This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Has to be truly voluntary (concept of volitionality) 4. Omissions not considered actus reus under typical circumstances, but there are exceptions
MPC 2.01 Requirement of Voluntary Act; Omission as Basis of Liability (1) voluntary acts (2) enumerated not voluntary acts w/in meaning of this Section (3) omission (4) possession
Variety of terms, or Intent: conscious object/purpose or knowledge to a virtual certainty Knowledge (actual knowledge or willful blindness): aware of the fact or correctly believes in fact at issue Distinction btw General Intent: the voluntary/ intentional commission of the morally blameworthy act (actus reus) – ex: breaking & entering Specific Intent: must be GI + doing the morally blameworthy act to achieve an effect or a purpose. Committed the voluntary or intentional act w/ an intent to do a future act or the achievement of some further consequence (or act of consequence). – ex: burglary Courts use canons of construction to discern legislatures intent as to what mental state is required, and what element(s) of the crime the mental state modifies
2.02 General Requirements of Culpability (1) purposefully – conscious object and aware of attendant circumstances (2) Knowingly – aware of attendant circumstances; certain of result (3) Recklessly – consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk; (objective/subjective standard – reckless disregard if it is a gross deviation fr. Lawabiding person in actors situation) (4) Negligently – should be aware, but failure to perceive risk is gross deviation from standard of a reasonable person in the actor’s situation 2.02(3) if no MR specified by statute – default is purposely/knowingly/recklessly 2.02(4) applies to all material elements 2.02(7) – Knowledge: if a person is aware of a high probability of the existence of a particular fact which is an element of an offense, unless he actually believes that it does not exist. 2.02(8) Knowledge satisfies wilfullness
Transferred Intent Defendant who attempts to kill one person but accidentally kills another instead is criminally liable. Suesser (cited in Scott p 210) Birreuta (if you kill both intended and unintended victim, don’t need to punish more – intent is used up)
2.03(2): Divergence Between Result Designed or Contemplated and Actual Result or Between Probably and Actual Result Same as CL
General intent crime: a mistake of fact that negates an element of the crime must be both honest and reasonable to exculpate Some CL jurisdictions use a moral wrong or legal wrong test (e. Prince: if the D’s conduct is morally wrong there is no violation of the culpability principle if the conduct is criminally punished w/out regard to MR Bell: Legal wrong doctrine Causation Must prove both: actual/but-for cause proximate cause CL apparent Safety doctrine 2. Causal req’s in the law .03 (1) Conduct is the cause of a result when: (a) it is an antecedent but-for which the result would not have occurred.01. and (b) the relationship btw conduct and result meets any addl.02) except for violations (as opposed to crimes). U. knowledge. – but available for mitigation (Legal Wrong Doctrine) (3) is a defense if (a) no notice or (b) in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law. afterward determined to be invalid/erroneous.04: Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact/law is a efense if: (a) the ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose. (i) in a statute.Strict Liability Morissette: mere omission of intent from statute does not eliminate that element from the crime (courts generally find some implicit MR) Garnett: Courts can use plain language and legislative intent to find intentional omission of MR requirement to mean that statutory rape is a strict liability crime. Clegg and Tallmadge (turns on apparent authority) Regina v.g. (iii) administrative order. (b) by legislative purpose in statute Mistake & Ignorance relies on distinction btw general and specific intent Mistake of fact: Specific intent crime: an honest mistake that negates the specific intent required for the commission of the offense is a complete defense. whether set forth in judicial rulings or in oral or written statements by officials. v. recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense (b) provided by law (2) not a defense if D would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed.S. 238) No fact/law distinction 2. (iv) official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law w/responsibility for the interpretation (4) burdenof proof on defendant Mistake of law: Entrapment by Estoppel: an affirmative defense to D’s who commit crimes upon reliance on official statements of the law. State p. Bell v. 2. (ii) judicial decision. The mistake need not be reasonable as long as it is in good faith. 2.05: (1)(a) Rejects strict liability (culpability requirements 2. belief.
malice aforethought doesn’t mean evil.. 2. Weapon. no dang. Accident. usual/ordinary caution. 3 kinds: (1) voluntary/sudden quarrel/heat of passion (2) involuntary (3) vehicular 194: 3 years and a day rule creates rebuttable presumption that the killing was not criminal (most other jxn’s 1 yr and a day) 195: excuses for homicide: 1. and (*important for involuntary (culpable negligence) distinction btw murder 4 Intents that support Malice: and manslaughter – Intent to kill (express malice) manslaughter is not extreme indifference/just An intent to commit serious indifference) bodily injury (implied malice) there are no degrees for murder/homicide in the Depraved heart (complete/ MPC conscious disregard for human life) § 210. or a human being by another human recklessly w/extreme being w/out malice aforethought. w/out unlawful intent. anyone who initiates a gun battle. or (b) murder premedication (advance mitigated extreme mental reflection)/deliberation (quality/ or emotional disturbance. or negligent killing of another human being Murder: either purposely Manslaughter: unlawful killing of or knowingly. combat (w/no undue adv. or felony subdividing murder into degrees murder (hierarchy of severity): 210.: indifference to human life voluntary (provocation). r fetus. reckless. w/malice aforethought (depraved heart murder – 188 – implied malice) 188: malice may be express (deliberate intention unlawfully to take away life) or implied (no considerable provocation or when circumstances show an abandoned and malignant heart) 189: 1st degree: premed/delib premed/delib special means felony murder discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle 192: Manslaughter – w/out malice. killing not cruel/unusual) CA’s provocative act murder – under depraved heart murder theory. we do it for policy reasons) CPC § 187: murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Heat of passion. deadly weapon rule . where 3rd party kills someone else is guilty of 2nd degree murder 2nd all other murder Special rules: year&day. it’s a term of art for the mens rea of murder Unjustified and unexcused (unlawful) killing of another human being 2 main categories: murder: the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being w/malice aforethought MPC: defines homicide as a fxn of its mens rea terms Homicide: purposeful.Homicide: Under both common law and MPC approach.1: definition of criminal homicide Felony murder rule (have an § 210.2: murder (a) intent to commit the underlying purposefully or felony during the course of which knowingly or (b) somebody is injured/killed) reckless/extreme Common law tradition of indifference. in doing lawful act. sudden and sufficient provocation. knowing.3 manslaughter (a) 1st (punished most severely): recklessly. undertaken w/a cool head) reasonable from viewpoint of a person in murder using a means specified the actor’s situation under by the statute/special means the circumstances as he (poison or explosive device or by believes them to be lying in wait) (objective/subjective standard) murder during the (attempted) No distinction for commission of a specified felony voluntary/involuntary (1st degree felony murder) – this is really controversial.
and killing This is up to the jury to decide what situations legally constitute adequate provocation (ex: Ppl v. ability to resist affected by alcohol or drugs (perp has to know) 4.replaced category test).physical force and resistance overcome) MTS . passion. or unconscious.still basically CL) victim not the spouse where victim not your spouse.1 (1) Rape (2nd deg felony): a male who has sex w/ a female not his wife by force/threat of imminent death. then the status will not be rape reporting requirement: victim of rape has to report it w/in a year to a one of of designated ppl .3(b)Extreme mental/emotional disturbance test (subjective) Rape 3 basic sexual offenses: forcible rape (of a woman not wife) statutory rape sodomy Force resistance Consent (Barnes preferred modern principle) Note: 1 and 2 . harder to verify. the repeat player problem. .one thing different subsection: if your spouse is disabled.or else no prosecution .purpose: prevent it from being used after the fact.old standard (Rusk and Alston .. have to narrow the timeframe in order to gage validity. timeframing . SBI. Jury must find: D actually acted in heat of passion Heat of passion was provoked by an act/event that would have provoked a reasonable person to lose self control The D didn’t have sufficient time to ‘cool off’ btw the provocative act and killing Reasonable person would not have sufficient time to cool Causal connection btw provocation. Berry) 210. sex under the following circumstances can be rape: 1. [more unusual types] only thing that limits when you can report is statute of limitations (difference w/ §262) CA § 262: covers spouses. unconsciousness/ asleep (perp has to know) 5 -7. or <10yo CA § 261: (makes a distinction btw spousal and non spousal rape . by force/violence 3. disability (perp has to know) 2. etc. and covers same enumerated offenses . or impairment.uses a forcible rape standard but moves towards standard of force used to achieve sex is all thats needed when theres no consent Ask 3 questions: what constitutes consent? always explicit? who can consent? (review Garnett and statutory rape) withdrawn consent MPC 213.Provocation/ voluntary manslaughter Reasonable Person Test (objective .
you don't have to w/draw yourself to retreat Aggressors . or reckless or negligent in acquiring or failing to acquire material knowledge concerning the justifiability of use of force .05 Use of force for the protection of other persons: justifiable if (a)would be justified in protecting himself under 3.when you should be allowed to use deadly force or not.no self defense if you initiated the force. person against violence or surprise felony or entering habitation (3) lawful defense of another person (limited) (4) necessarily committed in attempted lawfully to apprehend someone for committing a felony. or threat of forcible rape Retreat: in most jur's if someone threatens u and its immediate. force is reasonably necessary to prevent entry (a) " . all turn on questions of reasonableness habitation: deadly force permitted if occupant of a dwelling reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent unlawful entry and the intruder intends to commit a felony or cause injury to the occupant or another occupant of the dwelling. surpressing a riot.04. the person he seeks to protect would be justified (c) actor believes intervention is necessary 3.force is actually on the precipice of happening proportionality ...." and (b) also commit a forcible felony or great bodily injury murder. or felonious theft or property destruction and (a) employed or threatened deadly force. or keeping the peace (objective reasonableness) Imperfect Self Defense . in most CL and in MPC deadly force is only allowed when you are threatened w/deadly force. property.. CPC § 197: homicide justified: (1) resisting attempt to murder/felony/GBI (2) in defense of habitation. or escalate an attack by nondeadly force w/deadly force Defense of others – act at peril 3.. may make some limited claim if the other person responds w/out of proportion violence *most important thing: is how 3 components are analyzed.09 (2) reckless or negligent belief about the necessity of force..06 Use of force for protection of property: when believes force is immediately necessary (a) to prevent or stop unlawful entry (d) use of deadly force is not justifiable unless: (i) being dispossessed of dwelling (ii) arson.." and (b) also thought that the intruder had an intent to commit a felony or cause injury therein (a) ". Guilty of a less serious crime which requires proof of recklessness or negligence as the mental state. use of force other than deadly force would expose actor or another to danger of SBI MPC 3. no self def unreasonable but good faith belief that force is necessary.. robbery.04 Use of force in Self protection (1) when actor believes such force is immediately necessary (2) limitations: (b) not if you provoked it or you could safely retreat 3. (b) under circumstances as the actor believes them to be.someone using or threatening force against you imminence .Self Defense 3 components: necessity .no justification defense based on recklessness or negligence. burglary.
only usable in jurisdictions where defenses are based on the ∆'s subjective experience. if it is involuntary or pathological it is an afﬁrmative defense Culture .08.02 -balance of harm -no special defense already available for your situation .02 necessity). that a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been able to resist (note objective standard is different from CL . b/c for felony murder you have to be convicted of the underlying felony . is not available when recklessness is the MR and the intoxication was voluntary.01. intoxication is not a defense unless it negates an element of the offense (MR). rather than objective reasonableness under MPC §2.seems to be a subjective standard) (2) not available if you recklessly or negligently put yourself in the situation to be coerced (3) presumption that a woman acting in the presence of her husband is coerced is abolished (4) if you would otherwise be justified under (3.could use necessity as a defense to the underlying felony. which would knock off the attached murder charge) Duress: -CL doesn't allow as a defense to homicide -MPC has no explicit imminence requirement (but comes into play in the reasonableness analysis) -obj v.can't be foreclosed by the legislature diff btw CL and MPC: . the duress defense is still available (no other justification limit .Necessity *balance of harms -legislature has not foreclosed a necessity defense *causal connection btw D's illegal act and harm D sought to avoid -no effective legal alternative available *clear and imminent danger -D was not at fault for creating the dangerous situation * all jxns MPC 3.no clear and imminent danger requirement in MPC -no limit for homicide in MPC (homicide is absolutely foreclosed in CL .the only possible loophole w/b felony murder.compare to necessity which is limited) Traditional CL rule: no defense for activities premised on the consumption of alcohol modern rule: split between: involuntary intoxication (almost always a complete defense if its legitimate) voluntary intoxication: -general intent: not a defense (ex: rape is a general intent crime so ppl can't use voluntary intoxication as a defense) -specific intent: only knocks down to underlying general intent crime Modern trend: get rid of voluntary intoxication defense entirely (morally blameworthy) The only condition we concern ourselves w/ is involuntary intoxication Not an ofﬁcially recognized defense. is not a mental-defect under §4. subj -CL rule is more challenging (GBI or death) MPC is just use of force or threat of Intoxication response to imminent threat of GBI or death -reasonable fear that threat would be carried out unless they committed the crime -no reasonable opportunity to escape 1) coerced to do so by use/threat of unlawful force against his person or another. but can be used to mitigate as either provocation or extreme mental/emotional distress.
tending but failing to effect its commission" Under the MPC §5. (d) unlawfully entering a structure.01(2) deﬁnes what constitutes a "substantial step": (a) lying in wait. murder). (3) it is an afﬁrmative defense that the actor. fabrication of materials to be employed in crime if such possession/collection/fabrication serves no lawful purpose under circumstances. this is a strict standard that requires that the ∆ be incapable of understanding the wrongfulness of his actions. or b/c conduct made more difﬁcult MPC §5. persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented the crime if it is a complete and voluntary renunciation of the criminal purpose . can be charged with l.o. (b) does the act that would have caused the result intended. the test focuses on the "substantial step" taken towards completing the crime (what WAS done). attempt to commit a felony is treated as a felony.02: (1)deﬁnes solicitation as the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of a crime by encouraging or requesting another person to engage in conduct that would constitute such a crime. case-inchief defense) or (2) partial responsibility variant (∆ argues less blameworthy than another would be b/c of illness/defect.i. (c) takes substantial step toward the ultimate goal under OLD CL rule. most tests on attempt focus on the part of the act NOT YET committed Solicitation MPC §5. death MPC §4. and in either case it is treated as a step below in seriousness than the target offense (att. requirements (a) purposely engages in conduct that would be the crime under circumstances he thought to be.01 the defense is available when. (g) soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime §5. (c) reconnoitering the place contemplated for commission of crime. most attempts are classiﬁed as misdemeanors regardless of seriousness of crime attempted under modern common law.01(4) deﬁnes renunciation of criminal purpose: it is afﬁrmative defense that the ∆ abandoned effort or otherwise prevented it from happening if it is a complete and voluntary renunciation.Insanity under the common law (M'Naghten test) the ∆ must prove that he is not culpable because either (1) he did not know the nature or quality of the crime. or enclosure where crime will be committed. (1) evidence that the ∆ suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever relevant to prove ∆ did/did not have MR that is element of the offense (2) when considering the death penalty. he did not know it was wrong. attempt to commit mis-d is a mis-d. not voluntary if abandoned in anticipation of apprehension. collection. (e) possession of material to be employed in the crime that serve no lawful purpose under circumstances. (b) enticing/seeking to entice victim to go to place where crime will happen. (2) it is immaterial if the solicitation does not reach the intended party. this is more relaxed than the CL standard and allows for there to be more situational evidence Diminished Capacity MPC §4. the verdict must say so California does not recognize diminished capacity as a defense post-Dan White's Twinkie Defense to the murders of Harvey Milk and the SF Mayor Attempt under OLD common law.03 says that diminished capacity/insanity defense must be entered within 10 days of entering plea of not guilty and if acquitted for this reason. (f) possession. as a result of mental disease or defect. detection.01. the actor "lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct. vehicle. evidence of diminished capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness/criminality of the conduct or to conform conduct to requirements of law was impaired b/c disease or defect is admissible in favor or imprisonment v. under the Common Law.". or (2) if he did know what he was doing. in this case) under the MPC §4. attempt was deﬁned as "act done with intent to commit a crime. 1st deg murder punished as 2nd deg. and also that he not know the illegality under the common law diminished capacity defenses are articulated as a (1) mens rea variant (shows that dim cap negates MR for crime.02 governs diminished capacity. after soliciting another person to commit a crime. does not apply to accomplice who did not join abandonment.
for MR for conspiracy. agreeing to commit a crime is a crime in itself (conspiracy) conspiracy: must be made by 2 or more people to commit 1 or more crimes. conspiracy must be between 2 or more people. the agreement itself is a crime in common law jurisdictions. or agree to aid the other persons in committing the crime.03(1). conspiracy is just a misdemeanor.04 it is not a defense to solicitation that the co-conspirator did not occupy a particular position or have a characteristic the ∆ believed to be true (such as undercover cop) or if the person he conspires with has immunity to prosecution or conviction Mens Rea for Conspiracy in some jurisdictions.Conspiracy under traditional common law. you must have (1) purpose to promote or facilitate target offense. (2) or to aid others in committing/attempting/soliciting the action that (3) constitutes the crime . punishment is linked to punishment for target crime under MPC §5.03. it is not necessary to prove that the Ds came close to completing the target act. (2) guilty of conspiracy with other persons even if he does not know their identity (3) if a person conspires to commit a number of crimes he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as multiple crimes are the object of the same agreement/ conspiratorial relationship (4) co-conspirators may be charged together (5) must be an overt act accomplished toward crime for conspiracy to be proven (6) it is afﬁrmative defense if a person renounces or thwarts commission of crime he conspired to if it was completely voluntary (7) duration of conspiracy terminates when crime is committed or abandoned. if only one co-conspirator abandons. the overt act does not have to be illegal or even central to the ultimate goal to actually satisfy the requirement for conspiracy under the MPC §5. (2) the intent to commit the target offense (this is a speciﬁc intent crime) under MPC §5. it is the same level offense as the target offense under the common law. but in others. there must be an "overt act" in furtherance of the conspiracy in order to demonstrate the existence of the conspiracy. the conspiracy charge does not merge into the target offense in most common law jurisdictions today. have a crime as it's object (not so under the CL). it terminates for him only when he advises coconspirators of his abandonment or informs law enforcement conspiracy merges with target offense. there must be (1) intent to enter agreement.
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.