Criminal Law

Mistake of Fact Common Law

*def makes a mistake about the attendant circumstances. specific intent crimes: honest mistake is enough if it shows that def did not have required mens rea. general intent: defense only if the mistake is HONEST AND REASONABLE under the circumstances to negate negligence. *MOF will NOT reduce the grade of the crime. it is only a defense if there would have been NO crime at all if situation was as he thought.

Accomplice Liability (Common Law)

*derivative liability: derives fault from principal, accomplice convicted of the same crime as principal. -actus reus: accomplice if you intentionally assist another with a crime or principal commits it in furtherance of agreement. *agree to aid and dont = NOT GUILTY *tried to aid, but aid was not effective = NOT GUILTY *principal does not go through with crime = NOT GUILTY (except could be guilty for solicitation/conspiracy) *principal commits actus reus and lacks mens rea = secondary NOT GUILTY -mens rea: intent to do the acts that count as assistance AND whatever mental state is required for the crime. (sometimes when courts say intent they mean knowledge or purpose) (however many states say knowledge is not enough)

Duress (excuse) MPC

*different from choice of evils because there will still be a duress defense even if you chose the "bigger" evil. -defense for voluntary actions that were only committed bc of threat of bodily harm -actor only engaged in the conduct bc he was coerced to do so by the use of or threat of unlawful force against his person or someone else. -a person of reasonable firmness would be unable to resist -nothing in MPC requires that the threat be imminent -*not available for any crime if actor recklessly placed himself in a situation where duress was likely (ex: joining a gang) -*not available for crimes where negligence is the mindset required if the actor negligently put himself in such a situation *duress can be a defense to homicide as long as a person of reasonable firmness would have been compelled to kill an innocent person.

Murder (MPC)

*does not have the willful, deliberate, or premeditated requirement. -actor kills someone purposely or knowingly, or -actor kills someone recklessly, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. *no degrees of murder: for death penalty, look at aggravating and mitigating circumstances and balance them.

Solicitation (Common Law)

-Actus reus: actor requests, hires, commands another to commit a particular offense. (*does not occur when someone intends to do the crime as well and just wants help from another person) (*only convicted if communication was successful!) -Mens rea: specific intent, where actor intentionally invites or requests that another commit a target crime. -defenses: no innocent instrumentality, no abandonment. -Punishment if target crime occurs: solicitation merges with attempt, solicitation merges with murder so you cant get them for both. solicitation is less serious than attempt so punishment wont be as severe*

Conspiracy (MPC)

-Actus reus: agreement to commit offense, attempt to commit offense, solicit another to commit, or aid another person in planning or commission. requires overt act for less serious crimes, does not require overt act for more serious crimes. -Mens rea: must have purpose to agree AND purpose to promote or facilitate conduct that is a crime ***Knowledge is NOT enough under MPC. *unilateral approach: someone can be convicted as long as they believe they made an agreement with someone (undercover operations can count) defenses: abandonment (you renounce criminal purpose AND stop the crime from happening). REJECTS whartons rule. also follows legislative exemption rule same as CL. rejects impossibility defense. -punishment: grading is the SAME as the target offense (with exception where 1st degree felony will be 2nd) -merger? under MPC you cannot be convicted of multiple inchoate crimes that were designed to culminate in the same end crime (attempt, conspiracy, solicitation - choose 1). -**UNLESS: you have an ongoing conspiracy with more than one criminal objective, you can be charged for the ongoing conspiracy AND the one time target offense (these are seen as two separate crimes bc your conspiracy has more goals than the target crime)

Accomplice Liability (MPC)

-Actus reus: solicits, aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid in commission, OR has a legal duty to prevent commission but makes no effort to do so *agree to aid and dont = GUILTY *try to aid and aid is ineffective = GUILTY *principal does not commit offense = GUILTY of attempt bc he tried to help even though it didnt happen *principal commits actus reus but lacks mens rea = GUILTY OF ATTEMPT -mens rea: person has *purpose* to give aid and facilitate/promote the crime, and he acted with the mens rea required regarding the result element of the crime --knowledge not enough: you have to have the conscious object to facilitate the crime -*specific intent requirement applies only to conduct, NOT result. (you have to have purpose to facilitate the conduct but they can get you for the result element with any mental state that would be sufficient such as recklessness) (you dont have to have mental state of purpose to bring about the result, just purpose to bring about the conduct + whatever mental state the underlying statute requires regarding the result i.e. recklessness) --attendant circumstances: look at underlying statute to see if purpose would extend to this (ex does status as a cop require purpose or something less, open question, try to interpret statute) *mpc allows an accomplice to be convicted of criminal attempt if she attempts to aid in the commission of the offense, even if the other person does not commit or even attempt to commit the offense.

Solicitation (MPC)

-Actus reus: when someone commands, encourages, or requests another to engage in conduct that is a crime or an ATTEMPTED crime. (*still occurs if person only asks for helps and intends to do it themself) (*still occurs if communication was unsuccessful) -Mens rea: with purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the target offense -defenses: abandonment (after soliciting someone, persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented the commission of the crime, "complete and voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose") -punishment: under MPC you cannot be convicted of more than one of the inchoate crimes (attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy). grading: equal grade as most serious target offense attempted, except 1st degree felonies target crimes will be 2nd degree inchoate convictions.

Common Law Self Defense Retreat Requirement

-Courts split on whether you have to retreat before using deadly force -exception: castle doctrine, you dont have to retreat in your own home -CL split on whether you have to retreat from someone who also lives there

Attempt (Common Law)

-Focuses on how CLOSE the actor is to completion of target offense -actus reus: an act in furtherance of commission that is more than MERE PREPARATION -approaches: last act, physical proximity, dangerous prximity/holmes test, res ipsa loquitur. -mens rea: **specific intent to commit the target crime. specific intent towards the result! even if the target offense is a general intent crime, you must have specific intent to commit the target offense. -punishment: typically attempt is treated as a lesser offense. 1/2 as severely. -merger: attempt merges into the target offense if the target offense is committed

Rape (Common Law)

-Forcible rape: requires proof of no consent + resistance + force. force is force likely to cause serious injury or death, or if there was moderate force the woman must show that she physically resisted. -actus reus: some form of physical touching, or sexual intercourse in modern terms. -rule: rape if committed 1) forcibly 2) certain forms of deception 3) female is asleep or unconscious 4) female cannot give consent (age, drugged) -most states no longer have a resistance requirement, or softened it to where verbal resistance is sufficient -threats of force is enough to be force, extrinsic force is anything beyond that which is normal or a part of sex, intrinsic force is the act of sex itself being enough to constitute force. -consent can be withdrawn before intercourse. traditional rule was that you could not withdraw consent after penetration started.

Insanity (MPC)

-Person is not responsible for conduct if at the time as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law (this includes both cognitive and volitional) -evidence that def suffered from mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the def did or did not have a state of mind which is an element of the offense -->can be used to disprove recklessness, but not crimes requiring negligence.

Felony Murder Rule Accomplice Liability C.L.

-actors are responsible for deaths that occur during the commission of the felony, but natural and probable consequences doctrine limits the reach of the doctrine -**an accomplice cannot be convicted for 1st degree murder under natural and probable consequences doctrine, but you can be convicted for 2nd degree

Conspiracy (Common Law)

-actus reus: agreement to commit unlawful acts. some jurisdictions require overt act, some require agreement only. -mens rea: specific intent: 1) to make an agreement and 2) intent that crimes agreed to will be committed ***knowing facilitation is enough: knowledge + some evidence that he intends to participate, has a special interest in the crime, or aggravated nature of the crime itself. *BILATERAL: both parties must agree honestly for the agreement to have been made. *most cases you will be guilty of conspiracy AND guilty of the actual crime as well. defenses: -no abandonment defense but you can remove yourself from future conspiracy crimes. -whartons rule: 2 people cannot be liable for conspiracy for something that requires two people (drug deal). -legislative exemption rule: a person cannot be convicted of conspiracy crimes where the statute is supposed to protect the person (statutory rape cases). -rejects impossibility defense. *merge? unlike attempt and target crime, you CAN be charged with conspiracy + attempt/completed crime

Negligent homicide (MPC)

-equivalent to involuntary manslaughter under CL for gross negligence -must be more than ordinary civil negligence

Mens rea rape (common law)

-general intent crime, def need not possess the specific intent to have nonconsensual sex. -mistake: some courts say not guilty of rape if he entertained a genuine and reasonable belief that the female had consented. some courts say this is NOT a defense and there is strict liability.

Battered Women Syndrome Common Law

-imminent requirement: woman may think it is necessary to use deadly force to repel threats of future harm bc she is unable to remove herself from zone of danger -women tried to introduce evidence of bws to show she reasonably and subjectively believed the threat was imminent, courts largely reject this.

Fraud and coercion in rape (common law)

-may negate consent or prove force -distinguish between threats (taking something away that you have a right to) and offers (improving a situation if you do what they ask) -fraud in inducement: not considered rape at common law bc either way the women consented to the act of sex (lying about who you are and then yeah)

Defense of Property Common Law

-non deadly: justified is person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent the imminent, unlawful dispossession of property. *CANT recover in hot pursuit -deadly: not permitted in defense of property unless the person has also threatened to use deadly force against you personally

Murder (Common Law)

-the killing of a human being with malice aforethought -to establish malice aforethought: 1) actor intended to kill 2) actor intended to inflict grievous bodily harm or knew that such harm would result 3) depraved heart murder 4) felony murder rule -degrees: originally had no degrees, just divided murder and manslaughter to determine death penalty.

Defense of Property MPC

-you can use necessary, non-deadly force to retain rightful possession of personal or real property -CAN reclaim after hot pursuit deadly: -you can use deadly force if they are trying to dispossess you of your home -you/cops can use deadly force if the person is attempting to commit arson, burglary, robbery, felonious theft or property destruction AND the person has used or threatened deadly force // using other than deadly force would be too dangerous

Self Defense Retreat Requirement MPC

-you cant use deadly force if you could safely retreat instead -you dont have to retreat from home or place of work -you DO have to retreat from home or work if you were the initial aggressor or you are attacked by a co-worker in a place of work -co-dwellers do NOT have to retreat from their home

Manslaughter (Common Law)

1) VOLUNTARY manslaughter: where the actor intended to kill, but did so in a sudden heat of passion that was adequately provoked! ** provocation: 1) adequate provocation: must lead a reasonable guy to lose his cool 2) no reasonable amount of cooling time to where the moment should have passed --most courts say mere words are not enough. --misdirected retaliation rule: you also cant kill some random person because bob provoked you, only applies if you killed bob (the person WHO provoked you). 3) causal link 2) INVOLUNTARY manslaughter: either actor engaged in reckless or negligent behavior that was greater than ordinary civil negligence but insufficient to constitute murder OR deaths that occur while actor is engaged in a crime not amounting to a felony.

Intoxication (MPC)

1) Voluntary *evidence admissible when it is relevant *not used to negate a voluntary act -useful where the intoxication negates a specific element of the crime -**exception: crimes of recklessness/negligence. a voluntarily intoxicated person cannot negate proof of this by saying that if sober he would have been aware of the risk. 2) Involuntary -if intoxication causes actor to suffer from a mental condition comparable to insanity, then it is a defense.

Intoxication (Common Law)

1) Voluntary *not used to negate a voluntary act (i would not have done it if I was sober) *evidence admissible in some jurisdictions -specific intent crimes: intoxication can be used if AT THE TIME he was incapable of forming the required mens rea for the crime -general intent crimes: not a defense. standard for negligence is not the "reasonable intoxicated person." 2) Involuntary -specific intent: full acquittal -general intent: little case law, but since intoxication was nonculpable in nature, likely would be acquitted

Common Law Defenses to Attempt Crimes

1) legal impossibility: pure- def believes he is committing a crime, but the actions actually are not illegal. def is performing a lawful act with a guilty conscience and this IS a defense. hybrid- actors goal is illegal, but attendant circumstances are different than he thinks they are so conduct not actually illegal (tries to bribe a juror, who actually is not a juror). (some jurisdictions moving away from allowing this defense bc closer to a mistake of fact). 2) factual impossibility: NO DEFENSE. def tried but could not actually complete the crime because the facts were not as he believed them to be (trying to steal from empty pockets is still a crime, shooting into an empty bed where someone normally sleeps is still a crime so NO DEFENSE) 3) abandonment: NOT a defense unless the actor voluntarily and completely renounces the criminal purpose on his own with no outside force to scare him or slow him down.

MPC Defenses to Attempt Crimes

1) pure/true legal impossibility = DEFENSE. 2) hybrid legal impossibility = NO DEFENSE. 3) factual impossibility = NO defense. 4) abandonment: if you renounce your criminal purpose and STOP the crime from occurring. does not count if actor intends to postpone the conduct until it is a better time or he stops because of the victims resistance. 5) Mitigation - Inherent Factual impossibility If the particular conduct charged to constitute a criminal attempt, solicitation or conspiracy is so inherently unlikely to result... that conduct nor the actor presents a danger: (EX: voodoo doctor) --Convict them all; you may reduce grading on some cases/dismiss some (case by case)

Inchoate conduct

1) solicitation 2) conspiracy 3) attempt solicitation is the earliest, attempt is closest to completed offense.

Willful Blindness (common law)

1) suspicious/aware of a high probability 2) deliberately avoids learning the truth *varies by jurisdiction

Degrees of Murder (Common Law)

1st degree: -willful (specific intent to kill), premeditated (think about it beforehand), and deliberate (cool purpose, absence of passion, measure options) -especially heinous: lying in wait or using poison -felony murder rule (homicide that occurs during perpetration of a listed felony - arson, rape, robbery, burglary) *look at evidence of planning activity, motive, and evidence as to the manner of the killing that showed preconceived design to kill (multiple blows not enough to suggest premeditation) 2nd degree: -intentional killings that are not premeditated or deliberate -intent to inflict serious bodily injury -depraved heart murder (reckless indifference to death and the value of human life, not intent to hurt a specific person bur rather indifference to value of life in general NOT some specific life) -deaths that occur during commission of any felony not listed in the first degree section

MPC sexual assault

213.4 lists requirements, p. 1122.

Felony Murder Rule - Killing by a third party C.L.

Agency approach: limits felony murder homicides to those committed by the felon or one of the accomplices, an innocent person/cop is NOT the agent of the def and felony murder rule will NOT apply -if agency, can you infer malice to get someone for the death without felony murder rule? yes, if A initiates a gun fight and 3rd party returns fire killing a bystander this may show a depraved heart on the part of A, intervening act not considered a superseding cause, you can attribute the death to the accomplice B as long as the principals conduct was reasonably foreseeable and principal who had mens rea wasnt the one killed in the gun fight. *this would then be a second degree depraved heart killing accomplice liability* Proximate cause: felon liable for any death (including bystanders) that is the proximate result of the felony, even if the shooter is NOT one of the felons.

Justification - choice of evils (necessity) COMMON LAW

As a result of some natural force, actor must choose between violating a relatively minor offense or suffering substantial harm. Elements: 1) harm is imminent 2) reasonable belief that conduct is necessary and will be effective to avoid harm. 3) harm sought to be avoided is greater than harm of his conduct 4) lawmakers have not already made this conduct lawful 5) must have "clean hands" - he cannot have substantially contributed to the emergency or placed himself in situation where he would have to choose. *some states limit to natural emergencies, not human forces *cannot apply to homicide. *cannot be used for civil disobedience: protests do not abate any danger and there are other legal options. *limits defense to physical harm or property damage

Causation and Murder

Causation must be evaluated for result crimes. -mpc and cl use but for test for actual causation: the result of death at that time would not have occurred but for the defendants conduct. with two defendants, we can hold them both liable because but for their conduct the result would not have happened. common law proximate cause: courts ask whether some other cause intervened in the chain of events, when intervening conduct is out of the ordinary that it no longer seems fair to hold def liable we say there is no proximate cause mpc proximate cause: look at independent intervening cause, or the actual result was not "too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor's liability" - basically is it fair to punish them?

Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine (Accomplice Liability)

Common Law! -Under this doctrine, an accomplice is guilty not only of the intended crime, but also for ANY other offense that was a natural and probable consequence of the crime that was aided and abetted. -if a reasonable person would have seen that the other crimes were a foreseeable consequence of the intended crime (murky murky turkey jerky) **MPC REJECTS THIS! under mpc you have to show they had a purpose to facilitate that other crime

Defenses to accomplice liability

Common Law: -legislative-exemption rule -NO abandonment defense (some allow but) -Self defense (accomplice not guilty if principal found to be justified) -excuses do NOT extend to the accomplice MPC: -legislative-exemption rule -abandonment defense if 1) end assistance, 2) give timely warning to police, or 3) some other way to prevent commission of the crime

1st Aggressor

Common Law: 1st aggressor loses his right to self defense -words dont count as force, but an action can -You can regain right to self defense if you lost it earlier, look chunk by chunk at each point in time. MPC: -does not follow a first aggressor approach -however, you cannot be a first aggressor of deadly force and then claim self defense in response to deadly force that was used against you.

Conduct requirement

Common Law: bodily movement that is voluntary. Not voluntary: physically coerced movement, reflex movements, muscular contractions or paralysis due to disease, unconsciousness/sleep. Must be defs own choice, not motivated or manipulated by others. MPC: conduct which includes a voluntary act. Not voluntary: reflex/convulsion, bodily movement while unconscious or asleep, conduct during hypnosis, or a bodily movement that is otherwise not a pruduct of effort or determination of actor. Voluntary course of conduct can include some involuntary acts and still be considered voluntary.

Requirement that offenses be previously defined

Common Law: no retroactive crimes. Rule of lenity: any ambiguity in a statute should be resolved in the accused person's favor (people must have notice of what is criminal). Vagueness doctrine: statute is unconstitutionally vague if it does not give adequate notice, or allows arbitrary/discriminatory enforcement. Ex Post Facto: you cant interpret a statute in a way that was unforeseeable, you cant criminalize behavior after the fact. MPC: rejects the rule of lenity. statutes should be construed according to legislative intent and "fair import"

Omissions

Common Law: person not guilty for failing to act unless such failure causes harm. Can only be charged if there was an imposed legal duty. duty based on statute, relationship (parent child, spouses), contract (lifeguard), you created the perilous situation, you started aid and must continue. MPC: liability based on omissions not possible unless omission is made sufficient by the law to be a crime, AND there is a duty to perform the act imposed by law.

Cops and Force

Common law: at early common law, cops could use deadly force to arrest citizens for felonies, but there was strict liability if they were wrong. MPC: -a cop can use non deadly force to make an arrest or to prevent a suspects escape (must make known purpose of arrest, must be necessary, other person understands the purpose of the arrest) -a cop can use deadly force if he is arresting for an offense that includes harm/serious injury, OR delaying the arrest would lead to others being seriously harmed/killed. -cannot use deadly force to prevent a suicide unless that suicidal person is at risk of harming someone else -can use deadly force to suppress a riot after rioters have been ordered to disperse and warned of deadly force. -you can use deadly force to prevent the commission of a crime if that crime will cause death/serious injury to others and the use of deadly force will NOT harm innocent bystanders.

Innocent Instrumentalities and Accomplice Liability

Common law: people who are the innocent instrumentality are NOT guilty of the offense bc they do not have the required specific intent. person is considered the principal if they dupe or coerce an innocent person to perform the acts. MPC: a person can be guilty of an offense as accomplice if acting with the requisite mens rea, she CAUSES an innocent person to commit the crime (tracks CL)

Interpreting a statute at common law

Default standard: negligence. Even if no mens rea language, generally accepted that mens rea is necessary for any crime. Look at placement of mens rea terms. For attendant circumstances: specific intent does not usually apply

Attempt (MPC)

Focuses on how FAR the defendant's conduct has gone. -actus reus: substantial step must be strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose. --things that may be sufficient: lying in wait/searching/following the victim, enticing a victim to scene of crime, exploring crime scene, unlawful entry of a structure where crime will happen, possession/collection of materials for crime, soliciting someone else. *cops allowed to intervene much earlier than CL -mens rea: purposely engages in the conduct --for a result crime: does NOT require purpose with respect to results. *purpose or belief is sufficient with respect to the result* (sometimes this is a higher mens rea requirement than actual crime) -specific intent not required for ALL elements of the crime, for attendant circumstances actor need only be as culpable as target offense (ex: recklessly disregarding a girls age = statutory rape, strict liability about age so you dont have to have the purpose to engage with a minor, just the purpose to engage in the contact) -grading: MORE HARSH THAN CL. attempt is an offense of the same grade as the target offense (except felonies of first degree = second degree for attempt). (MPC grades attempted crimes the same as the underlying offense, however, this does not happen with murder, it would be reduced to manslaughter.) -merger: attempt merges into target offense, if the target offense is committed.

Mistake of Law (Common Law)

Ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse. Exceptions: 1) def makes a mistake of NON-CRIMINAL law that is relevant to the criminality of his conduct (only works for specific intent crimes, NOT a defense for general intent crimes) 2) reasonable reliance on a statement of the law by the government that turns out to be incorrect. (does not apply to incorrect statements of law by attornies) 3) entrapment 4) Lambert exception?

Mistake of Law (MPC)

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Exceptions: 1) mistake of different non-criminal law. 2) reasonable reliance doctrine: relies on official statement of the law that is erroneous and is found in a statute, or other official interpretation of the law 3) statute was not known to def and was not published or otherwise made available before crime was committed 4) entrapment

The criminal mind - Common Law

Intentionally: courts split on whether intention means purpose or knowing Knowingly: aware of the fact, correctly believes it exists, --willful blindness - suspects that it exists and doesnt want to learn more info Recklessness: subjective and internal standard, he must be conscious of what he is doing Negligence: objective and external standard, what a reasonable person would do.

Self Defense MPC

Justified in using force if he believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the exercise of unlawful force by another individual *on the present occasion* --unlawful force: force including confinement. any contact that would be a tort, even from a child - can be called an innocent aggressor bc no mens rea. Elements: -"immediately necessary...on the present occasion" - authorizes self protective force sooner than may be allowed at common law -subjective belief requirement ONLY Deadly Force: -justified when immediately necessary to protect himself on the present occasion against death, serious bodily injury, forcible rape, kidnapping. --deadly force: pointing a gun is not deadly force, but firing it at them is. threats not good enough, actions are. -if def is negligent or reckless in regard to facts relating to justifiability of his conduct, he has no defense for a crime that has recklessness or negligence as the mens rea.

Self Defense Common Law

Justified in using force if he reasonably believes it is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by the other person Elements: -must be necessary and threat imminent -cant use excessive force for whatever force was used on you -reasonable belief rule: def subjectively believed he needed to use force AND belief must be one that a reasonable person in the exact same situation would have had. Deadly Force: --ONLY necessary if actor reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful use of deadly force by the aggressor.

Insanity (Common Law)

M'Naghten Test: (cognitive) 1) he did not know the nature and quality of what he was doing 2) if he did know it, then he did not know what he was doing was wrong *does illegality or moral wrongness matter? some courts say that if you know it is illegal, you have no defense unless you thought GOD told you to do it. Some states combine the M'Naghten test with an irresistible impulse test (volitional): she lost the power to choose between right and wrong and free will was destroyed, knew what you were doing but just couldnt help yourself. Most states sole criterion is whether the def was unable to know or appreciate the nature or wrongfulness of the conduct. -evidence about mental defect is relevant, reliable, and admissable to rebut proof of the defs culpable mens rea. (even if the def isnt actually seeking an insanity plea) -->some states will exclude this evidence unless it is offered in support of an insanity plea

Willful Blindness (MPC)

MPC does not have an actual willful blindness section. just discusses what knowing means. 2.027 knowledge = aware of a high probability

Battered Womens Syndrome MPC

May have defense for battered woman under MPC if she believes that she will be harmed on the present occasion.

SYG Laws

No retreat requirement anywhere. -sends a positive utilitarian message to criminals that they threaten innocent people at their own risk. -retreat jurisdiction: based on the principle that ALL human life should be preserved even if they are the aggressors.

Is there a felony murder rule under MPC?

Nope. abandoned. -murder CAN be presumed if actor is engaged or is an accomplice in attempt to commit or flee from committing robbery, rape, deviate sexual intercourse by threat of force or force, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape. -a jury can but does not have to infer extreme recklessness from the commission of the crime.

The criminal mind - MPC

Person not guilty unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. Purpose: it is his conscious object to engage in conduct or to cause the result. he is aware of the attendant circumstances or believes or hopes they exist. Knowing: he is aware that the result is practically certain based on his conduct. he is aware of the attendant circumstances. knowledge requirement: knowledge of a high probability. Recklessly: consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. risk must be a gross deviation from what is reasonable. Negligently: def should be aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk, based on reasonable person.

Rape (MPC)

Rape is when someone has sex with a female: 1) that is less than 10 years old 2) female is unconscious 3) he compels female to submit by force or by threatening her or another person with imminent death, harm, or kidnapping 4) employs drugs or intoxicants in a manner that substantially impairs a female -sexual intercourse includes all penetrations -mpc has no resistance requirement ~extrinsic force = rape, 2nd degree felony ~intrinsic force = sexual intercourse by coercion, felony 3rd degree

Types of intent (Common law crimes)

Specific: intentionally commits an act and intends to cause a certain result. usually includes mens rea language. (larceny, intent to permanently deprive someone of their personal property) General: all crimes that are not specific intent, sometimes no mens rea language.

Felony Murder Rule (Common Law)

Traditional rule was one of strict liability: a person who commits any felony and all accomplices in that felony are guilty of murder if a death occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony *A co felons death may not invoke the felony murder rule - you can infer malice independently, but this eases the prosecutors burden of proving malice Limitations: 1)felony must be inherently dangerous (look at predicate felony in the abstract, if it cannot be committed without substantial risk that someone will be killed it is dangerous) 2) death is a natural and probable result of the felony 3) felony is entirely independent of the homicide (it does not merge with the crime) (ex assault merges with homicide bc it is completed on the way to a homicide, NOT independent of the homicide) (precludes manslaughter as being used for the rule) (ex shooting at a house does NOT merge with the homicide bc he had separate felonious intent when doing it - hansen) 4) killing must be done in close proximity to the felony crime, as "one continuous transaction"

Gross Sexual imposition (MPC)

a male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife commits a felony if: -compels her to submit by threat that would prevent resistance -knows she suffers from mental disorder and cannot appraise the nature of the situation -knows she is unaware that a sexual act is being committed or submits because mistakenly believes it is her husband

private citizens and force for arrests/helping law enforcement

common law: -deadly force by private citizens only for felonies: must be an atrocious felony, arresting party gives notice of intention to arrest, arresting party MUST be correct. -private persons may use deadly force to prevent a felony crime MPC: -deadly force may never be used by a private citizen acting alone to make an arrest, he MUST be assisting a cop. -private citizens can use deadly force to prevent someone from harming other people if the force will not harm innocent bystanders -private citizens can use force to suppress a riot after they have been told to disperse and warned of the use of force

Sexual intercourse by coercion

covers threats to accuse anyone of a criminal offense or a failure to comply with immigration regulations, to expose info imparing credit or business reputation of someone, to take or hold action in any official capacity, to inflict substantial economic harm.

Interpreting a statute MPC

default position is recklessness (if we see no mens rea language) *unless otherwise specified, the specific mens rea language applies to all elements of the offense.* ---see example from prac. test: hard to tell whether someone will be guilty under a statute without mens rea language bc someone might believe a fact but still be reckless. could go either way. answer unclear. ***if lower mental state is sufficient for the crime, any higher mental state will also be sufficient.

Justification - choice of evils (necessity) MPC

if circumstances require a choice among evils, actor is justified if he chooses the least harmful option. Elements: -REJECTS requirement that harm be imminent -believes that his conduct is necessary to avoid harm to himself or another -harm sought to be avoided by his conduct is greater than harm sought to be avoided by the law -no legislative intent to exclude the conduct -REJECTS the clean hands requirement: instead, defense is unavailable if actor is prosecuted for a crime of recklessness or negligence and he acted recklessly/negligently in bringing the emergency about or in evaluating the necessity of his conduct. *not limited to natural forces. *can apply to homicide cases *not limited to physical harm

Mistake of Fact MPC

it is a defense if: 1) mistake negates the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to establish an element of the offense 2) law provides that state of mind established by mistake constitutes a defense *must negate mens rea. MPC doesnt differentiate between specific and general intent crimes, but for more general intenty crimes defense must show that the individual was not reckless. *will reduce the grade of the offense if you made a mistake about how severe the crime was that youre committing

Manslaughter (MPC)

killing that is: 1) committed recklessly (negligence NOT sufficient like with CL) 2) committed under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance (reasonableness of such an emotional reaction is determined from the viewpoint of someone in the actors personal position, incorporate relevant characteristics) -where the is evidence of extreme emotional disturbance the trier of fact will evaluate the actor's conduct and determine whether it was reasonable. is the loss of control somewhat understandable? -words not enough, but actually mpc does not expressly exclude words alone. -NO misdirected retaliation rule -the suddenness requirement is absent -adequate provocation will reduce murder to manslaughter on provocation: mpc has less strict categories of what can count, allowed to subjectivize the reasonable person standard, but mpc is vague about what factors you are allowed to consider.

Possession

mens rea: knowledge of possession, not knowledge that the possessed item is illegal to have. Common Law: it is a status between act and omission. Def must be conscious of the presence of the forbidden item, knew what the item was, and had physical control over item or intention to control. MPC: guilty if knowingly procured or received the thing or was aware of his control of it for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate possession.

General vs Specific intent crimes and intoxication

more likely that general intent is not negated by intoxication which limits the use of it as a defense. *general intent crime usually lurking beneath the surface of specific intent crimes: assault on a police officer and simple assault.

Strict liability MPC

no conviction unless prosecution proves some form of culpability regarding each element of the crime. exception: minor offenses called "violations" that carry only fines or other penalties can be convicted on strict liability grounds. --if there is any jail time: minimum standard is recklessness.

Duress Common Law (excuse/justification)

the law takes into account external constraints on a person's capacity to comply with the law. -defense for people who do things that are considered voluntary but only bc of threats -involves human based threats Elements to be acquitted: -another person threatened the actor or a third party, some courts require it be a close relative some dont -coercer threatens to cause death or bodily harm -threat comes from another human -actor reasonably believes the threat is genuine -threat was imminent* -no other reasonable alternative *CANT use for homicide, few states recognize an imperfect duress defense and drops offense to manslaughter.

Strict Liability Common Law

when crime includes no mens rea language: --strict liability should NOT be implied from an absence of mens rea language whenever a felony is involved (punishable by more than 1 year) usually applies to public welfare offenses that endanger public health and safety: involves malum prohibitum conduct that is wrongful because it is prohibited. also applies to cases where an independent moral wrong would have been committed had the facts been as the def thought they were.