CA CLS Criminal Law common mistakes
CA CLS Criminal Law · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Quoting a statute's elements from memory instead of reading the question's own statement of the rule before applying it to the facts.
Candidates memorise Penal Code section numbers and element lists from outlines, then pattern-match the fact pattern to the familiar label without checking whether the question supplies a modified or specific rule that changes the analysis.
What to do instead
For every question, first isolate what conduct is charged and what the applicable rule is as given, write the elements as a short checklist, then tick each element against a specific fact. If a fact does not map to an element, say so and explain why the element fails rather than filling the gap with assumption.
Treating mens rea as a single global label (for example, calling the defendant 'intentional') without matching the mental state to each element and each offense charged.
Outlines compress mental states into shorthand, and candidates carry that shorthand across offenses that require different mental states (purpose, knowledge, recklessness, negligence) or that impose strict liability for one element.
What to do instead
Build a two-column table for each offense: element on the left, required mental state and supporting fact on the right. Analyse transferred intent, mistake of fact, and intoxication only after establishing which mental state attaches to which element.
Analysing causation by asserting 'but for' alone and stopping there, without addressing intervening causes, foreseeability, or the defendant's actual contribution to the result.
Candidates learn the 'but for' test early and treat it as sufficient, so they miss questions turning on a superseding event, a victim's refusal of treatment, or a concurrent cause that would have produced the harm anyway.
What to do instead
Use a fixed sequence: actual cause, then proximate cause, then ask whether any intervening act was unforeseeable or independent enough to break the chain. State the conclusion for each step and identify which fact supplies the break.
Merging attempt with the completed offense, or failing to identify the point at which preparation becomes attempt under the specific test the question implies.
Fact patterns are written to sit near the line, and candidates resolve the ambiguity by labelling the conduct as the completed crime because the harm occurred or was intended, skipping the substantial-step or dangerous-proximity analysis entirely.
What to do instead
For inchoate questions, expressly identify the test being applied (substantial step, dangerous proximity, unequivocality), apply it to the last act before interruption, and separately address impossibility and abandonment as defenses with their own requirements.
Conflating the parties to a crime, assigning accomplice liability to a person who merely knew of or acquiesced in the conduct, or overlooking withdrawal as a defense to accomplice liability.
Candidates treat 'everyone involved' as equally liable and skip the distinction between principal, accomplice, and accessory after the fact, and they forget that withdrawal requires timely communication or neutralisation of prior aid.
What to do instead
For each person in the fact pattern, state the required act (aid, encourage, or agree), the required mental state (intent to facilitate), and any withdrawal facts. Analyse natural-and-probable-consequences liability separately from direct facilitation.
Applying self-defense or defense-of-others without checking the objective reasonableness of the threat, the duty to retreat where it applies, and the proportionality of the force used.
Candidates reduce self-defense to 'the defendant felt threatened', ignoring the initial-aggressor rule, imperfect self-defense, and the difference between deadly and non-deadly force.
What to do instead
Run a checklist for every justification question: who was the initial aggressor, was the threat imminent and unlawful, was the force proportional, was retreat required or safely available, and did the defendant's belief hold up objectively. Address imperfect self-defense as a separate mitigation.
Treating every homicide as murder, or misclassifying murder degrees by ignoring the specific mental state and the statutory grading facts the question provides.
Candidates rely on the seriousness of the outcome rather than the defendant's mental state, and they import malice from the act itself instead of from intent, knowledge, or reckless disregard for life.
What to do instead
For homicide questions, identify the mental state first, then map it to the grading scheme: intent to kill, intent to cause serious injury, reckless indifference, or felony murder. State expressly which grading fact is present and which is absent, and address mitigation (provocation, diminished capacity) only after grading.
Listing property crimes by name without distinguishing the taking element, the intent to permanently deprive, and the timing of the intent relative to the taking.
Candidates memorise labels such as larceny, robbery, burglary, and embezzlement but do not track the moment the intent formed, so they miss questions where intent arose after the taking or where the property was entrusted rather than taken.
What to do instead
For each property offense, write the elements in order and identify the moment of taking, the moment of intent, and whether the property was in the defendant's possession. Use a timeline of facts to place the intent relative to the taking and to distinguish larceny by trick from embezzlement.
Answering a multiple-choice question before reading all options and choosing the first plausible one, particularly where two options differ only in the mental state or the degree of the offense.
Time pressure and recognition-driven studying lead candidates to stop at the first familiar-sounding option, and distractors are deliberately drafted to match common outline phrasing.
What to do instead
Read the call of the question first, predict the answer from the facts, then read all options and eliminate each distractor with a one-line reason tied to a specific element. If two options survive, identify the precise word that distinguishes them before selecting.
Writing conclusions without stating the governing rule and connecting it to the facts, producing an answer that names the outcome but cannot earn credit for analysis.
Candidates assume the examiner will infer the reasoning from a correct label, so they omit the rule statement and the fact application, which is where most of the credit lies.
What to do instead
Use a fixed format for every answer: rule in one or two sentences, application naming the specific facts, then conclusion. Reserve time to check that each element identified in the rule appears in the application, and add a sentence addressing the strongest counterargument.