This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
No person may be convicted of a crime in the absence of conduct that includes a voluntary or act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable. Involuntary: reflexes, convulsions, conduct during unconsciousness, sleep, or due to hypnosis. -
Actus reus: voluntary act that causes social harm. Act: simply a bodily movement, a muscular contraction. Voluntary: movement of the body which follows our volition. Hypnotism: Voluntary acts but excusable. Linked to retributivist¶s respect for human autonomy. Must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Sufficient that D¶s conduct included a voluntary act. Martin: M¶s conviction had to be overturned b/c the statute required a voluntary appearance on the highway, which did not occur here. Possession: inchoate offense that requires proof that D knowingly procured or received the property possessed or that she failed to dispossess herself. Robinson: can¶t make illness (addiction) a crime. Powell: statute prohibiting getting drunk in public was upheld. Commission by Omission: omission of a common law duty to act. Status relationship (founded on dependence); implied or express contractual obligation; creation of a risk; voluntary assistance; statutory duty. ³Vicious will.´ Intent: it is his desire to cause the social harm OR he acts with knowledge that the social harm is virtually certain to occur as a result of his conduct. Transferred intent is highly debatable. Knowingly: intended the harmful result; is aware of the fact or correctly believes that the fact exists; willful blindness. Willful: intentional; an act done with a bad purpose. Negligence: deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have observed in the actor¶s situation. Look at: gravity of harm, probability of such harm, burden to the D of stopping the risky conduct. Reasonable Person: D¶s unusual physical characteristics are incorporated but not unusual mental characteristics. Reckless: disregarded very substantial and unjustifiable risk (of which he was aware). Specific Intent: emphasize that the definition of the offense expressly required proof of a particular mental state. General Intent: any offense for which the only mens rea required was a blameworthy state of mind.
Omissions Mens Rea
Mistake of Fact Mistake of Law Actual Cause Proximate Cause SelfDefense
The omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable. Liable if: law defining the offense provides for it OR if the duty to act is otherwise imposed by law. Not convicted of an offense unless ³he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently with respect to each material element of the offense.´ Distinction between general and specific intent disregarded. Purposely: conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.´ For attendant circumstances, acts purposely if ³aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.´ Knowingly: aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.´ For attendant circumstances, acts knowingly if ³aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such attendant circumstances exist.´ Recklessly if he ³consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material risk will result from his conduct.´ Negligent if he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. Objective: Reasonable person in the actor¶s situation. Reckless is default if nothing else is given. A mistake is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any element of offense. Exceptions: if the actor would have been guilty of another offense had the circumstances been as he supposed. Permits punishment at the level of the lesser offense.
Generally no excuse. Exceptions: reasonable reliance (public official); fair notice (statute not known to her and was not published); mistake that negates mens rea.
But for (sine qua non) rule. Exclusive meaning of ³causation´ in criminal law. D has not acted with the requisite culpability unless the actual result was not ³too remote or accidental in its occurrence.´ Relates to actor¶s culpability. If he believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the exercise of unlawful force by the other individual on the present occasion. Based on subjective belief though it has to be reasonable. Deadly force is justified if it¶s immediately necessary to protect against: death, serious bodily injury, forcible rape, or kidnapping. Can¶t use deadly force if you are the provoker. May not use deadly force against aggressor if he ³knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating.´
Specific intent crimes: exculpatory if it negates the particular element of mens rea. General intent crimes: if the actor¶s mistake negated his moral culpability for the crime and was reasonable. Strict liability: no mistake of fact defense. Moral-Wrong Doctrine: no exculpation for mistake where, if the facts had been as the actor believed them to be, his conduct would still be immoral. Legal-Wrong Doctrine: no exculpation for mistake where, if the facts had been as the actor believed them to be, his conduct would still be illegal. Ignorance of the law excuses no one. The law is definite and reasonable, so there is no such thing as a reasonable mistake of law. Exceptions: reasonable-reliance doctrine, official interpretation of law, fair notice. Different-law mistake: claimed mistake relates to a law other than the criminal offense for which the D has been charged. Defense for specific intent crimes but not general intent. Not a defense: advice of private attorney. Factual cause or ³cause-in-fact´ But for test. Treats actual causation and mens rea as independent concepts. ³Legal cause´ An act that is a direct cause of social harm is also a proximate cause of it. Intervening cause: de minimis contribution; foreseeability; responsive intervening cause; coincidental intervening cause; intendedconsequences doctrine; apparent-safety doctrine; free, deliberate and informed human intervention; omissions. Objective. Justified in using force upon another if he reasonably believes such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by the other person. Deadly force is only justified in self-protection if the actor reasonably believes that the use is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful use of deadly force by the aggressor. A person is justified in acting on the basis of reasonable and erroneous appearances. (Not available for unreasonable belief.) 3 parts: necessity, proportionality, reasonable belief. Aggressor has no right to a claim of self-defense. Deadly aggressor may regain right to self-defense if they withdraw in good faith from the conflict and fairly communicate that fact to his intended victim. If any of the elements of the defense are missing, the defense is wholly unavailable to a D. Castle Exception: a non-aggressor is not ordinarily required to retreat from his dwelling, even though he knows he could do so in complete safety.
OTHER STATES: Retreat majority rule: permitted to use deadly force to repel an unlawful deadly attack even if he could retreat safely. Retreat minority rule: threatened by deadly force must retreat if he is aware that he can do so in complete safety. Imperfect defense: nondeadly aggressor who is victim of deadly force must retreat; one who kills another b/c he unreasonably believes that factual circumstances justify killing is guilty of manslaughter. BWS: can usually introduce evidence of the decedent¶s prior abusive treatment of her. Transferred-Justification Doctrine: D¶s right to self-defense transfers from intended to actual victim.
Defense of Others
Intervenor may use deadly or nondeadly force to the extent that such force reasonably appears to the intervenor to be justified in defense of 3rd party. Can use if: D uses no more force to protect X than D would be entitled to use in self-protection, based on the circumstances as D believes them to be; under the circumstances as D believes them to be, X
A person is justified in using force to protect a 3rd party from unlawful use of force by an aggressor. Parallel¶s the third party¶s right of self-defense. Was originally limited to people related to intervenor by consanguinity, marriage, or employment. Alter Ego: Could only use force to defend a 3rd party if the party being defended would in fact have been justified in using force, and
nondeadly force is immediately necessary. ³Choice of Evils´ defense. Middle Approach: Can use deadly force if other person intends an unlawful and imminent entry of house and intends to injure someone and deadly force is necessary to repel intrusion. unlawful dispossession of the property. Conduct during unconsciousness is involuntary. for his emotional disturbance. voluntary intoxication is not a defense. Can use deadly force (for house or other things) if he believes that: the other person is attempting to commit arson. Diminishe d Capacity Attempt - - Evidence that the D suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of his conduct is admissible if it is relevant to prove that he lacked a mental state that is an element of the charged offense. Does not require that imperiled person is D or family member. intruder has no claim of right to possession of the dwelling. Request desistance first and then use only as much force as necessary. innocent mistake. unconscious. no defense. if both parties think they are lawful. Not guilty if. if she did know it. unexpectedly intoxicated from a prescribed medication. - Misdemeanor. such force is immediately necessary to prevent dispossession. mental illness is not a defense but insanity is. a failure of proof claim. Does not require imminency. lacks a rational understanding of proceedings. the intrusion affects property in the actor¶s possession. Disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body. Specific intent ± voluntary is a defense. She did not know the nature and quality of the act that she was doing. Involuntary intoxication: coerced to ingest. Product Test: excused if act was µbut for¶ product of a mental disease or defect. Last Act Test: person performed all of the acts that she believed were necessary to commit the target offense. General applicability (can use for homicide). Not an excuse for an intentional homicide. Incompetent to stand trial: lacks the capacity to consult with her attorney and understand.] Issue is whether there was a reasonable explanation or excuse based on D¶s psychological characteristics. Narrow Approach: Can use deadly force if other person intends an unlawful and imminent entry of dwelling and intruder intends to commit a forcible felony therein and such force is necessary to prevent intrusion. Failure of proof defense. force in the same degree. the actor was not at fault in exposing herself to the threat. Limitations: natural forces. Specific Intent: admissible to negate. Must be directed at D or a family member. there was no reasonable escape from the threat except through compliance with the demands of the coercer. 6 conditions must be met: faced with a clear and imminent danger. - Duress - - Intoxicatio n - Doesn¶t distinguish between specific & general. Specific intent (purpose). Person shouldn¶t be blamed. Affirmative defense based on intoxication if the actor suffered from pathological intoxication or involuntary intoxication OR the actor¶s condition qualifies under ALI test of insanity. Must threaten to cause death or serious bodily harm. as a result of intoxication. D believes that her intervention is necessary for X¶s protection. 3 conditions: conduct is necessary to avoid harm to himself. and either the force is used immediately after dispossession or he believes that the other person has no claim of right to possession of the property. Cognitive and volitional prongs. harm that the D will cause by violating the law is less serious than harm he seeks to avoid. Can use force to re-enter and re-capture property if: he believes that he was unlawfully dispossessed of the property. If voluntary. Mens rea: actor must intentionally commit the acts that constitute the actus reus of an attempt AND must perform these acts with the specific intention of committing the target crime. she lost the power to choose between right and wrong (free agency was destroyed). long-term intoxication-induced ³fixed´ insanity (not in CL). 5 possibilities: another person threatened to kill or grievously injure the actor or a third party unless she committed the offense. Purpose or knowledge.´ Felony. General intent ± voluntary is not a defense. Mitigates murder to manslaughter. lawmakers hadn¶t previously anticipated the choice of evils. Voluntary intoxication: knowingly ingests something he knew/should have known could cause intoxication. Two elements: purpose to commit the target offense AND a ³substantial step. pathological intoxication. doesn¶t apply to homicide cases. - Has to choose between violating a relatively minor offense OR suffering substantial harm to person or property. Involuntary is a defense to all. no effective legal way to avert the harm. Irresistible Impulse: volitional capacity. Actus reus: must be perpetration not preparation. Must be imminent. Actus reus: substantial step. no legislative intent to exclude the conduct plainly exists. - Early Common Law: can use deadly force to defend home. For reckless crimes. such force is immediately necessary to prevent commission of the offense. [Reduces murder to manslaughter. Federal Test: Severe mental disease or defect so that she was unable to appreciate: nature and quality of her conduct. it would cause substantial risk of serious bodily harm to trespasser. Not a defense. May not use force to recapture property unless a person acts promptly and with nondeadly force. Can use nondeadly force upon another person to prevent or terminate an entry or trespass if he believes: the other person¶s interference is unlawful.- Defense of Property Defense of Home - - - Necessity - would be justified in using such force in self-defense. he lacked the state of mind required in respect to an element of the offense. and either the other person previously used or threatened to use deadly force against him or use of nondeadly force to prevent commission of the offense would expose him to another innocent person to substantial danger of serious bodily injury. Recognizes defense of abandonment if voluntary and completely renounced. She acted from an irresistible impulse. Not required to retreat. harm to be avoided is greater than that sought to be avoided. the threat was ³present. General applicability. Nondeadly force not okay if: didn¶t request desistance. burglary. General Intent: inadmissible. D must come to the situation with clean hands. Not recognized for any interest other than bodily integrity is threatened. Threat must come from a human being. actions beyond her control. - A person in possession of real or personal property is justified in using nondeadly force against a would-be dispossessor if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent. in self-defense. Excuse. Mens rea: must be her conscious objective to engage in the conduct or to cause the result that would constitute the substantive offense. Exceptions: did not harbor state of mind. Rejects imminency and no-fault requirement. Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance: expands on the ³sudden heat of passion´ doctrine and permits (but doesn¶t require) state courts to recognize a partial responsibility defense. Spring guns are prohibited. Generally. Includes alcoholism or drug addictions. Unavailable if at fault. No deadly force. Unavailable if actor recklessly placed herself in a situation in which it was probable that she would be subjected to coercion. and impending´ at the time of the criminal act. the actor reasonably believed the threat was genuine. - Insanity - - A person is not responsible for her criminal conduct if as the result of a mental disease or defect she lacked substantial capacity to: appreciate the criminality of her conduct OR to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. . she did not know it was wrong. Can use deadly force if believe that: intruder is seeking to dispossess him of the dwelling. Physical Proximity Test: attempt does not arise unless an actor has it within her power to complete the crime almost immediately. M¶Naghten Test: cognitive based. It was right for person to make the choice they did. Required to attempt to secure X¶s retreat if X would be required to retreat under the rules of selfprotection. wrongfulness of conduct. Common law assault = attempted battery. Neither D nor X is required to retreat in a home. imminent. Spring Gun: Can be used where intrusion is such that if the person were present he would be justified in taking the life or inflicting the bodily harm with his own hands. Limited to threats of ³unlawful´ force. Abolishes defense of legal impossibility. direct causal relationship between his action and harm to be averted.
he compels the female to submit by force or by threatening her or another person with imminent death. Can¶t be convicted of both the conspiracy and the object of the conspiracy. 4 elements: heat of passion. Agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act or series of criminal acts. Guilty of criminal homicide if she ³unjustifiably and inexcusably takes the life of another human being purposely. recklessly. Carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will. Object must be ³to do either an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. and D thereafter fraudulently converted the property. unambiguously manifests her criminal intent. an attempt to commit it. (2nd degree) Negligent homicide: involuntary manslaughter at common law. intended end constitutes a crime. Misdemeanor. rather than a felon. he - Provocation/Sudden Heat of Passion: intentional homicide committed in sudden heat of passion as the result of adequate provocation mitigates offense to voluntary manslaughter. inexcusably. Some states limit to independent felony. Larceny did not protect land or intangible property. General-intent crime: D need not possess an intention that sex be nonconsensual. Plurality requirement. or is an accomplice in. commission of a serious crime against close relative. but the offenses are consolidated in that the prosecutor may prove a different form of theft than was specified in the indictment. Marital Immunity Rule: a husband could not rape his wife.) Intent encompasses purpose and knowledge. one of the dangerous felonies specified in the statute. People who agree to commit crimes but are arrested are as dangerous as those who commit crimes. Subjective and objective component. Embezzlement: D came into possession of the personal property of another in a lawful manner. Defenses: good faith belief that he has a right to possess the property. Dangerous Proximity: act is so near to the result that the danger of success is very great. Treat the initial agreement between the parties as one that implicitly incorporated the later objectives. or flight from. acting purposely.) Does NOT require an overt act. No degrees.- Solicitatio n Conspirac y - - Homicide - - Felony murder - - Provocatio n Theft Guilty if: the actor¶s purpose is to promote or facilitate the commission of a substantive offense. Two or more people must intend to agree AND intend that the object of their agreement be achieved. Rape - Felony offense. law does not proscribe goal that the D sought to achieve. grievous bodily harm. Mens rea: purpose. as long as the D¶s right to a fair trial is ensured. Mens rea: specific intent. sober at time of provocation and of normal mental capacity. but which homicide is committed as the result of ³extreme mental or emotional disturbance´ for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. standing alone. Basis for accomplice liability. Death must occur within a year and a day of homicidal act. (1st degree) No degrees of murder under the code. Lost property: depends on possessory interest of the owner at the time it is discovered and the finder¶s state of mind when he retrieves the lost property. involuntary distinction. she wants to be 2nd degree. - A fetus must be born alive to constitute a ³human being. EMED affirmative defense in manslaughter is intended to incorporate common law doctrines: heat of passion and partial responsibility. Attempted conspiracy. adequate provocation. Paradigms: aggravated assault. Neither factual nor legal impossibility is a defense to criminal responsibility. Trespass: taking of victim¶s personal property w/o consent. Person may not be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime if she would not be guilty of the consummated substantive offense. Abandonment: not a defense. A male is guilty of rape if.´ Manslaughter: ³an unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought. Mens rea: uttered knowingly and designedly and with the intent to defraud. or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means. Larceny: trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the possessor of the property. Proximity. Grades a conspiracy to commit any crime other than a felony of the first degree at the same level as the object of the conspiracy. Murder: actor unjustifiably. the commission or attempted commission of. or would establish the other person¶s complicity in its commission or attempted commission. Probable Desistance: actor reached a point where it was unlikely that he would have voluntarily desisted from his effort to commit the crime. encourages or requests another person to engage in conduct that would constitute the crime. Can be inferred from recklessness. Felony split into grand and petit (by twelvepence). mutual combat. Indispensable Element: presence or absence of an indispensable element. Unequivocality Test: a person¶s conduct. Conspiracy is defined in terms of the guilt of a single party (unilateral approach). Conduct offense. and in the absence of a mitigating circumstance kills another: purposely or knowingly. Actus reus: one person invites. Doesn¶t apply Wharton¶s Rule. Mens rea: specific intent. Can be convicted of offense AND attempted offense. Neither factual nor legal impossibility is a defense to criminal conspiracy. under the circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.´ (Arguably violates fair notice constitutional requirement. female is unconscious.´ It is larceny to steal stolen property from a thief. hires or encourage another to commit a particular offense. Ferae naturae were not ³property. Agency Approach: felony murder rule does not apply if an adversary to the crime. Offense of the conspiracy does not merge into the attempted or completed offense that was the object of the conspiracy (ex. Solicit to get X to be principal in 1st degree. Wharton¶s Rule ± doesn¶t apply to crimes that necessitate 2 people Can¶t be convicted if it would frustrate a legislative purpose to exempt from prosecution. recklessly. no time to cool off. but she fails to consummate the offense because of an attendant circumstance unknown to her. False Pretenses: obtaining property by false representation of an existing fact. knowingly. Causation. Recognizes a solicitation to commit an attempt.´ Murder: ³the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought. Property of another: property in which any person other than the actor has an interest. A person with multiple criminal objectives is guilty of only one conspiracy if the multiple objectives are part of the same agreement OR part of a continuous conspiratorial relationship. Specific intent offense. - - Cover all property: ³anything of value´ (includes land and intangible property). Legal impossibility: defense. observation of spousal adultery. Sets out different forms of theft. (3rd degree) Extreme recklessness is non-conclusively presumed if the homicide occurs while the actor is engaged in. Manslaughter: recklessly kills another or kills another person under circumstances that would ordinarily constitute murder. - Res gestae: Applies when a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony. knowingly. he commands. illegal arrest. Reasonable person: average disposition. personally commits the homicidal act. or recklessly regarding each of the material elements of the offense. or negligently. with such purpose. Mislaid property: depends entirely on his state of mind when he takes possession of the property from the owner. Asportation (carrying away): even a hair¶s breadth counts. commands. causal link leading up to homicide. Possession: sufficient control over it to use it in a reasonably unrestricted manner. Only referred to vaginal sex. Defined in terms of female¶s lack o consent. Embezzlement is not a common law offense. Proximate Causation: felon is liable for any death that is the proximate result of the felony. . Chain conspiracies described in §5. Overt act required ± either of person or of co-conspirator. Factual impossibility: not a defense. requests. just voluntary v. he has sexual intercourse with a female under any of the following circumstances: female is less than 10 years. Object of the conspiratorial agreement must be a criminal offense. Some states limit to inherently-dangerous felonies (look at felonies in the abstract).03(2).
Prosecution barred if complaint not brought w/in 3 months.- - - administers or employs drugs or intoxicants in a manner that substantially impairs the female¶s ability to appraise or control her conduct. Consent: male can miscalculate. while the female is asleep or unconscious. Now. Gender specific. Objective standard: woman of ordinary resolution. Gross Sexual Imposition: 3rd degree. . Actus reus: forcibly. has sexual relations with a female with knowledge that she is mentally ill and cannot understand the nature of her acts. 1st degree if: guy inflicts serious bodily harm on the female or another during rape. Resistance requirement in forcible rape cases. Otherwise. Sexual intercourse includes all kinds. must be voluntary. she is unaware that a sexual act is being committed upon her or she thinks guy is her husband. female was not a voluntary social companion who had previously permitted him sexual liberties. Silent about admissibility of prior sexual history evidence. Partial marital exception. or upon a female incompetent to give her consent. rape shield laws have been enacted by the majority of states and deny D the opportunity to give evidence of her prior sexual conduct or reputation for chastity. Rape Shield: Evidence regarding her prior consensual acts has always been admissible. nonconsensual intercourse with a spouse is not rape. Corroboration Rule. Punishable by death. by means of certain forms of deception. it¶s not rape. Statutory rape provision. always a 2nd degree. Gender specific. - Statutory rape provision ± for girls under 10. Corroboration Rule: testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to uphold a conviction and did not need to be corroborated. if withdraw consent during sex. sexual intercourse with a female if she submits as a result of a threat. Some states disagree. Focus shifted to male¶s conduct.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.