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

MPC only requires that the actor’s 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 actor’s 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. It’s 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 circumstance’s existence 1. Willful blindness satisfies MPC a. Unless D actually believes that it does not exist ii. Don’t 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 actor’s 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 doesn’t 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)

Then Forcible compulsion shown from totality of circumstances a. but because of the extreme. Must have been entrusted with possession property by someone ii. expanded rape to include other kinds of sex 2 2. passion. Threat was unlawful and immediate iii. Either yes. MPC. Obtain property through trick. Always intended to steal and acted to trick them thus only had custody and trespassory took possession when converting it b. Intent/Express Malice 1. No intent but reckless (involuntary manslaughter) a. larceny when develops mens rea vii. and deliberate 1. Not directly related to ownership 3. or drugged) iii. Common Law 1. or mentally incompetent (too young. Is there intent to permanently deprive them of property? 1. but not extreme enough for murder 2 ii. Rape a. Affirmative defense to murder c. Must be able to give consent 1.if they didn’t have right to self defense then you can’t c. Majority-don’t have to retreat if available Min-Do have to retreat 2. Sober. need not be in a fixed category iii. Common law 1. Any death occurring in the course of a felony is murder ii. that is sufficient 3. Not in physical but no one has actual possession of it 2. trivial battery. Received the property from his employer for use in the employment relation iii. Force/Resistance requirements 1. Manslaughter i. the felony must not be means of the killing iii. Cannot if drugged. No felony murder but can get them for recklessness plus IV. It is not consensual if induced by trickery or fraud 2. Analysis vi. General Defenses a. coercion. Post penetration withdrawal of consent 1. Defense of Others 1.Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance a. MPC 1. normal mental capacity. Amount of force used must be proportional to threat v. Unconscious disregard of a risk to human life known to a reasonable person d.intent to steal lacking 2. not larceny i. Has custody if i. Has possession of container and custody of contents a. If you withdraw and communicate that. Managers more likely to have legal possession ii. Who initially possessed the property 2. psychological. Intentional killing with adequate provocation – voluntary manslaughter a. Self-Defense i. Permanently. Is a bailee of goods enclosed in a container 1. and to whom “possession” was transferred 3. court must determine 1. EMED. Act immediately follows provocation i. Required resistance of the utmost 2. Does not anymore require more force than inherent to sex ii. Premeditation/Deliberation b. Purposely ii. If D took possssn from another.specific intent to kill a. Conscious. Was it trespassory? 1. Using physical force or the threat of force i. it was consensual a. Degrees of Murder a. Embezzlement i. If they didn’t originally intend to deprive them of the property permanently and that intention arises later c. average disposition 2. Causal connection between provocation. Continuing trespass i. Owner intends to part with the property (title transfer). Willful. Cannot use SD against someone lawfully using it against you 1. First Degree Murder i. No cooling off period e. D’s prior experiences that could provide a reasonable basis for believing the other person intended to harm D or that deadly force was necessary iv. D had sexual intercourse (vaginal intercourse) b. Owner has no intention of giving up the property for good. Depends on when D formed felonious intent and what he did to get the property a. not actual entrustment b. But not Premeditated ii. To use felony-murder rule. Early Common Law fixed categories ii. lesser of two evils b. Felony must be an inherently dangerous felony in the abstract 3. When is right to self-defense forfeited? 1.must have intent to keep the property a. even if not under employer’s supervision 2. Felony Merger a. General Intent Crime 2. Initially obtain lawful possession. Legal fiction stating the initial trespass (actus reus) continues as long as wrongdoer remains in possession. Manslaughter if D acted while suffering EMED for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse i. Reasonable person in the actor’s situation i. but later decide to convert item c. Implied Malice 1. of the use of deadly force against the defender ii. Sufficient control over it to use it in a reasonably unrestricted manner a. Excuse i. Conversion of another’s property lawfully obtained a. Possession of contents when break bulk iv. Doesn’t call it CNH. Killing during commission of a separate felony is murder 2. Must have mens rea of intent to deprive at time of actus reus for it to be larceny ii. Parties’ physical attributes iii. THEN it decides whether. Custody 1. mentally disabled. If at fault then cannot defend (varying degrees) b. Objective element is reasonableness of emotional reaction a. Without her consent i. Recklessness plus b. Response to threat necessary to deflect threat (looks at the act of self defense not the result of it) 1. Felony-Murder Rule i. No cooling off period rule iv. asleep or unconscious. Words. Forcible Rape i. no title transfer a. Look to facts/surrounding circumstances a. MPC a. If there is provocation. Retreat. Heat of Passion d. Became 1. yes. Reasonable person standard-objective test that takes into account factors as D knew at time a. Subjective element is actual inflamed passions 2. Criminally Negligent Homicide a. extreme disregard of a serious risk to human life a. Originally. Inherently Dangerous Felony a. it was wrong.intangible goods and interests can be basis for larceny 4. or no. No larceny if there is no intent to deprive the owner permanently of their property b. relation of parties 4. and fatal act 2. or intellectual force. MPC 1. Recently. Excuse 2. Continued trespass a. Recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life 1. Common Law 1. Larceny i. Actual and reasonable belief of peril or death or serious bodily harm iv. If force or threat is so extreme as to prevent a reasonable woman from resisting. calls it involuntary manslaughter b. Knowingly or iii. Then required earnest resistance which is overcome by rape to prove force i. Seducer “fraud in inducement” not a rape however ii. Not rape if D genuinely and reasonably thought she consented iv. Retreat i. Conscious disregard of risk to human life. Viewpoint of person in actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be no matter how ridiculous i. False Pretenses i. Minor employees only have legal custody of items given by employer.“Catch-all” i. MPC a. learning of but not seeing adultery. Common Law a. Possession 1. Abandoned and malignant heart ii. Common Law i. Physical control b. but right to use is restricted by person with constructive possession of it a. Unrelated. Threat has to be a physical threat related to sex act 1. Fetus is an “other” for purpose of Defense of others defense . To determine whether a larceny occurred. nonphysical threats not enough 2.Express Malice 2. Obtained property by fraud v. willful. Modern Standard 1. Carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will a. Second Degree Murder. Physical. Trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the possessor of the property 1. Theft a. but the intention is the result of fraud VI. no is enough and there is not a need for force d. need expressed threat 3. it was trespassory. the issue is whether the possession occrd trspssorily or lawfully iii. Larceny (by trick) i. Larceny by Trick 1. No need for specific provocative act ii. Reasonableness Standard a. not common law 1. Specific intent crime.Tangible personal property iv.3. Inadequate provocation i. insults not (ur wife is a slut) iii. then can retain right if they then come at you d. Words alone not sufficient c. Embezzlement i. Physical control. extraordinary circumstances how would someone not feel totally crazed in that situation? c. Constructive i. This is animus furandi. Common Law a. If take property thinking it is yours. If (wrongfully) D intends to sell property back to the owner. Justification i. Further sex is not rape but may be lesser offense of battery ii. Killing of another human being i.have to retreat if there is a known escape to defender b. Premeditated. claim a reward for the property. Intent. Two components of provocation 1. or return to owner for a refund then that is larceny viii. when. With a woman not his wife c. MPC i. Fear not enough. Lose it when you are the initial aggressor threatening force and great bodily harm i. Has temporary and extremely limited authorization to use the property 1. Just family members b. Larceny v Embezzlement 1. Actual i. Information words can be adequate (I slept with ur wife). Consent is a complete defense unless it was induced by fear or violence 1. Modern CL jury decides based on reasonable man standard 1. Adequate provocation i. Common Law. It was the right thing to do. D’s relevant knowledge about the aggressor ii. moral. CL rule that husband cannot rape wife has been relaxed V. Statutory offense. Threat. Alter ego. Defined new offenses. observation of unfaithful sex by nonspouse b. actual or apparent.substantially deprives owner of use 3.

MPC 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. Principal in first degree i. Ex: Murder 1 supported by intent or knowing. Attempting to aid in the commission of the first is enough. Wharton Rule 1. Attack Theft Inchoate Larceny Attempt Larceny by trick Conspiracy False Pretenses Embezzlement. spec intent. MPC 1. Liability for the Conduct of Another a. Must completely and voluntarily renounce criminal purpose c. Can be conspirator for assisting the planning. Accessories a. Mens Rea. trial or punishment 1. Can withdraw if voluntary and communicate it to principal 2. 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. MPC 1. Easier to get conspiracy than accomplice liability VIII. Requires an action by the secondary actor that makes it appropriate to blame him for primary’s actions c. Principal in second degree or accessory before the fact iv. Actus Reus. Common law 1. To abandon must do so voluntarily and communicate it to accomplices 2.2. No need to know all details or co conspirators c. Fire. Accessory cannot be tried before principal without accessory’s consent 2. encouraging. Guilty of felony by reason of having aided. or soliciting of the crime ii. Most see it as a bilateral crime. No alter ego rule Common Law Necessity. Inform co-conspirators or law enforcement iv. Scope of Liability: Rejects Pinkerton. Inchoate Offenses a. not the eventual crime 3. Whether the crime was a felony or a misdemeanor a. Looking to the seriousness of the crime 5. Common law a. Accomplices a. Can be convicted of higher or lower crime as principal in first degree 2. Separately charged for lesser offense such as misprision Homicide Murder 1 Murder 2 Manslaughter Felony Mur. Accomplice Liability i. No legitimate use for the goods or services exists 3. Accessories after the fact i.D intended to assist the primary party to engage in the conduct that forms basis for the offense a. Withdrawal a. but not for conspiracy itself 7. Factors that maybe a D is a co-conspirator: 1. Abandonment not a defense ii. Intent to agree + intent to commit conspiracy’s target offense d. Relevant only after actor has crossed the line from preparation to perpetration b. When the volume of business with the buyer is grossly disproportionate to any legitimate demand 4. transferred intent MPC. counseled. but some offer unilateral 3. even if never actually aid b. what’s left to do is the question “proximity test” 3. = or < harm caused Protection of person or property Protection of person only Clean hands. Accomplice has to actually aid the conduct and have mens rea for principal crime i.D intended to assist the primary party to engage in the conduct that forms basis for the offense a. Conspiracy i. strict liability. No attempt for negligent or strict liability crimes 4. Principals a.01(2) i. A party to a conspiracy is responsible for any criminal act committed by an associate if it: i. guilty mind is key a.mens rea or actus reus 2. Provides list of circumstances that “shall not be held insufficient as a matter of law. Can only be prosecuted where accessorial acts occurred. agreement is the crime b. Mens Rea-D has the requisite mental state for the initial offense i. Can be tried and convicted prior to principal in first degree’s trial or even subsequent to that principals acquittal 2. Conduct must strongly corroborate the actor’s criminal purpose ii. Intoxication i. Specific intent to commit the crime with knowledge of the attendant circumstances a. D has acquired a stake in the venture 2. Must completely and voluntarily renounce criminal purpose & thwart success of conspiracy 6. Purpose or knowledge as to the conduct or result. MPC § 5. Can be tried and punished without regard to the status of the principal’s prosecution b. = or < harm caused Protection of person or property Protection of person only Clean hands Clean hands No homicide No homicide e. Principal in second degree i. does not merge with object crime 4. Falls within the scope of or in furtherance of the conspiracy or ii. Must abandon effort to commit criminal purpose or otherwise prevent its commission b. Substantial step taken in committing the offense a. commanded or encouraged the commission thereof. Accessories a.Divides guilty parties 1. but need intent for attempted murder 1 2. Specific Intent crime 2. Cannot be convicted of higher crime than principal 3.D didn’t 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. Mistake of Law g. Principals a. No longer treated as a party to the crime ii. Natural and probable consequences =The commission of the secondary crime was a “foreseeable consequence” of the actor’s participation in the primary crime ii. or assisting in the perpetration of the offense ii. Mistake of Fact VII. Old Common Law. Traditionally required bilateral agreement but some jurisd allow unilateral conspiracy 6. attempting. Intoxication defense only for specific intent crimes ii. MPC a. need some act of advising. must prove accomplice liability Renunciation allowed Withdrawal allowed . Abandonment (result crimes) a. result. Abandonment a. MPC Rape Resist max Resist overcome Force compulsion No consent IX. Element of the offense. Has knowledge of others guilt and renders assistance to a felon in the effort to hinder his detection. Mens Rea as required for the substantive offense 2. MPC 1.Gen intent. Common Law 1. Agreement between a person and another(s) to accomplish some criminal act a. Removes liability for substantive crime. More than a substantial step. Attempt i. Separate offense. Purpose OR belief that it will lead to intended result b. i. Is reasonably foreseeable consequence of the unlawful agreement 5. arrest. Agreement with intent to agree between 2+ persons to commit a crime or a legal act unlawfully a.Need mental state required for EACH offense to be liable for it iii. Particularly as to result crimes. Unilateral approach iii. Withdrawal (reasonably adequate notice of withdrawal to all co-conspirators) i. Actually commits a crime either by his own hand or by an inanimate agency or by an innocent human agent b. Intoxication a defense if it negatives an element of the offense a. Defenses Self Def Def of Others Vol/Invol Intox Duress Necessity MOF MOL Actus Reus Voluntary Act Causes Social Harm Mens Rea CL.mental state as to conduct.“Choice of Evils” Duress Clear and imminent danger Clear and imminent danger Fighting natural forces-God. Examples: Lying in wait. Pinkerton Doctrine a. knowledge for att cir Pinkerton rejected. 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 >. Common Law 1. Following victim 3.” 1. Not a defense to recklessness or negligence f. Recognized at CL not by MPC v. Water Unlwfl human threat of death or serious bodily harm No legal alternative No escape of threat Harm avoided > harm caused Harm avoided >. derivative liability for all 2. Accessories after the fact i. No distinction between principals under MPC. Can defend others against the unlawful use of force of a third party judged by a reasonable person b. instigating. conspiracy is the crime on its own iii. Abandonment not a defense ii. Mere knowledge and presence not enough. 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. No overt act requirement. MPC 1. without having been present either actually or constructively at the moment of perpetration 1. Actus Reus. Possession of materials to commit offense.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful