Criminal Law Outline I. What is Criminal Law a. Definition of Crime 1. Offense by someone against the state 1.

Shocks conscious 2. Right to security 3. Infringing others rights 2. Substantial harm or risk of harm 3. Culpable state of mind 4. Interest in individual autonomy 5. Basic values/Morality 6. (Crime – what the legislature says it is subject to constitutional constraints) 1. Is is blameworthy enough? b. Differences between civil and criminal lawsuits 1. Who brings the lawsuit (state v. injured) 2. Standard of proof a. Preponderance of evidence v. Beyond a reasonable doubt 3. Constitutional Rights 4. Stigma – conviction holds much greater stigma than being liable c. Purposes of Criminal Justice System 1. Retribution (penalty to punish D for crime) a. Crime is a violation of the state b. Focus on establishing blame on guilt/past c. Adversarial relationship and process normative d. Imposition of pain to punish and deter/prevent 2. Incapacitation (while in jail, can’t commit another crime on public)

3. Deterrence a. Specific – penalty imposed on D so in future, they’ll be reluctant to commit in future b. General – punish bc want to deter OTHERS from same crime 4. Rehabilitation (receive treatment so will not repeat in the future bc they know the crime is wrong) 2. Restorative Justice 1. Structure so criminal will give back to community to redress the harm caused by his criminal conduct 2. Victim Offender Mediation Programs 3. Focus on Problem Solving, liabilities and obligations on future (what should be done) 4. Restoring both parties’ goal of reconciliation/restoration II. Actus Reus a. Act Requirement (external manifestation of will) 1. Act required to commit crime b. Court Cases 1. Sleepwalker guy – killed mother in law, not guilty because did not act voluntarily 2. Epilepsy guy– voluntary act began when he went behind the wheel, knowing he endangered others (there can be criminal culpablility if someone starts or continues an activity knowing she may become unconscious and engage in criminal behavior 3. Jones v. US – was there sufficient evidence of conviction – did she feed the baby? 4. Queen v. Dudley (Cannibalism) 5. State v. Stark (knowingly transferred HIV) 6. Johnson v. State (Coke through umbilical cord) 7. People v. James (prostitution of 2 college girls)

MPC 1. no evidence would cause a high probability infection IV. Vallegas v. Voted when he wasn’t 21 – thought he was 21 b. knew people walked in the area.III. Least culpable b. Charged with violation of clean water act – dumped vials of blood containing hep b into water – knowingly placed others in imminent danger of death or bodily harm a. no evidence understood how tides worked. Gordon has unreasonable mistake . If negligence . If purpose of knowledge is the state of mind requirement – any honest mistake suffices including a reckless or neg mistake 2. US 1. conduct isn’t blameworthy enough to call someone a criminal 1. State a. Cases 1. unless you have a guilty state of mind. that is guilty 4. Court concluded D didn’t act knowingly – he must have been aware his actions would cause a high probability of causing a certain result. acted intentionally. is not reckless (gun. but because of her mistake. shot friend) 3. Gordon v. He knowingly failed bc he knew he didn’t pay . Mens Rea – state of mind. Was not aware of substantial risk – acted negligently. Gordon has reasonable mistake – not guilty.guilty b. Mistake of Fact – No intent to deprive 1. Mistake of Fact/Mistake of Law a. Ignorance of the law is not a defense 2. Mistake of Law – Knowingly didn’t pay taxes 1. If reckless – any mistake that is not reckless a.if d unreasonably believed she consented.

EXAMPLES a. the conviction violated due process of the law 1. etc) 3. When the mistake arises from reasonable reliance on a public official who is in a position to interpret the relevant statute 5. even if the mistake was reckless 2. No circumstances that she should enquire what the requirements are (didn’t move.04(1)(a) – ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact constitutes defense if it negatives the purpose. IF he consulted an accountant – guilty. California D with felony conviction didn’t register in time Conviction unconstitutional – under the circumstances. knowledge. recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense 1. Crimes require purpose or knowledge – honest mistake of fact is a defense.2. MPC Mistake of Fact s. Law not published 2. Crimes require negligence – mistake of fact is a defense as long as the mistake was not negligent (must be a reasonable mistake) d. When the mistake is based on reasonable reliance on a court decision 4.3. a mistake of fact is a defense as long as it was not reckless 3. Mistakes of Law that Do Not Negate Mens Rea – 1. belief. Needs to have actual knowledge or possibility of knowledge c. Unfair when activity was passive and she didn’t do something 2. General/Specific Intent . Lambert v. if he consulted an actor of the state interpreting administration of the law – not guilty 4. Crimes require recklessness. When mistake arises from reasonable reliance on a statute that is later determined to be invalid 3.

crimes committed so often while drunk) . 1st degree murder. When requirements of insanity defense (other than mental disease or defect) are met (doesn’t understand wrongfulness or can’t control actions) V. Acted with malice a.Reasonable or unreasonable mistake can be a defense a. Mens rea is not present 2.Not a defense to general intent crimes (Battery . Common Law Murder 1.Defense to specific intent crimes because don’t meet mens rea requirement f. burglary. Pick up pink umbrella b. Homicide a. General Intent .voluntary intox is not a defense to crimes of recklessness if a sober person would have been aware of the risk . not burglary . attempt. did not enter home with the intent to commit a crime – just went to the wrong home. conspiracy.Reckless discharge of a firearm (drunk and shoot someone) – yes guilty – in the act of consuming alcohol. solicitation.Only a reasonable mistake can be a defense 2. robbery. there must be extra state of mind i. false pretenses. Involuntary Intoxication Two ways may lead to avoidance of criminal liability 1. embezzlement e. we are being reckless bc we know it will impair our thought process . MPC – voluntary intoxication is defense to crimes whose mens rea requirement is purpose or knowledge Ex – Drunk. Specific Intent .1. larceny. D intendt to kill or knowledge with practical certainty of death . Not only must D intend to commit the act.

Evidence of planning activity iii. If on defense council – want them to have as many of the same attributes of the D as possible. 2. Method of killing (Poison) 3. Premeditation a. separate from intent to kill. Mens rea . can have intent to kill without premeditation i. Voluntary Manslaughter Requirements (Common Law) i. MPC Murder. Negligent Homicide 1. MPC – Murder a. Intent to commit a felony 2. Reasonable person would have been provoked to pt.Should Premeditated Murder remain? b. Motive (D took out $1 mil life insurance) iv. D was provoked ii. or .recklessness or negligence (split in jurisdictions) d.b. Lapse of time between intent and killing ii. Involuntary Manslaughter 1. POLICY ARGUMENT . Intent to cause serious bodily harm c. Reasonable person wouldn’t have cooled off 1. If D acted with extreme recklessness d. of losing self-control iii. D didn’t cool off iv. POLICY ARGUMENT . Manslaughter.Should Murder be mitigated to manslaughter b/c intense passion? c. Committed purposely or knowingly. Who is the reasonable person? v.

Committed under influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance 3. Shooting into inhabitable dwelling ii. Proximate cause – D responsible for deaths that are the proximate cause of the felony he is committing (killings are reasonably foreseeable) VI. Agency v. Limitations on scope a. MPC – Manslaughter a. People v. Merger Doctrine – felony must have an independent felonious purpose i. pose a high probability of risk b. Welansky. Proximate Cause approaches i. Committed recklessly. Agency – D only guilty of f-m when he killed the victim or his accomplice killed the victim ii. Committed negligently Commonwealth v. or b. Felony Murder 1. Another form of malice bc intent to commit a felony 2. Committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life 2. States confine f-m rule to felonies that are inherently dangerous iii. People v. MPC – Negligent Homicide a. Statutory Rape . Look at the crime in the abstract – nature of the shooting. Dekens c. Rape a. Feinburg. sold Sterno to people to drink Commonwealth v. owned nightclub caught on fire b.b. Hansen – “Inherently Dangerous” i.

Societal reasons 3. and they plead they didn't know) Deterrence . POLICY ARGUMENT .Would a reasonable person believe no means no? Arguments against Negligence Liability Woman can fabricate complaints Negligent conduct is not culpable enough for such a serious crime Arguments for negligably Harm is still the same/gravity of harm harm is emotional and physical Shifts burden of communication to the man (by making it easier to prosecute men burden should be on man to make sure she wants to) Proof argument . Strict Liability crime – no need for mens rea 1. cause heterosexual woman to be deprieved of sex Other serious crimes for which negligence suffices (Negligent Homicide) . the mens rea requirement is met a. Has to be a line somewhere 3.Should SL continue to be the rule? b.1. Penetration 2. Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife under age of consent defined by the statute (16 in most jurisdictions) 2. Negligence in most will suffice b.recklessness will suffice . POLICY ARGUMENT . Lack of consent 3. not strong enough to indicate what they really mean Standard should be recklessness. Girl does not understand the consequences 2. Rape 1.If he's aware there is a substantial risk and he continues.she has consented Will change cultural norms Severity of the consequences of a conviction Severally punishing someone for their stupidity Patronizing to women .induce men to be careful and ensure a woman wants to have intercourse .saying we need to protect them against unreasonable men.trying to prevent people who did act recklessly from getting out (knew she didn't consent. easier to prove rape. Honest mistake does not negate crime (in most jurisdictions) 4. Mens Rea .

larceny) 2.joyride and decide to keep later . Forcible Compulsion Requirement 1. he can be prosecuted Not a marriage to preserve when a husband is raping his wife . Marital Exemption 1.the rape will destroy the marriage. Common Law . mislaid or misdelivered property . Today most jurisdictions do not have marital exemption VII.c. D must have used force or threat of force (To make her afraid of serious bodily injury d. Other crimes don't reflect the full extent of the harm 2. Larceny a. OR worse .if he beats his wife.sense of betrayal/commitment STD's if he has strayed Limits to privacy . etc. Failure to take reasonable measures to restore the property to the rightful owner -MPC rewards change of heart for lost.should this still exist? Arguments for the exemption for Marital Rape Implied consent between husband and wife Privacy of marriage should be preserved Impair reconciliation and disrupt marriage Difficult to prove . POLICY ARGUMENT .call witnesses.already have a pre-established relationship Wives can fabricate complaint Rape not as bad D can be charged with other crimes (such as battery) Arguments against Marital Rape Archaic notion Married woman has the same interest as unmarried woman in controlling access to her body Just as bad as regular rape. MPC 1. that the intent existed at some point (Continuous taking .Man could not rape wife a. victims. not her testimony Fabricated complaints applies to all crimes Stigma will dissuade fabricated complaints Procedural safeguards that help weed out false complaints .

must be aware of the mistake at the time. and carrying away (Aspiration Requirement .formed the intent later… not guilty in common law MPC . (trespassory) taking. and must have the intent to take. .Must physically move) of the personal property of another person with the intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently. the MPC provides a way for the person who had the intent to deprive to get out of it . Robington .returning the wallet is irrelevant . teller misread. Common Law wrongful. taken account in sentencing . Rogers case Brother had a check ..When the person assumes control. State -Must know that the owner could be found (wad of cash found in mud) c. Cases 5 dresses.good thing to do.Intent had to exist at the time of the taking -Must be something tangible Lund v. but 6 were in the bag Common law . or the taking is ambiguous.culpability .deposit part and bring back part of it. Commonwealth – not larceny because took computer time -Must intend at the time of the taking to permanently deprive owner Brooks v.guilty bc formed the intent to keep after you realized the mistake of the employee… intent at some time – -US v. Didn't know at the time of the sale .Guilty of theft .intent at the moment State v. the taking is not wrongful.but he is culpable\ b.. and gave $1000 Under common law . and deposited $80.

Min. or force with the intent to convert it to their own use and permanently deprive owner.misrepresentation regarding current intention suffices 1. conduct culpable 2. If a D makes the promise and intends to do neither. time consuming and traumatizing 1. Intent to defraud (the D knows the statement is false. Proof problems are in every crime 3. Can have both criminal and civil remedies e. in their mind they either plan on delivering or if they can't. Won't be onslaught of cases bc the prosecutor still must prove all the elements 4. Rule . Defense . the car dealership turned it over to her for the weekend. Common Law 1. Past or present material fact 3. False Pretenses a. Monday she would return the car or pay the money. Harm is great. or act with reckless disregard as to the falsity of the statement) -Knew there was a risk it wasn't Magic Johnson's signature was not his . She kept. Reasonable measures are costly and time consuming 6.wouldn't be property of another (last element of larceny) Larceny by Trick . Misrepresentation by D 2.recognizes that a misrepresentation of current intention can suffice and it recognizes that people in commercial transactions make a promise. VIII.she thought that the title had been transferred to her Why relevant to larceny? What happens when the title transfers .Robington took the sedan for two months. MPC b. fraud.committed when one obtains the possession of another's personal property by deception. Deter false promises 5. MPC follows the minority approach . then there is culpability for false pretenses d. they'll pay damages c. Civil lawsuits costly.

3. vulnerable or ignorant) 5. Burdensome to courts 2. Title transferred .at common law the penalty for larceny was death. 4.Depends on victims intent Maj. so the law limited the circumstances larceny could be found f. a significant minority rules that it does IX. 5. Proof problems . borrowed money to "purchase" liquor stamps and would pay them back (this is the misrepresentation) Majority said this would not be a false pretense… since the mistatement was about the future A misstatement regarding one's current intention. Inhibits commerce bc people afraid to act 3. Cases Chaplin v. US Owned a liquor store.misrepresentation regarding current intention doesn't suffice 1. does not suffice. If all intentions were held as statements of facts. harm business sometimes its better business to break a contract 1. Rule . Appropriation Of the property Of another By one entrusted with possession Converts to own use .. Civil Remedies 6. not a criminal . Induce good business practice and in taking reasonable precautions to predict oneself 5.not larceny.Recognize that property not hers 4. Common Law Elements of Embezzlement 1.can be difficult to discern what is going on in her mind False Pretenses did not exist at Common Law . Provides incentive to change one's mind and do the right thing and deliver on the promise 4. Embezzlement a. 2. Reliance Does not have to be reasonable (to protect people who are gullible.

taking. carrying away. Mejia Illegal aliens gave money to garcia to hold.if struggle XII. garcia fled.opening a closed window.intent and capacity to repay • Board of directors knew he was doing this X.5 mil . went to get it. no threat of imminent force • Robbery .sometimes a robbery or sometimes just a theft • Not robbery if just grab and run .no force. Cases State v. Dwelling House 4. Robbery a. Burglary • a.not breaking) • Constructive breaking . Breaking (satisfied by actual breaking . Entering 3. Common Law Sometimes describes as "larceny plus" (trespassory.*** Must intend to deprive person of their property (most jurisdictions . transactions out in the open • Everyone was doing it (prevalent practice for corporate officers) • Worth 5.permanently) b. do not need to rob people (use force) to get the money back… peaceful ways to get the money back Purse snatching . Common Law 1.creation of an opening into the area where D is going to window . found out garcia was leaving the country. personal property. Of Another . mejia shot and killed him even if it is your property. but did open a window that was already open . of another with intent to permanently deprive) + 2 others Force or caused the victim to fear imminent force • Taking must be from the victim's self or the victim's immediate • presence to control b.entry occurs as a result of disception or threats ('meter man' intended to rob) 2. Consolidated Theft Statute Consolidated theft statutes (MPC favors them) -set forth the different ways individuals can steal from others XI. Cases People v.had intent to repay the money • Returned all checks to the company • No concealment. Talbot .

Searching for or following contemplated victim Under MPC conduct criminalized much earlier than under physical proximity b.Reconnoitering place contemplated for the crime .backward looking approach .Lying in wait .with the intent to commit a crime it is burglary .Has she taken a substantial step toward the crime . Gauze Told roommate to go get your gun and I’ll get mine – Defendant had an absolute right to enter the apartment as he resided there. as such the defendant cannot be found guilty of burglary XIII. MPC .Must be strongly corroborative of the defendant's criminal purpose Actions that can prove: . Unauthorized entry (No breaking requirement) 2.what the d has done .Substantial Step Test .Enticing victim to area of crime .Possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances . 6. vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated the crime will occur . Intent to commit a crime (not necessarily a felony) Store . Physical Proximity Test . .don't have authorized entry to steal something If they form that intent after they enter the story is it is theft b. Building or structure 3.Soliciting to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime . Attempt a. How much is the TV worth? Modern Law 1.How much more will D have to do to commit the crime 5.D must be physically close to completing the crime . Cases People v.Night Defendant had intent to commit a felony 1.Unlawful entry of structure.

but legal impossibility is . No renunciation to at least some crimes (Hazard to the public) 2. had various materials.(majority) . Not blameworthy enough 3. he just didn't follow • through with it If he had a true change of heart .he didn't have a change of heart. Avoids proof problems 4. drilled holes on the floor • One of his arguments .Legal or factual impossibility not a defense under MPC Common Law .I changed my mind . 4) of MPC.what more does the D have to do to commit the crime • People v.I'm not guilty of attempted • burglary Abandoned it . affirmative defense of voluntary abandonment • Must prove the abandonment is voluntary and complete • You can renunciate • What if left because a dog discovered her .no threat to society's attempted burglary Renunciation of Attempt Under MPC you have crossed the line. Provides incentive for people not to follow through with the crime Common Law 1.Guilty if purposely engaged in conduct that would be a crime if the circumstances were as he believes them to be . Provides maximum deterrence 3.(minority) factual impossibility is not a defense. Cases US v.still no going back • • Once the point had based when mere preparation gone beyond point of no return .if have genuine change of heart .c. no guarantee he is going to go there Physical prox . Factual Impossibilty MPC .she is not close enough to be committing the crime. Public safety still protected .physically close to where the crime occurred • If he's not there .not voluntary Under common law . Jackson Court set forth a number of tests to determine whether it is a crime Physical proximity test (only need to know this one and substantial step test) The act must be proximate to the completed crime or directly • tending toward the completion of the crime • Lying in bushes .no going back after mere preparation Policy Argument for/against renunciation MPC 1. Staples Rented an apt over a bank. but can avoid criminal culpability (s. No renunciation defense for most other crimes Legal v.

doesn't matter if the person is dead . but the gun is unloaded. Thinks the gun is loaded. points it at P's head and pulls the trigger .If he intended to do what he wanted to do .(kill Sherlock) but he couldn't because Sherlock wasn't there.thought he was alive .D wants to kill someone.guilty of attempted murder Common Law . kill 'scabs' This case should proceed to trial on the solicitation trial Quintin Calling on people to be hippies Crime of solicitation did not extend to this conduct Consistent - .shoot that thing in the window.would have happened except that • the bullets were not in the chamber MPC . All that is necessary is that the D encourage or advice that someone commit a crime 2. Cases Schleifer Telling Union members to rob.LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY Hypo .Dluglash Case . D wanted to kill other individual .even if he did everything he wanted to do.Under the Common Law .Factual Impossibility Can not prevail under this defense under the common law • Factual Impossibility is not a defense • Def'n .If Moran intended to do what he did . D must have the intent that the crime be committed -Special danger of group activity NO RENUNCIATION b.yes he is guilty Purposely engaged in conduct that would have constituted the crime of • murder. you can't murder a corpse . Solicitation a. beat.Under MPC .shape facts so that factual impossibility is used - XIV. this is a case of legal impossibility because you can't murder a statue – Defense to CL . it's a case of factual impossibility – . Common Law 1. if the surrounding circumstances were as he believed them to be ***** If you are the Prosecutor .would have been a crime if the D had done everything he wanted to • do.

Not voluntary when something happens that makes it more likely that the crime will be detected issue Comes down to advocacy .Quintin case . but have someone else in mind to do it. OR 2.will get into policy concerns? *Renunciation c. Assistance 2.what is important? .yes it is solicitation of people What if he calls on every American citizen to kill govt officials . Withdraw all the aid and the encouragement.large.intent to provide assistance and intent crime to be committed (Just being aware of the crime is not enough need to know whether that person is present Accomplice 1. or makes some other proper effort to prevent the crime (Crime may occur and can avoid criminal liability) CL . indefinable group of people Schleifer .MPC IF she tried to persuade them not to .solicitation? Yes . Renunciation must be complete i.definable group of people Solicitation has nothing to do with the likelihood that it will occur (committed solicitation nonetheless) Hypo .speaking directly to union members .possible not guilty if Requirements: 1. Intent to provide assistance and the intent that the crime be committed Withdrawl 1. If ask someone else not to do it. not complete 3(a) Must persuade solicited person not to commit the crime OR (b) Otherwise prevent it's commission XV.Osama calls on all Muslims to declare jihad and kill all American officials because they are all corrupt and bad Solicitation If you can define the group . Contemporary Approach . Size or indefinability of the group? . Accomplice Liability Aids or agrees to aid person in committing crime Mens rea .they were indiscriminately handing out the pamplets to random # of young people .definable set of people. Provide timely notice to the police.D is liable for crimes that are the natural and probable consequence of the initial crime . Renunciation must be voluntary i.

gets the gun and ether back . Cases= People v Lauria Try to equate knowledge of another's criminal activity with conspiracy to further such criminal activity Purposefully v. Common Law Conspiracy because one than one person involved Two people involved .more likely to occur 1. Huber Convicted as accomplice to the robbery . Knowingly Conspirator must intend both to enter into an agreement and to further the agreement's unlawful objective MPC requires proof of purpose to promote of facilitate the commission of the underlying crime Purpose may be inferred if the defendant had a stake in the venture Change the facts where we would have a conspiracy If he markets his place as a prostitute friendly service Charged them more than regular customers If he referred others to the prostitutes Inflated amounts of what is sold (truckload of prescription drugs) No legitimate use for the item that is sold (silencer for a gun .Knowledge does not suffice. US Conspiracy to overthrow the government Trying to organize the Communist Party and they are Overt act? .not guilty as an accomplice XVI.demonstrates that the overt act doesn't have to be criminal . Intent to enter into the agreement and intent that crime be committed . Conspiracy a. Agreement between 2 or more people (common law only requires the agreement) 2.but crime committed with other gun Not guilty of robbery bc took back all his aid . Must be an overt act taken in furtherance of the conspiracy (most jurisdictions) Indicator that the conspiracy exists • Does not have to be substantial step or criminal in nature • 3. Must have intent for the crim to occur -More serious the crime.D must have mens rea needed to be culpable of 2nd crime a.provided gun and ether before the crime Had intent to provide the aid and Hypo .D before the robbery.desire for the gun be used illegally) Yates v.MPC . Cases Commonwealth v. the more likely infer intent b.

he did withdrawal bc he informed all the people with whom he required or tell the police of the plans so they can stop it in time Once have a conspiracy (agreement.Benefit . D not a part of the conspiracy . if it were stolen. Reasonably foreseeable 3. and went back out and stood guard.must be an agreement and an overt act taken in furtherance of the agreement If Gary withdrew before the theft . MPC Not responsible for other crimes unless the defendant is an accomplice to the other crime (go back and remember what it means to be an accomplice . Thwart conspiracy's success (not just notifying the police) Pinkerton Doctrine . Other crime must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of conspiracy Even though that Gary didn't think she would steal the gun.what if conspire to commit one crime but another occurs? 1. D is an accomplice because he has provided affirmative assistance and the jury can draw an inference that the crime will occur In order for conspiracy to occur . Cases . overt act. Common Law Sometimes the actions of someone else can break the causal link in criminal cases 1. saw molester harming the child. Providing timely notice to the police of the conspiracy and the D's role in it.not guilty of crimes that occur after the withdrawal… so he is guilty of conspiracy to robbery.does not allow this) Renunciation (what it takes to avoid liability for the conspiracy itself) 1. Other crime must be in furtherance of conspiracy 2. Causation a. Sufficiently direct result ********** in criminal case will need this one for criminal cases!!! b.not guily of theft or conspiracry XVII.D intend the crime to be committed.Distinction between withdrawal and renunciation Withdrawal . it would be traceable to Mary.can withdrawal from conspiracy . Under MPC . but not robbery Two ways in which to withdrawal 1.he is not guilty because he is not an accomplice Berkley student who molested the girl in the bathroom . Notify all the persons with whom the Defendant conspired 2. a reasonable person would think that it is a possibility because if she used her own agreement to commit the crime between the two of them But.friend walked in the bathroom. and provide some assistance to aid) If use MPC on Gary hypo . But for causation 2. requisite state of mind) . it would not trace the crime back to them.withdrawn before conspiracy because the theft (overt act) hasn't taken place ---.away to avoid liability for the conspiracy itself (Modern) (CL . Renunciation of conspiracy must be complete and voluntary 2.

XVIII.must be something more than but for causation What more is necessary is that the death of the victim was the • directly forseeable consequence of the D's actions Commonwealth v. Not sufficient to be considered the legal cause in a criminal case . Kibbe Drunk. To protect the defendant from an imminent infliction or application 3. and this was a superceding cause of death . get him more drunk. Deadly force was necessary 2.bc voluntary and reckless behavior breaks the causal link. therefore they are the cause of his death. Ct.this specific action was a voluntary decision by the P."But For" causation But for Defendant's actions. Imperfect Self Defense D who honestly but unreasonably believed that defensive force was necessary are convicted of manslaughter rather than murder c. flashing money.MAJORITY RULE 1. Subjective standard Exception – if D is reckless or negligent in having such belief (that defensive force is necessary or in acquiring or failing to acquire any material knowledge – establishes culpability  Or if the D provoked the use There is a duty to retreat before using deadly force only if effectuated with complete safety b. Actual Cause. Self-Defense a. or the shoes of the defendant • Initial Aggressor Rule – if D starts hit and hits back in self-defense. it was his decision to go in the left lane right when a truck came . Larceny. concluded that the D were the cause of the death Reasoning . victim would be alive today.death… • And yet the court concludes that the D is not guilty • How do you reconcile these two cases? • The decedant's actions break the causal link. Of deadly force (force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm Reasonable person. rob him.People v. Common Law Objective standard . But For. the deceased would be alive… • Reasonably foreseeable consequence . Cause in fact Generally. take off his pants and shoes ditch him in a rural hwy in zero degrees. guys plan to rob him. he cannot prevail on self-defense . Root • But for the D's actions (drag racing). gets hit by Blake Murder. MPC D believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force on the present occasion.D must have reasonably believed (he must actually • and honestly believed and those beliefs must be reasonable) --.

If A renounced his intent after initial push and then B hits and A hits back – A is only guilty of the battery from the initial contact – self defense was an offense for the second punch though Excessive Force A pushes B B chokes A A pulls out a knife and stabs B Even if someone reasonably believes that a threat is imminent .There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force Castle Doctrine . Common Law Common Law Approach .convicted of negligent homicide State v. rape.they will lose the defense if they used excessive force By B using excessive force. MPC Defense of property . Goetz (Subway shooter.provided that you reasonably believe (actually and reasonably believe things) the force is necessary to protect property from imminent threat b. A can still be charged with battery.Do not need to retreat from his or her own home even if you could retreat MPC – need to retreat before using deadly force against a coworker d. etc.preservation of life Can use nondeadly force to protect property .Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter Negligent . if calmer put to heads” Reckless .Deadly force can be used if individual using the deadly force believes it is necessary to prevent an imminent and unlawful entry 1. A has a right to protect himself.theft. “give me $5” shot all four. Must reasonably believe that the force is necessary to prevent a forcible felony or that the victim poses a risk of death or serious bodily harm c. but not guilty of aggravated battery Duty to retreat MPC – there is a duty to retreat Majority Rule . Norman (Battered Wife) XIX. Defense of Property a.most courts prohibit the use of deadly force solely to protect property . Deadly force can be used if it is necessary to prevent an imminent and unlawful entry and Person must reasonably believe the force is necessary to prevent a felony (felony other than the burglary .(Only followed in a few states) .D was aware there was a substantial risk he didn't need to use this force ---.) 2. Cases State v. Cases .

Common Law Necessity test . State Set up a spring gun towards the door of his trailer. firemen. emergency services Property not worth same as life Arguments for use of deadly force Levels playing field – poor people don’t have the money for more elaborate security syst XX. Reese (prisoner escapes to get away from imminent threat) Lovercamp test 1.Bishop v.hit and died Can't use spring guns to defend your house (minority view .D must reasonably believe that the crime is necessary to avoid harm greater than that caused by the crime itself (in addition.this is what the defendant argues) Argument against use of deadly force Law enforcement. Prisoner faced with specific threat death. person known to him came in to rob it . MPC Defendant honestly believes that committing a crime is necessary to avoid a greater evil Defense is unavailable when D charged with a crime requiring a mens rea of only recklessness or negligence if the D was reckless or negligent either in bringing about the situation requiring a choice of evils or in appraising the necessity for his conduct. many jurisdictions require that it be imminent). so kidnapping is the greater harm c. Cases US v. Legislative Foreclosure exception .not up to you to do the balancing. b. forcible sexual attack or substantial bodily injury in immediate future . because it has already been determined by legislature.defense of habitation allowed if they could have used deadly force at the time of unlawful entry if he was at home . Kabat (ICBM + Priests damage missile facility) State v. Necessity a. Ex – Abortion – has been deemed legal.

No evidence of force/violence used in escape 5. Reasonably believes 2. MPC (Section 2. necessary to set one house on fire to save others • XXI.2. Prisoner immediately reports to proper authorities when he has attained a safe distance from threat Main impediment from going to jury .09) Elements Affirmative defense when he is coerced to do something by use of or threat of unlawful force against his person or the person of another that a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist. Common Law Duress is a defense to any offense BUT murder 1. Duress a. That the crime is necessary 3.each of the requirements had to be met before he could be aquitted Must immediately report to authorities  2 ways to test Normal necessity test Or .Prisoner defense test Concern with Lovercamp . To protect self from imminent threat . o o Duress is a defense to homicide “Threat that a reasonable person would be unable to resist” Not required to be an imminent threat (but still must threat of physical injury) If erroneously believe that they received threat – lose the defense IF the mistake was reckless (or negligent) and they are charged with a crime requiring a mens rea of recklessness or negligence b.have to get thrown right back in to the situation that trying to escape from Can use against natural forces – fire coming down hill. No time for complaint to officials or history futile complaints 3. No time to resort to courts 4.

Insanity a. M’Naughton (Prevailing rule) 1. he doesn’t understand actions are wrong Wrongfulness D not aware actions illegal (some jurisdictions) D knows actions illegal but doesn’t know society perceives actions immoral (God commanded him) b. MPC 1. Or. as a result of his illness. Cases State v. Scott (gang member. D must lack substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of conduct .4. cuts boy) Ct. said not a defense bc of at fault exception XXII. D must either not understand nature and quality of actions (cantaloupe head) 2. Of death or serious bodily harm Reasoning for the defense – Was not the voluntary act of the accused Negates intent because no time to formulate criminal intent Variation on necessity Majority Do act with intent (know they will injure another) Is voluntary act – D makes a choice to violate the law Crime need not be the lesser evil At Fault Exception Duress defense is unavailable in cases where D was at fault in bringing about the situation that required them to commit the crime If recklessly put themselves in a situation where coercion likely (Gang) c.

throws baby in river . and not available. Goes to mental hospital and gets well .realizes it is wrong.which is better? MPC If D could not control his actions because of his illness he is not blameworthy enough Ex .easier to lie and get away with the volition requirement Are blameworthy enough • If aware of what they are thinking about doing is wrong (illegal or societal wrong) . but because of her illness she can't help it . homeless . Guilty but mentally ill (some jurisdictions) 1.hard to access the mental health) M'Naghten More narrow rule .goes to jail for rest of sentence c.she just does it If someone so sick. may not anticipate that they will lose control or get sicker Resources may not be available (live in a rural area.great harm caused by criminal conduct Avoid some or many fabricated claims of insanity .it's on them to get help.Illegality or immorality 2. Lacked substantial capacity to conform to requirements of the law (volition) c. Policy Considerations .she is blameworthy if she has the cognition Volitional component has the potential to greatly expand the insanity defense Provides an incentive for people to get treatment • . so they do not take those actions • If mom has feelings that she needs to kill her kids and doesn't get help and does it ---.