the California Penal Code. Both federal and state criminal laws look to the Model Penal Code as a guiding framework. On a local level, there are even city or municipal codes to define crimes.  These sources of substantive law can answer key criminal law questions. For example: jury instructions tell us what the elements are, and statute or common law define the offense. As a sample, consider the California Penal Code Section 187  (a statute) which defines the offense of murder in California. The elements of the murder charge are found in the jury instruction CALCRIM No. 520 .  Criminal Procedure Criminal procedure is a type of procedural law . Procedural law enforces the duties, rights, and punishments created by substantive law. Sources of criminal procedure include the U.S. Constitution, Criminal Rules of Procedure, Rules of Evidence, and Sentencing Guidelines. The sources can also answer key criminal procedure questions. For example: In sum, criminal law and criminal procedure draw from similar sources to meet different goals. Criminal law focuses on creating definitions that the public can rely on. Criminal procedure focuses on regulating a standardized process to enforce equal protection.  Conclusion Perhaps you used to loop together criminal law and criminal procedure. Now you know the key ways that they differ, and why this distinction is important to all. However, this is a broad overview, and there is always more to learn. Should you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out.

Criminal law generally involves government action and punishment for violation of criminal laws including prison and fines. Civil law generally involves individual people suing each other for money or rights. Introduction Civil law and criminal law are part of our daily lives. Civil law provides us a system for resolving disputes. Civil law can restore losses or compensate for damages that result from harm. Civil law also enforces private rights, property rights, contracts, and more. Criminal law is designed to uphold public safety. It defines crimes and determines what their punishments should be. Although they both serve the public, civil law and criminal law differ in key ways. Read on to learn more. Core Differences In civil cases, the plaintiff files the lawsuit against the defendant. The outcome the plaintiff seeks is to stop the harm or compensate for the harm caused. The compensation is usually “damages,” which is a payment of money from the defendant to the plaintiff. In criminal cases, the government prosecutes the defendant. In federal criminal cases, the case is titled “ United States v.  [       ]” while state criminal cases are titled “ The People of the State of ____  [       ] v. [       ].” The outcome that the United States or the People seek is punishment for a violation of the law, and restitution for the victim of a crime.  Across the country, the different goals of civil and criminal cases highlight another distinction: civil cases generally require a victim and harm. Otherwise, there would be no damages to seek. By contrast, criminal cases can be victimless or without harm. For example, someone can violate firearms law for keeping their gun in their car’s glovebox. Although they did not use their gun to harm someone, they can be charged with a crime in California. (See Firearms in CA Article ) The goal here would be to deter criminal behavior and protect the public from harm.  Burden of Proof Another key difference is the burden of proof required in civil and criminal cases. For a civil case, the burden of proof is lower. It is called a preponderance of evidence. A preponderance of evidence means that the allegations are more likely to be true than not true. A common analogy for this standard is 51% of the weight in favor of the plaintiff and 49% in favor of the defendant. For criminal cases, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a much higher burden for the prosecution to prove to a jury.   Level of Protection In the context of trial, criminal defendants  have more legal protection than civil defendants. A criminal defendants’ liberty is at stake. Liberty warrants higher protection. There are Constitutional Amendments that specifically protect the criminally accused. The 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments provide criminal defendants with due process rights, including the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney if they cannot afford one, protection against excessive bail or fines, and more. By contrast, the 7th Amendment specifically references civil law, guaranteeing the right to a civil jury trial. Closely related is the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the civil right of equal protection of the laws. Yet there is a clear difference in the level of Constitutional protections applied to trial. For instance, a criminal defendant does not have to testify at all. A civil defendant who cannot afford a lawyer won’t  be granted a public defender, but a criminal defendant charged with a felony will be granted one.  Conclusion In sum, civil and criminal law differ significantly:                                                                                      Criminal Law Civil Law Purpose To regulate conduct in order to protect public interest. To enforce private rights and resolve civil disputes. Goal To deter criminal behavior and protect the public from harm To make the victim “whole” Burden of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Preponderance of Evidence Does there have to be a victim or harm? No Yes, generally (with some exceptions) However, both civil and criminal law are designed to serve the public. While civil law enforces private rights, criminal law enforces public interest. Indeed, there are circumstances where a civil lawsuit and criminal prosecution arise for the same set of facts. For example, if a person commits a hit and run crime, and the victim is injured—there can be a criminal prosecution for the hit and run  and a civil lawsuit for the injury. Moreover, this does not violate double jeopardy (the right to not be prosecuted twice for the same charge). Clearly, every case is unique and there is always more to learn.

Criminal law generally involves government action and punishment for violation of criminal laws including prison and fines. Civil law generally involves individual people suing each other for money or rights. Introduction Classification is a critical part of the criminal justice process. The classification of a crime determines what direction the stages of the criminal justice process will take. For instance, a crime’s classification impacts pretrial release (bail and bond), diversion, sentencing, and parole outcomes. Classification even impacts what court will oversee proceedings, and what jail or prison a defendant may be sent to. Thus, classification has a domino effect. Read on to learn more about how crimes are classified. Common Law Origins The modern system for classifying crimes is not entirely new. Indeed, classification dates back hundreds of years to the common law. Common law originates from England, materializing in U.S. law through the American colonies. Common law classified crimes more narrowly than we do today. At common law, there were only three categories of crime: treasons, felonies, and misdemeanors. Modern law expanded crime classification—using courts and statutes—to recognize nuance. Grading of Crimes The primary way that crimes are classified is through grading. Grading refers to organizing crimes by their offense level. Offense levels  are based on the severity of the crime. Crimes are graded as follows, from highest to lowest offense level: Felonies Ex. murder, rape, first degree burglary Misdemeanors Ex. petty theft, trespass, assault Infractions Ex. minor traffic offenses, littering, parking violation In California, some crimes are wobblers . Wobbler crimes can be charged as felony or misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances of the case. For example, a simple assault could be charged as a misdemeanor. However, circumstances may elevate the offense level to a felony—such as if a deadly weapon was brandished. Overall, wobblers exemplify how modern law has expanded from common law.  Categories of Crimes At both common law and modern law, felonies and misdemeanors can be further categorized into types of crimes. The types of crimes include crimes against the person, property, and inchoate crimes. Examples of each include: Crimes Against Persons Ex. Homicide, battery, assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, rape, robbery Crimes Against Property  Ex. Theft, embezzlement, fraud, extortion, blackmail, bribery,  receiving stolen property, arson, burglary, robbery Inchoate Crimes  Ex. Attempt, conspiracy, solicitation You may notice that there is some overlap between categories. For example, robbery can be both a crime against a person and a crime against property, as it involves the use or threat of violence against a person in order to take property.  Similarly, burglary can impact a home (habitation) or general property. Other circumstances of a burglary—such as if it also caused harm to people—may cause it to expand to a crime against persons too. Moral or Legal Crimes Also stemming from common law are the principles of malum in se   and malum prohibitum . Malum in se  crimes are accepted as inherently  evil or wrong by most cultures (such as  murder). On the other hand, malum prohibitum  is an act that is determined  wrong by the law. For instance, driving at 25 miles per hour may not be inherently evil—but it is determined wrong if it exceeds a given speed limit. Since the act is prohibited by law, it is malum prohibitum .  Moral turpitude  is a concept closely related to malum in se  (inherently evil or wrong) crimes. Moral turpitude means committing an act that is immoral, depraved, or against justice. Being found guilty of a moral turpitude crime can impact immigration, licensing, and employment. Examples are crimes involving violence (murder), deceit (fraud), and more. Conclusion When we are examining potential punishment related to a crime, it is important to determine whether the crime is a felony, misdemeanor, or infraction. This distinction will indicate not only the level of punishment, but it may also impact the criminal procedure rights, including the right to a jury trial or the right to appointed counsel depending upon the classification.  Should you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out.is unique and there is always more to learn.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest burden of proof in the United States’ justice system and means that the judge or jury must have a very high degree of certainty before convicting the defendant. Different jurisdictions have different definitions. Introduction  You may be familiar with the fact that a prosecutor must prove a charge “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Over time, case law has affirmed this standard. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 (1979). But did you know that this requirement is not written in the U.S. Constitution? This article will explore the origin of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” what standards of proof there are in criminal cases, and what the burden of proof is. Historical Origin The origin of “beyond a reasonable doubt” dates back to the seventeenth century European common law. In the seventeenth century, jurors were terrified of wrongfully convicting a defendant, as they believed it would result in the damnation of their souls. As legal historian James Q. Whitman explains in his book The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial (Yale University Press, 2008), the standard was originally aimed to “satisfy” jurors’ “conscience.” The standard appeased jurors by asserting that if they had no reasonable doubt to convict the defendant, then they were not committing a sin. Therefore, it is argued that the reasonable doubt standard was originally designed to protect the juror  rather than the defendant . Since then, perceptions of the reasonable doubt standard have evolved. Today, the reasonable doubt standard reflects the defendant’s constitutional right to due process. Due process requires that the defendant is presumed innocent  until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What Is The Burden of Proof? The burden of proof refers to who must prove a claim. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Meeting The Burden Two tools that can be used to meet the burden of proof are inference and presumption . An inference is a conclusion that may be made, but is not required. For example, if a prosecutor shows a video of the defendant kicking the victim after screaming at them, the jurors may make the inference that the kick was intentional. Or, the jurors may not. However, a presumption is a conclusion that must be made. The best example is the presumption of innocence. Another presumption is the presumption of sanity. Jurors are required to accept that the defendant is sane, unless the defense proves insanity.  Types of Evidence  The evidence used to meet the burden of proof can be direct or circumstantial . Direct evidence includes eyewitness testimony that the witness saw the defendant commit the crime, or a confession by a defendant that he or she committed the crime. Direct evidence is used to directly prove facts. By contrast, circumstantial evidence requires inferences in order to prove a claim. Circumstantial evidence includes fingerprints, DNA, a suspect fleeing a scene, and more. The Standards of Proof The reasonable doubt standard is the highest standard of proof (or burden) to meet. The prosecutor always has to prove the criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt.  Generally, the defendant does not have to prove anything because they are considered innocent until proven guilty. A defendant can wait for the prosecutor to fail to meet their burden. However, sometimes a defendant may have a burden of production and/or persuasion where the defense decides to present an affirmative defense such as self-defense or duress.   The Burden and The Defense The elements of the criminal charge matter   because every element has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (see Criminal Elements ) Therefore, challenging whether the elements have been met to that standard can contribute to an effective defense strategy . (see Criminal Defenses ) Conclusion  In sum, the burden of proof in criminal law refers to the burden faced by the government, who is prosecuting the defendant. The standard of proof that the government must meet is beyond a reasonable doubt. The tools to meet the burden of proof include inference, presumption, circumstantial evidence, and direct evidence. The most important presumption in a criminal case is that the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until the prosecution proves the defendant guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Introduction Jurisdiction is meant to protect a defendant—ensuring they are heard in a court with adequate resources and authority over their case. It is of paramount importance that the court hearing a defendant’s case has sufficient—but not unnecessary or excessive—authority. This issue is increasingly important when jurisdictions overlap, and several courts have authority to hear the case. This article will outline what jurisdiction is, as well as the effect that overlapping jurisdiction can have on a case. What is jurisdiction?  Jurisdiction is defined as a court’s authority to hear a matter. For example, an appellate court has the authority to hear appeals cases, whereas a district court has authority to hear trials. Jurisdiction is also a geographic area over which a court has authority. For example, a California court has jurisdiction over cases arising in California. There are different types of jurisdiction:   Original jurisdiction  is the first review of a case. A court with original jurisdiction has the authority to conduct a trial and accept evidence.  Appellate jurisdiction  refers to authority to conduct a second review to look for error. Exclusive jurisdiction  means that only the specific court has the authority to process the case. Overlapping (or concurrent) jurisdiction  means several courts share jurisdiction.  Where does jurisdiction come from?   Federalism is the principle that underlies the structure of American government. Federalism establishes a separation between state and federal governments. There are separate state and federal laws, courts, and jurisdictions. The Constitution outlines what jurisdiction belongs to the state and federal government.   State versus federal jurisdiction State jurisdiction is the state’s authority to hear state cases, whether at a state trial court or state appeal court. State jurisdiction usually arises from a state law being violated within state territory. Violations of state criminal law can be infractions, misdemeanors, or felonies based on their severity. You can learn more through What To Expect In A State Criminal Case .  Similarly, federal jurisdiction arises when a federal law is violated, the conduct crosses state boundaries (e.g., a drug trafficking operation across state lines), or residents of several states are involved. Visit What To Expect In A Federal Criminal Case  to learn more. This is also discussed further in our Difference between state and federal charges . How can jurisdiction overlap?   The difference between state and federal jurisdiction can seem clear-cut. However, there is a gray area where the jurisdictions overlap. This gray area is called overlapping, or “concurrent” jurisdiction. State and federal authorities have overlapping legal authority to prosecute a crime depending on the circumstances. Some crimes violate both state and federal laws. Drug trafficking offenses are one example. Other crimes violate state laws but happen on federal property. For example, simple possession of a drug (in a small amount for personal use) is typically a state charge. However, simple possession on a federal military base, which is federal property, invokes a charge in federal court where state law may be used to determine whether a crime was committed. Another example is when someone violates a state law (DUI, robbery, theft, etc.) at a national park—which is federal property.  You can learn more about this kind of case through CVB Cases . What happens when jurisdiction overlaps?   In some cases where jurisdiction overlaps, the prosecutor or charging authority must decide which court to refer the case to and which laws apply—federal or state. This decision is made based on several factors. While considering the specific interests of justice, the prosecution strategizes based on the available resources in either court and the overall likelihood of the case’s success. For instance, a charging authority or prosecutor will likely refer a ‘simple drug possession at the airport’ case to state court, even though it occurred on federal property (the airport). This is because state courts traditionally adjudicate simple possession cases, while federal court resources are reserved for higher-level offenses.  Jurisdiction as a defense  As spotlighted earlier, the aim of jurisdiction is to protect a defendant by ensuring their case is processed by a court with sufficient authority and resources. In line with this principle, jurisdiction can be a defense. For instance, jurisdiction is an element of the offense in federal court. A federal prosecutor must prove that the federal court has jurisdiction over the case, whether it be due to violation of a federal law, involvement of a federal issue, the offense occurring on federal land, or other relevant circumstances. If the federal prosecutor fails to prove federal jurisdiction, the judge or jury  must acquit the defendant of the crime. To learn more about criminal defenses, visit this link.   Conclusion In summary, a defendant has the right to be fairly heard, and this can only happen at a court with authority over the case. Prosecutors have a responsibility to this right when determining which jurisdiction should prosecute the case. Defense attorneys must act as diligent referees, alerting the judge when they believe an unfair overreach has occurred. Jurisdiction can even be used as a defense when a defense attorney argues that the court does not have authority over the case.  As always, should you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out. You may also review the resources below.

Introduction Although we may not immediately realize it, our daily life is impacted by the nature of our sources of law. In the U.S., our sources of law are public. You are free to find laws online or at a library. This freedom of information is a core tenet of our democracy. You have access to the laws, so you have the power to know your rights and legal obligations. But sometimes laws are confusing and hard to understand. The sources of law also create accountability for the government, such as the checks and balances in the Constitution. Overall, the sources of law shape our society, freedoms, and the criminal justice system as we know it.  The Common Law The first source of law is common law. Common law began in Medieval England. It travelled with the English to the American colonies. Eventually, common law principles were “codified” (or written into) the United States Constitution, state constitutions, and statutes—both federal and state. Today’s criminal laws draw from common law and make their own distinctions. For instance, there is no federal common law. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins , 304 U.S. 64 (1938). Although some crimes have common law definitions, federal statutes create their own definition. Federal criminal law relies entirely on statutes (laws passed by Congress) and the Constitution. On the other hand, state law is influenced by common law. In California, the definitions of crimes rely on a mixture of common law and state statutes.  However, a modern trend is that many states replaced common law definitions when they enacted their own criminal code. Yet states that replaced common law crimes did not necessarily eliminate common law defenses to those crimes. For example, insanity or self defense are common law defenses. Generally, if the state statutes do not expressly provide for the defense, then the defense still relies on common law. To learn more about defenses, you may read Criminal Defenses . The Constitution Following common law, the United States Constitution is one of our earliest sources of law. The Constitution defines just three crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting.  While the Constitution does not create many criminal laws , it does create a lot of criminal procedure .  Criminal procedure protects the rights of the criminally accused. For instance, the 5th through 8th Amendments provide the criminally accused with the right to an attorney, to remain silent, and more. The Constitution also grants Congress the power to pass more laws. Congress accordingly passes criminal laws (which will be explored later in this article). To learn more about the difference between criminal law and criminal procedure, visit this link.   Modern Penal Code (MPC) There is also a Model Penal Code (MPC) drafted by the American Law Institute . The MPC synthesizes common law, constitutional law, and statutes (written law) in order to provide a framework for modern law. This comprehensive framework is not explicitly federal or state law, but merely a guide for both.   Federal and State Code  Drawing from the MPC framework, let’s consider what the federal and state laws are. At both the federal and state level, the legislature passes laws that are called statutes. Statutes are also known as codes—these terms are interchangeable. At the federal level, Congress passes laws that are organized under United States Code (U.S.C. or U.S. Code). The U.S. Code is not limited to criminal law—it covers a range of federal laws. The most common crimes can be found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, but crimes are also listed throughout the code including drug crimes in Title 21 of the U.S. Code and immigration crimes in Title 8 of the U.S. Code.  At the state level, the state legislature passes laws that become state code. In California, criminal law is passed into the California Penal Code (Cal. P.C.). A good way to understand how criminal law is applied in federal and state court is to look at the model jury instructions. Jury instructions outline the elements  of each crime, and explain what principles and laws are applicable to the crime. The elements are important because each one must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt  by the prosecutor. Courts and Case Law Courts are also sources of law because their rulings produce case law . When judges make a ruling, their ruling forms a precedent for other judges to follow. Within the ruling, a judge also discusses their interpretation of the laws that apply to the case, and how that interpretation led them to their decision. Altogether, this process creates case law. U.S. Supreme Court case law can be found here ; other resources for case law are here . Administrative Law Administrative agencies also have the power to create sources of law because they enact rules and regulations . Some violations of those rules and regulations are considered criminal. Therefore, some rules and regulations are sources of criminal law. For instance, consider how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates environmental crimes. Regulations created by the EPA are annually codified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations  (CFR) under Title 40: Protection of Environment. In some cases, a breach of the CFR results in criminal penalties. Conclusion In sum, the sources of law, and their public nature, are a key element of our democracy and criminal justice system.

A crime is an act (or failure to act) that violates the law and is punishable by the government. Elements of a crime If you're wondering, “Did I commit a crime?” , the law starts with a basic definition: a crime is an act committed in violation of the law.  Another way to understand criminal law is through understanding what it is not . Criminal law is different from civil law . Criminal law does not require an injury or that a crime was actually completed. For example, attempted murder is still a crime whether the victim was murdered or not. By comparison, civil law generally requires injury or harm. In civil law, money (damages) are the penalty for the harm. In criminal law, the penalty for the crime could be imprisonment, fines, restitution, and more. This core difference is illustrated below.  Additionally, criminal law defines crimes by their elements . Below, let’s consider the elements of a crime: the guilty act, guilty mind, concurrence, and (sometimes) causation.  Guilty Act: Actus Reus One core element of a crime is the “guilty act.” This is known as the actus reus .  The actus reus is the voluntary act that the defendant committed. The actus reus can also be a failure to act or an omission, where the defendant had a legal duty and could reasonably perform that duty.   Guilty Mind: Mens Rea Generally, before an act can be considered a crime, the “guilty act” must be accompanied by a “guilty mind.” The guilty mind is called the mens rea . The mens rea is the state of mind that signifies what the defendant’s intentions were while committing the actus reus. The state of mind is often referred to as the defendant’s intent . Concurrence A crime happens when the guilty mind and guilty act happen together . Therefore, concurrence means the mens rea and actus reus must coincide at the same moment. What Is General Intent vs. Specific Intent? General intent  is intent  to commit the crime. It is a mens rea where the defendant is generally aware of all the factors amounting to a crime. General intent can usually be surmised from the actions themselves. For instance, crimes of battery  and false imprisonment  require general intent.  On the other hand,  specific intent  means the defendant did not only intend to act, but intended to act for a criminal purpose . The defendant has a specific objective, which is to bring about the specific crime. This is best demonstrated by examples of specific intent crimes, such as attempt. To be guilty of attempt, a defendant has to specifically intend that the crime will be completed. Causation For some crimes, concurrence between the mens rea and actus reus is enough to establish guilt. For other crimes, there is a final element to be established: causation. Causation requires that the concurrence of the guilty mind and guilty act caused the criminal result. Causation can be actual or proximate. Actual causation , or “cause-in-fact” causation, means there is a direct link between the concurrence and outcome. An example of actual causation is the defendant throwing a rock at the victim, hitting them in the head, and causing a serious injury. But for the defendant throwing the rock, the injury wouldn’t have happened, so actual causation is clear.  Proximate causation  means there is a substantial link between the concurrence and the outcome. For example, if the defendant throws a rock at a group of people. A person tries to dodge it, trips, and hits their head on a fire hydrant. The defendant didn’t directly cause the head injury, but it was a foreseeable consequence of throwing a rock into a crowd. As a result, proximate causation may still be found. Conclusion In sum, this was an overview of the definition of a crime. You learned about the core elements of crime: a mens rea   in concurrence with  an actus reus.  You learned that some crimes require proof of the concurrence   causing a criminal result. While this overview was quite comprehensive, there is always more to learn. Should you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out.