I. Actus Reus a. Three ingredients i. Voluntary act 1.

MPC only requires that the actors conduct includes a voluntary act ii. That causes 1. Actually and proximately iii. The Social Harm of the offense b. MPC i. Conduct, circumstance, and result c. Voluntary Act i. Common Law 1. Movement of the human body that is willed or directed by the actor a. Not necessary for mere violations b. Habitual acts seen as voluntary c. Can act through an innocent agent (ex. agent under your duress) d. If actor had no control, its involuntary i. Seizure, pushed by other person, sleepwalking, unconscious 1. Hypnosis is controversial at common law ii. MPC 1. Movement of body in control of actor a. Seizure, hypnosis, convulsion, reflexes, sleep walking, etc i. Not in actors control iii. Omissions 1. Individual liberty held high in USA and people are rarely required to act to benefit another, even if it is moral thing to do i. However, once one chooses to act in assistance, they have a duty to continue to provide aid to extent that victim is not worse off than without the intervention iv. When does an omission satisfy the voluntary act requirement? 1. Common Law a. Statute imposing duty to act b. Status relationship i. Parents to minor child ii. Married couple to one another iii. Masters to servants c. Voluntary assumption of care that secludes person from others d. Culpable Risk Creation i. Maybe: Accidental creation of risk of harm to others 2. MPC 2.01(3)(a) & (b) a. The statute defining the offense expressly states that failure to act is a crime, or b. The defendant has a duty to act imposed by civil law v. Attendant Circumstances 1. Part of the Actus Reus of the offense a. A Condition the prosecutor must prove in addition to prohibited conduct or result i. Offense to drive automobile while intoxicated d. Causation i. Common Law 1. Actual Cause or Cause in Fact a. But-for Cause i. But for the act, would the harm have occurred when and as it did 1. Necessary but not sufficient condition of liability 2. Proximate Cause or Legal Cause a. Act and Harm so closely related that act is seen as cause of the harm, can have more than 1 b. Harm is foreseeable as natural result of Ds action i. Direct Cause 1. Satisfies proximate cause ii. Intervening Cause 1. Separate but for cause that contributes to production of harm after the act in question a. Act of God; b. Act of independent 3rd party; or c. Act or omission of the victim 2. IC Negates proximate cause if it is a superseding cause a. Analysis based on policy considerations and fairness i. IC must have been unforeseeable and unreasonable ii. Unforeseeable coincidental IC removes liability iii. Apparent safety doctrine- dangerous forces come to rest iv. De minimus contribution to harm- whether IC contributed substantially to harm 3. Must have both kinds of cause to be guilty ii. MPC 2.03 1. Actual Cause a. An antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred when and as it did 2. Proximate Cause a. Relates to culpability-whether actor had mental state required, but not analyzed as causation b. Requisite culpability lacking unless the result, including the way in which it occurred, was not too remote or accidental to have a just bearing on the actors liability or on gravity of offense 3. Only need actual cause e. Social Harm i. The negation, endangering, or destruction of an individual, group or state interest which was deemed socially valuable 1. Conduct Crimes a. Defined in terms of harmful conduct, not results i. Its enough to create the risk with said conduct to be a crime 2. Result Crimes a. Defined in terms of harmful results, not conduct II. Mens Reas a. Mental state regarding the social harm of the offense i. An act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is guilty 1. Common Law a. Intent i. General Intent Offenses 1. Require general immorality of motive regardless of how it relates to the actual harm a. Done knowingly, recklessly, or negligently b. Culpability approach ii. Specific Intent Offenses 1. Require particular mental state provided for in definition of offense a. Done purposely or intentionally b. Elemental approach iii. Strict Liability Offenses 1. Guilty even if mens rea element lacking for one or more elements 1

a. Most common- public welfare offenses (fines, violations, not jailable), statutory rape, felony murder rule b. Traditionally unpredictable- case by case analysis iv. Transferred Intent 1. Intent transfers when same type of harm occurs on different source than intended 2. MPC 2.02 (1) a. With 1 exception (public welfare offenses), no conviction unless the prosecution proves some form of culpability for each and every material element of the offense i. Elemental Approach 1. Cannot be guilty unless acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently as the law may require with respect to each material element of the offense a. In relation to conduct, result, and attendance circumstances b. Mental States or Varying Culpability i. Common Law 1. Intent a. A person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions 2. Knowing a. Actual knowl of a fact, willful blind not suff is maj of juris, is if hi prob of atten cir in min 3. Reckless a. Acknowledged and disregarded a legitimate risk ii. MPC 1. Purpose a. Knowledge that the requisite legal circumstances exist or believe or hope that they exist i. Refers to attendant circumstances b. Conscious objective to perform an action of that nature or to cause certain result i. Refers to result or conduct 2. Knowing a. Knowledge that the requisite legal circumstances exist i. Established if person is aware of high probability of the attendant circumstances existence 1. Willful blindness satisfies MPC a. Unless D actually believes that it does not exist ii. Dont need conscious objective to perform an action of that nature or to cause such a result 1. It is enough if aware that his conduct is of required nature or that the prohibited result is practically certain to follow from conduct a. Satisfies willful conduct standard 3. Reckless a. Conscious risk creation/disregard of risk of prohibited result or circumstances i. Risk must be substantial and unjustifiable to be reckless 1. Judged by standard of a reasonable law abiding citizen from actors perspective ii. Recklessness and knowing are distinguished by how certain the result is iii. Reckless satisfies wanton conduct standard 4. Negligent a. Does not involve a state of awareness, but rather i. Inadvertently create a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which one ought to be aware ii. Judged by reasonable person standard 5. Statute silent as to Mens Rea for material element a. Must prove at least recklessness i. Negligence will not suffice b. If one provision within a statute addresses mens rea but another does not, court can infer that it was left out purposely 6. Statute prescribes culpability but doesnt distinguish between material elements a. Culpability provision applies to all material elements unless contrary intent term plain appears i. Other approach-Terms like purpose apply forward to following sections but not back c. Mistake of Fact i. Common Law 1. Specific Intent Crimes a. MOF removes guilt if it negates specific-intent element of mens rea 2. General intent a. Three Approaches i. Reasonableness of mistake ii. Moral Wrong 1. Made reasonable mistake but still guilty because had it been how he thought it would still be an immoral act iii. Legal Wrong 1. Made reasonable mistake but still guilty of greater offense because had it been how he thought it would still be an illegal act 3. Strict Liability a. Under no circumstances does MOF negate criminal responsibility ii. MPC 2.04(1)-(2) 1. No distinction between general and specific intent; uses elemental approach a. A defense if MOF negates mens rea required for a material element of offense, OR b. The law provides that a state of mind established by the MOF constitutes a defense i. BUT MOF defense NOT available if the D would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed ii. But MOF then reduces the grade of the offense to what he would have been guilty of had the situation been what he thought it was d. Mistake of Law i. Common Law 1. Ignorance, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of law is an excuse to no one a. Exceptions i. Mistake regarding a collateral law can sometimes negate an express element of the criminal offense ii. MPC 2.04(3)-(4) 1. MOL is a defense when a. Statute is not known to actor AND has not been published or reasonably made available prior to the alleged conduct or b. Acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in a statute, judicial decision, administrative order, or official interpretation of public officer or body in charge of interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law i. D must prove one of these under a preponderance of the evidence III. Homicide a. Murder i. Common Law 1. Killing of another human being with malice aforethought a. Human being i. Traditionally at birth ii. Courts have included Fetus or created separate fetus offenses 2. Victim dies within year and a day of injury causing incident (not in this class)

3. Degrees of Murder a. First Degree Murder i. Premeditated, willful, and deliberate 1. Willful- specific intent to kill a. Intent- Express Malice 2. Premeditation/Deliberation b. Second Degree Murder- Catch-all i. Intent/Express Malice 1. But not Premeditated ii. Implied Malice 1. Conscious, extreme disregard of a serious risk to human life a. Abandoned and malignant heart ii. MPC a. Killing of another human being i. Purposely ii. Knowingly or iii. Recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life 1. Recklessness plus b. Manslaughter i. Common Law 1. Intentional killing with adequate provocation voluntary manslaughter a. Inadequate provocation i. Words, trivial battery, learning of but not seeing adultery, observation of unfaithful sex by nonspouse b. Adequate provocation i. Early Common Law fixed categories ii. Modern CL jury decides based on reasonable man standard 1. Sober, normal mental capacity, average disposition 2. Information words can be adequate (I slept with ur wife), insults not (ur wife is a slut) iii. Two components of provocation 1. Subjective element is actual inflamed passions 2. Objective element is reasonableness of emotional reaction a. Words alone not sufficient c. Heat of Passion d. Act immediately follows provocation i. No cooling off period e. Causal connection between provocation, passion, and fatal act 2. No intent but reckless (involuntary manslaughter) a. Conscious disregard of risk to human life, but not extreme enough for murder 2 ii. MPC 1. EMED- Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance a. Manslaughter if D acted while suffering EMED for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse i. No need for specific provocative act ii. If there is provocation, need not be in a fixed category iii. No cooling off period rule iv. Excuse 2. Reasonableness Standard a. Viewpoint of person in actors situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be no matter how ridiculous i. Affirmative defense to murder c. Criminally Negligent Homicide a. Common Law i. Doesnt call it CNH, calls it involuntary manslaughter b. MPC i. Unconscious disregard of a risk to human life known to a reasonable person d. Felony-Murder Rule i. Common law 1. Any death occurring in the course of a felony is murder ii. Became 1. Killing during commission of a separate felony is murder 2. Inherently Dangerous Felony a. Felony must be an inherently dangerous felony in the abstract 3. Felony Merger a. To use felony-murder rule, the felony must not be means of the killing iii. MPC 1. No felony murder but can get them for recklessness plus IV. Rape a. Forcible Rape i. Common Law 1. General Intent Crime 2. Carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will a. D had sexual intercourse (vaginal intercourse) b. With a woman not his wife c. Using physical force or the threat of force i. Threat has to be a physical threat related to sex act 1. Unrelated, nonphysical threats not enough 2. Fear not enough, need expressed threat 3. Does not anymore require more force than inherent to sex ii. Force/Resistance requirements 1. Originally, Required resistance of the utmost 2. Then required earnest resistance which is overcome by rape to prove force i. If force or threat is so extreme as to prevent a reasonable woman from resisting, that is sufficient 3. Then Forcible compulsion shown from totality of circumstances a. Physical, moral, psychological, or intellectual force; coercion; relation of parties 4. Recently, no is enough and there is not a need for force d. Without her consent i. Consent is a complete defense unless it was induced by fear or violence 1. Seducer fraud in inducement not a rape however ii. Must be able to give consent 1. Cannot if drugged, asleep or unconscious, or mentally incompetent (too young, mentally disabled, or drugged) iii. Not rape if D genuinely and reasonably thought she consented iv. Post penetration withdrawal of consent 1. Further sex is not rape but may be lesser offense of battery ii. Modern Standard 1. Defined new offenses, expanded rape to include other kinds of sex 2

2. CL rule that husband cannot rape wife has been relaxed V. Theft a. Larceny i. Trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the possessor of the property 1. Specific intent crime- must have intent to keep the property a. If take property thinking it is yours, not larceny i. This is animus furandi- intent to steal lacking 2. Permanently- substantially deprives owner of use 3. Must have mens rea of intent to deprive at time of actus reus for it to be larceny ii. To determine whether a larceny occurred, court must determine 1. Who initially possessed the property 2. THEN it decides whether, when, and to whom possession was transferred 3. If D took possssn from another, the issue is whether the possession occrd trspssorily or lawfully iii. Possession 1. Sufficient control over it to use it in a reasonably unrestricted manner a. Actual i. Physical control b. Constructive i. Not in physical but no one has actual possession of it 2. Not directly related to ownership 3. MPC- intangible goods and interests can be basis for larceny 4. Common Law- Tangible personal property iv. Custody 1. Physical control, but right to use is restricted by person with constructive possession of it a. Has custody if i. Has temporary and extremely limited authorization to use the property 1. Minor employees only have legal custody of items given by employer, even if not under employers supervision 2. Managers more likely to have legal possession ii. Received the property from his employer for use in the employment relation iii. Is a bailee of goods enclosed in a container 1. Has possession of container and custody of contents a. Possession of contents when break bulk iv. Obtained property by fraud v. Analysis vi. Was it trespassory? 1. Either yes, it was trespassory, or no, it was consensual a. It is not consensual if induced by trickery or fraud 2. Continued trespass a. Legal fiction stating the initial trespass (actus reus) continues as long as wrongdoer remains in possession, larceny when develops mens rea vii. Is there intent to permanently deprive them of property? 1. Look to facts/surrounding circumstances a. No larceny if there is no intent to deprive the owner permanently of their property b. Continuing trespass i. If they didnt originally intend to deprive them of the property permanently and that intention arises later c. If (wrongfully) D intends to sell property back to the owner, claim a reward for the property, or return to owner for a refund then that is larceny viii. Larceny by Trick 1. Owner has no intention of giving up the property for good; no title transfer a. Obtain property through trick, not actual entrustment b. Embezzlement i. Statutory offense, not common law 1. Conversion of anothers property lawfully obtained a. Must have been entrusted with possession property by someone ii. Larceny v Embezzlement 1. Depends on when D formed felonious intent and what he did to get the property a. Larceny (by trick) i. Always intended to steal and acted to trick them thus only had custody and trespassory took possession when converting it b. Embezzlement i. Initially obtain lawful possession, but later decide to convert item c. False Pretenses i. Owner intends to part with the property (title transfer), but the intention is the result of fraud VI. General Defenses a. Justification i. It was the right thing to do; lesser of two evils b. Excuse i. yes, it was wrong, but because of the extreme, extraordinary circumstances how would someone not feel totally crazed in that situation? c. Self-Defense i. Threat, actual or apparent, of the use of deadly force against the defender ii. Threat was unlawful and immediate iii. Actual and reasonable belief of peril or death or serious bodily harm iv. Response to threat necessary to deflect threat (looks at the act of self defense not the result of it) 1. Reasonable person standard-objective test that takes into account factors as D knew at time a. Reasonable person in the actors situation i. Ds relevant knowledge about the aggressor ii. Parties physical attributes iii. Ds prior experiences that could provide a reasonable basis for believing the other person intended to harm D or that deadly force was necessary iv. Amount of force used must be proportional to threat v. When is right to self-defense forfeited? 1. Common Law a. If at fault then cannot defend (varying degrees) b. Retreat i. Majority-dont have to retreat if available Min-Do have to retreat 2. MPC a. Retreat- have to retreat if there is a known escape to defender b. Lose it when you are the initial aggressor threatening force and great bodily harm i. Cannot use SD against someone lawfully using it against you 1. If you withdraw and communicate that, then can retain right if they then come at you d. Defense of Others 1. Common Law a. Just family members b. Alter ego- if they didnt have right to self defense then you cant c. Fetus is an other for purpose of Defense of others defense

2. MPC a. Can defend others against the unlawful use of force of a third party judged by a reasonable person b. No alter ego rule Common Law Necessity- Choice of Evils Duress Clear and imminent danger Clear and imminent danger Fighting natural forces-God, Fire, Water Unlwfl human threat of death or serious bodily harm No legal alternative No escape of threat Harm avoided > harm caused Harm avoided >, = or < harm caused Protection of person or property Protection of person only Clean hands- D didnt contribute fault Clean hands No homicide No homicide Ds actions weighed against harm rsnbly Well-grounded fear that threat would be carried out foreseeable at time, not what actually occurs No legislative intent to exclude the conduct under those specific circumstances Actor must reasonably expect that his action will abate the feared harm MPC: Necessity Duress Imminent Imminent Natural forces Unlawful (human) threat No legal alternative No escape of threat Harm avoided > harm caused Harm avoided >, = or < harm caused Protection of person or property Protection of person only Clean hands Clean hands No homicide No homicide e. Intoxication i. Common law a. Intoxication defense only for specific intent crimes ii. MPC 1. Intoxication a defense if it negatives an element of the offense a. Element of the offense- mens rea or actus reus 2. Not a defense to recklessness or negligence f. Mistake of Law g. Mistake of Fact VII. Inchoate Offenses a. Attempt i. Common law 1. Specific intent to commit the crime with knowledge of the attendant circumstances a. Particularly as to result crimes. i. Ex: Murder 1 supported by intent or knowing, but need intent for attempted murder 1 2. More than a substantial step, whats left to do is the question proximity test 3. Abandonment not a defense ii. MPC 1. Purpose or knowledge as to the conduct or result, guilty mind is key a. Mens Rea as required for the substantive offense 2. Substantial step taken in committing the offense a. Purpose OR belief that it will lead to intended result b. MPC 5.01(2) i. Conduct must strongly corroborate the actors criminal purpose ii. Provides list of circumstances that shall not be held insufficient as a matter of law. 1. Examples: Lying in wait, Possession of materials to commit offense, Following victim 3. No attempt for negligent or strict liability crimes 4. Abandonment (result crimes) a. Relevant only after actor has crossed the line from preparation to perpetration b. Must completely and voluntarily renounce criminal purpose c. Must abandon effort to commit criminal purpose or otherwise prevent its commission b. Conspiracy i. Common Law 1. Specific Intent crime 2. Agreement with intent to agree between 2+ persons to commit a crime or a legal act unlawfully a. No overt act requirement, agreement is the crime b. No need to know all details or co conspirators c. Intent to agree + intent to commit conspiracys target offense d. Most see it as a bilateral crime, but some offer unilateral 3. Separate offense, does not merge with object crime 4. Pinkerton Doctrine a. A party to a conspiracy is responsible for any criminal act committed by an associate if it: i. Falls within the scope of or in furtherance of the conspiracy or ii. Is reasonably foreseeable consequence of the unlawful agreement 5. Traditionally required bilateral agreement but some jurisd allow unilateral conspiracy 6. Withdrawal (reasonably adequate notice of withdrawal to all co-conspirators) i. Removes liability for substantive crime, but not for conspiracy itself 7. Abandonment not a defense ii. MPC 1. Agreement between a person and another(s) to accomplish some criminal act a. Agreement + intent to agree + intent to pursue unlawful objective + overt act by at least one conspirator in furtherance of the intended offense (not same as substantial step) i. Can be conspirator for assisting the planning, attempting, or soliciting of the crime ii. Scope of Liability: Rejects Pinkerton, conspiracy is the crime on its own iii. Unilateral approach iii. Factors that maybe a D is a co-conspirator: 1. D has acquired a stake in the venture 2. No legitimate use for the goods or services exists 3. When the volume of business with the buyer is grossly disproportionate to any legitimate demand 4. Whether the crime was a felony or a misdemeanor a. Looking to the seriousness of the crime 5. Abandonment a. Must completely and voluntarily renounce criminal purpose & thwart success of conspiracy 6. Withdrawal a. Inform co-conspirators or law enforcement iv. Wharton Rule 1. An exception to the general principle that a conspiracy and actual offense can be charged separately at trial that applies to crimes that by their nature require concerted criminal activity 3

a. Recognized at CL not by MPC v. Easier to get conspiracy than accomplice liability VIII. Liability for the Conduct of Another a. Accomplice Liability i. Common Law 1. Actus Reus- D intended to assist the primary party to engage in the conduct that forms basis for the offense a. Accomplice has to actually aid the conduct and have mens rea for principal crime i. Mere knowledge and presence not enough, need some act of advising, instigating, encouraging, or assisting in the perpetration of the offense ii. Can withdraw if voluntary and communicate it to principal 2. Mens Rea-D has the requisite mental state for the initial offense i. Natural and probable consequences =The commission of the secondary crime was a foreseeable consequence of the actors participation in the primary crime ii. MPC 1. Actus Reus- D intended to assist the primary party to engage in the conduct that forms basis for the offense a. Attempting to aid in the commission of the first is enough, even if never actually aid b. To abandon must do so voluntarily and communicate it to accomplices 2. Mens Rea- Need mental state required for EACH offense to be liable for it iii. Old Common Law- Divides guilty parties 1. Principals a. Principal in first degree i. Actually commits a crime either by his own hand or by an inanimate agency or by an innocent human agent b. Principal in second degree i. Guilty of felony by reason of having aided, counseled, commanded or encouraged the commission thereof, without having been present either actually or constructively at the moment of perpetration 1. Can be tried and convicted prior to principal in first degrees trial or even subsequent to that principals acquittal 2. Can be convicted of higher or lower crime as principal in first degree 2. Accessories a. Accessories after the fact i. Has knowledge of others guilt and renders assistance to a felon in the effort to hinder his detection, arrest, trial or punishment 1. Accessory cannot be tried before principal without accessorys consent 2. Cannot be convicted of higher crime than principal 3. Can only be prosecuted where accessorial acts occurred, not the eventual crime 3. Accomplices a. Principal in second degree or accessory before the fact iv. MPC 1. Principals a. No distinction between principals under MPC, derivative liability for all 2. Accessories a. Can be tried and punished without regard to the status of the principals prosecution b. Requires an action by the secondary actor that makes it appropriate to blame him for primarys actions c. Accessories after the fact i. No longer treated as a party to the crime ii. Separately charged for lesser offense such as misprision Homicide Murder 1 Murder 2 Manslaughter Felony Mur. MPC Rape Resist max Resist overcome Force compulsion No consent IX. Attack Theft Inchoate Larceny Attempt Larceny by trick Conspiracy False Pretenses Embezzlement. Defenses Self Def Def of Others Vol/Invol Intox Duress Necessity MOF MOL

Actus Reus Voluntary Act Causes Social Harm

Mens Rea CL- Gen intent, spec intent, strict liability, transferred intent MPC- mental state as to conduct, result, and attendant circumstances

Conspiracy Common Law No overt act Does not merge Specific intent for all material elements Pinkerton liability adopted No renunciation (abandonment) Withdrawal allowed MPC Overt Act Merges unless crim obj go beyond particular offense Intent for conduct and result, knowledge for att cir Pinkerton rejected, must prove accomplice liability Renunciation allowed Withdrawal allowed