I. Basic Definition - Act + Mental State + Result = Crime Defenses..................................................................................................- 2 II. Actus Reus - a voluntary act, omissions do not usually count...........................................................................................................- 2 A. Voluntary Act..................................................................................................................................................................................- 2 B. Exceptions......................................................................................................................................................................................- 2 1. Omissions....................................................................................................................................................................................- 2 2. Involuntary AcT..........................................................................................................................................................................- 2 III. Mens Rea - A mental state is required for most crimes. Strict liability and public welfare offences are the exception. To prove an
offense, the prosecution must prove mens rea as to every element of the offense.................................................................................- 2 A. Types..............................................................................................................................................................................................- 2 B. attendant circumstances..................................................................................................................................................................- 3 C. Specific Intent/General Intent........................................................................................................................................................- 3 D. Strict Liability - Where there is no mental state required for an offense.......................................................................................- 3 IV. Result.................................................................................................................................................................................................- 4 A. Cause in fact - Causation is only required for result crimes..........................................................................................................- 4 B. Proximate Cause.............................................................................................................................................................................- 4 C. Complicity......................................................................................................................................................................................- 4 1. Accomplice - An accomplice is one who intentionally assists another person to engage in conduct that constitutes the offense 4V. Crime..................................................................................................................................................................................................- 6 A. Inchoate..........................................................................................................................................................................................- 6 1. Attempt - an act done with the intention of committing a crime, that falls short of completing a crime...................................- 6 2. Conspiracy..................................................................................................................................................................................- 7 B. Homicide........................................................................................................................................................................................- 8 1. Murder - unlawful killing of a human being...............................................................................................................................- 8 2. Manslaughter...............................................................................................................................................................................- 9 3. NEgligent Homicide.................................................................................................................................................................- 10 VI. Defenses..........................................................................................................................................................................................- 10 A. Justification - conduct that is otherwise criminal, but that here is either "right" or "not wrong" under the circumstances........- 10 1. Self Defense..............................................................................................................................................................................- 10 2. Necessity...................................................................................................................................................................................- 11 B. Excuse - wrongful conduct, but under the circumstances, D is not morally culpable or blameworthy.......................................- 11 1. Duress........................................................................................................................................................................................- 11 2. Insanity......................................................................................................................................................................................- 12 C. General.........................................................................................................................................................................................- 12 1. Mistake......................................................................................................................................................................................- 12 2. Impossibility..............................................................................................................................................................................- 13 -
MPC
No person may be convicted of a crime
in the absence of conduct that includes
of which he is physically capable.
DIFFERENCES
B. EXCEPTIONS
1. OMISSIONS
COMMON LAW
No crime unless there is a legal duty to act
Types:
Statute
Contract
Special Relationship
Assumption of Care
Peril wrongfully created for another
MPC
Same as CL criminal liability imposed
for the omission of an act which is
physically capable.
DIFFERENCES
None
MPC
Involuntary acts: reflex, convulsion,
movements during sleep, movements
under or the result of hypnosis, and
unconscious movements.
DIFFERENCES
MPC extends CL such that acts
done under hypnosis and in
states of unconsciousness are
"no action."
NOTES
Not obtaining reasonably
available help can make
liable, no matter what s
physical capabilities.
2. INVOLUNTARY ACT
COMMON LAW
Can negate the action or serve as an
affirmative defense. Done in a state of
unconsciousness
A. TYPES
COMMON LAW
Intentionally (willfully) to consciously
cause the result or when one is virtually
certain that the object will occur as a result of
's conduct.
Recklessness A heightened criminal
negligence or conscious disregard of a
substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Negligence Objective fault should have
been aware that his conduct created a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the
social harm would result.
Maliciously - when one intentionally or
grossly reckless causes the social harm
prohibited by the statute.
MPC
Purpose - conscious object with
conduct & results. Must be aware of the
existence or believe or hope that such
circumstances do exist
Knowledge Conscience awareness
that results are practically certain to
occur
Recklessness - Conscious disregard of
a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Negligence Should have been aware
of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Rule of thumb
Purpose = desire for a certain outcome
DIFFERENCES
MPC splits intentionally into
purpose and knowledge
MPC clear distinction between
negligence and recklessness not on the degree of risk
involved but on D's knowledge
of the risk.
MPC provides that when it is
not clear which element a mens
rea applies to, apply it to all
elements of the offense
Where the statute is silent on
Mens Rea, recklessness is
required.
Willful Blindness
MPC - if one deliberately
avoids knowledge because of
the belief that knowing would
be bad, then satisfies mens rea
of knowledge. Requires high
probability
CL - Only have to be aware of
probable existence of element
B. ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES
COMMON LAW
?
MPC
For a crime requiring a mens rea of:
Purpose - must be aware of the
existence of such circumstances
(attendant), or believes or is aware they
exist
DIFFERENCES
MPC
MPC does not distinguish between
general and specific intent.
DIFFERENCES
This is exclusively a CL issue.
An alternative definition
Specific - intent to do conduct
and a further intent.
General - intent to do the
conduct.
MPC
Under MPC, SL crimes are generally
restricted to violations and are
punishable by fines, not incarceration public welfare crimes;
DIFFERENCES
MPC is generally the same as
CL.
IV. RESULT
A. CAUSE IN FACT - Causation is only required for result crimes.
COMMON LAW
Conduct satisfies the but-for test. Actual
cause exists when the result that constitutes
the criminal offense would not have occurred
when it did but for 's voluntary act (or
omission)
MPC
MPC only requires actual causation and
uses the same but-for test as CL.
Cause in fact
DIFFERENCES
MPC only requires actual
causation.
MPC
MPC handles proximate causation
within the mens rea as to results.
Whether the result was too distant or
accidental in occurrence to have a just
bearing on 's liability or on the gravity
of the offense.
DIFFERENCES
For MPC, proximate causation
is handled within mens rea.
B. PROXIMATE CAUSE
COMMON LAW
Forseeability Test
To determine proximate cause, one must
determine whether the actor was the direct
cause and whether there were any intervening
actors or intervening causes (coincidences)
that severer the causal chain back to
No intervening causes unless the cause is
foreseeable or de minimus.
Intervening Acts - Intervening acts can
sufficiently break the chain of causation;
Dependent intervening acts: occur where
the intervening actor acts because of a
condition brought upon by the Ds prior
conduct. However, if the dependant
intervening actor was grossly negligent, this is
sufficient to break the chain of causation.
Voluntary Intervening Act: occur where the
intervening actor acts voluntarily. Intentional
acts always break the chain of causation;
reckless acts are sometimes sufficient
(depending on court).
C. COMPLICITY
1. ACCOMPLICE - An accomplice is one who intentionally assists another person to engage in conduct that constitutes the
offense
COMMON LAW
Types
Principal in the 1st degree Actually engage
in the act or omission that constitutes the
criminal offence
Principal in the 2nd degree incites or abets
and is present, either actively or constructively
at the time of the crime
Accessory before the fact incites or abets
but is not present at the time of the crime.
Accessory after the fact - intentionally assists
the principal after the crime.
Actus reus, mens rea and principals
completion of the offense
Actus reus
Abetting or inciting - The must have
directly of indirectly encouraged of facilitated
the commission of the offence.
Abetting -is any significant assistance in the
commission of an offense
The aid must impact upon the actual
perpetrator
aid does not have to be necessary for the
successful commission of the offense.
perpetrator doesnt have to be aware of the of
the accessorys assistance.
Inciting encouragement even if not
accompanied by physical aid.
Perpatrator must be aware of encouragement
Being present at crime with prior agreement to
aid is sufficient encouragement
MPC
Types
Principal Acting with the requisite
mens rea, actually engages in the act or
omission that causes the crime, or acts
through an irresponsible or innocent
agent (Innocent Instrumentality) to
commit the offence
Accomplice incites or abets with
requisite intent before or during the
commission of the offense. Includes
solicitation and omission when a duty
is present.
mens rea
Purposefully promotes or facilitates in
the commission of a crime.
Must act with culpability sufficient for
the commission of the offense
Note that this is especially significant
in jurisdictions with felony murder
because it makes an accomplice in the
conduct (underlying felony) strictly
liable for the resulting death because he
had the requisite mens rea as to the
result. This is how MPC deals with
accomplice liability in reckless or
negligent contexts.
Mens rea
Mental state required for commission of the
target offense
Intend for action to assist or encourage in the
successful completion of the crime
DIFFERENCES
MPC - no actual assistance for
accomplice liability is
necessary. Agreement to aid is
enough.
MPC - accomplice can be
convicted even if the perpetrator
has not yet been prosecuted, has
been convicted of a lesser
crime, has been acquitted, or is
feigning.
MPC - does not recognize the
natural and probable
consequences rule for homicide
found in CL. MPC - one who is
legally incapable of committing
an offense may be accountable
for the crime if another person
for whom he is legally
accountable commits it.
MPC - knowing facilitation is
not enough to establish liability.
A victim cannot be an
accomplice.
MPC includes the crime of
attempt to aid and abet.
CL - If the perpetrator is
justified, then there is no
accomplice liability because
there is no crime.
CL- excuses do not transfer
from perpetrator to accomplice
A victim accomplice (underage
girl in statutory rape) cannot be
an accomplice unless there is a
legislative exception.
Knowing or reckless facilitation
is sufficient to establish
complicity in some courts
Substantiality of aid can also
create complicity. Complicity
may also be established if there
is sufficiently substantial benefit
to the knowing facilitator.
a. DEFENSES
COMMON LAW
Withdrawal
Must take place before the events are
unstoppable
Inciter communicate an renunciation of the
crime to the perpetrator
Abettor Must render the assistance gave
ineffective
MPC
Withdrawal
Wholly depriving his prior assistance
of effectiveness,
Provide a timely warning of the plan to
law enforcement
Make an effort to prevent the
commission of the offence
DIFFERENCES
V. CRIME
A. INCHOATE
1. ATTEMPT - an act done with the intention of committing a crime, that falls short of completing a crime
COMMON LAW
Mens Rea For the Attempt - Specific intent to commit
the acts or cause the resulting target crime.
For the Target crime - Intent necessary for the
target crime (specific or general depending of
the offence) For strict liability must only show
intent to attempt, no target crime mens rea
Reckless crimes Courts generally do not try
for attempts of reckless crimes.
Negligent crimes - Attempt to commit is
logically impossible
Actus Reus
Tests
Proximity test conduct must be physically
proximate to the intended crime. Focuses on
what remains to be done.
Indispensable Elements Control over all
factors in the commission of the crime.
Nothing must be left undone
MPC
Mens Rea For the attempt Purposely or
knowingly engages in conduct which
would constitute the crime if the
attendant circumstances were as
believes them to be.
For the Target crime acts with the
kind of culpability otherwise required
for the commission of the offense.
DIFFERENCES
Under MPC, may still be held
for the attempt even if the target
offense is neither committed nor
attempted by or anyone else.
Actus Reus
must perform a substantial step
toward committing the crime.
s conduct must be corroborative of
's purpose.
.Attempt is a felony.
a. DEFENSES
COMMON LAW
mistake of fact
no mistake of law
legal impossibility
no factual impossibility
Abandonment
Traditionally never a se. Abandonment is a
se when it is complete and voluntary. Once
's actions have passed the point of being an
attempt is not generally a se.
MPC
No mistake of fact
No mistake of law
Legal impossibility.
No factual impossibility
No hybrid impossibility
Abandonment:
Is a se only if:
It is fully voluntary and not made
because of the difficulty of completing
the crime or because of an increased
risk of apprehension
It is a complete abandonment of the
plan made under circumstances
manifesting a renunciation of criminal
purpose, not just a postponement
DIFFERENCES
MPC Only true legal
impossibility is a defense
s conduct is an attempt if it
was only prevented by 's
mistake of fact.
2. CONSPIRACY
COMMON LAW
Actus Reus
MPC
Actus Reus
Mens Rea
Mens Rea
DIFFERENCES
MPC - knowledge is not
enough. CL - knowledge may
be enough.
MPC does not speak on
attendant circumstances.
Object of agreement must be
criminal under MPC vs.
unlawful / wrongful in CL
MPC is unilateral.
A. DEFENSES
COMMON LAW
No factual Impossibility
No legal impossibility
MPC
No factual impossibility
No legal impossibility
Abandonment
Abandonment
accomplice.
Hearsay evidence may be
brought in to prove the
conspiracy, but not the
substantive offense.
DIFFERENCES
B. HOMICIDE
1. MURDER - unlawful killing of a human being
COMMON LAW
Homicide with malice aforethought.
Malice Aforethought has four possible states
of mind
intention to kill another human - One may,
but need not, infer the intent to kill from the
use of a deadly weapon
MPC
A killing committed purposely or
knowingly, or gross recklessness.
Premeditation and deliberation are not
required.
Gross recklessness reckless under
circumstances manifesting extreme
indifference to human life.
DIFFERENCES
MPC includes GBH under
recklessness.
MPC's mens rea is equivalent to
CL's intent.
When MPC uses recklessness as
the mens rea, it is similar to
CL's malignant heart killings.
Statutes have been enacted
whick give degrees of to CL
murder
DIFFERENCES
MPC requires that be aware
of the risk being taken
(recklessness). MPCs use of
EMED is a broader form of the
CL provocation defense.
EMED v Heat of Passion
(HoP)
EMED applies to all types of
homicide vs. HoP se only
applies to intentional homicides
EMED words alone may be
adequate vs. HoP where they
are not
EMED has no cooling time
requirement and HoP does.
B. FELONY MURDER
COMMON LAW
One is guilty if she kills another person, even
accidentally, during the commission or
attempted commission of any felony.
Inherently dangerous test The lower bound
for acceptable felonies. The felony must be
inherently dangerous.
Merger Rule Upper bound for acceptable
felonies. Felony must be independent from
the murder. This excludes felonies arising
during the commission of a murder.
The causation limitation requires that the
killing be in furtherance of the felony. The
mere fact that a death occurs during the
commission of a felony will not necessarily
subject the felon to felony M.
MPC
Does not distinguish felony murder, but
MPC raises a presumption of
recklessness and indifference to
human life if the during the
commission or attempt of certain
felonies. However, this is not absolute,
the prosecution must still prove it. The
jury is simply permitted to infer
extreme indifference to human life
from the commission of the felony.
may present evidence that the felony
was committed the in a manner that
does not manifest extreme indifference
to human life. It is up to the jury to
decide. Therefore, gross recklessness
during a felony can be a predicate for
felony M.
DIFFERENCES
Code does not have an express
felony M rule.
If the felony is one of the
enumerated felonies (arson,
burglary, robbery, or rape), then
this M is 1st degree. If not, then
it is 2nd degree.
2. MANSLAUGHTER
COMMON LAW
Voluntary MS homicide without malice
aforethought
"Heat of passion" - Intentional killing
committed in response to legally adequate
provocation
MPC
Reckless - unlike reckless M, here the
conduct, although reckless, does not
manifest an extreme indifference to the
value of human life
DIFFERENCES
3. NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE
COMMON LAW
None
MPC
A criminally negligent killing
DIFFERENCES
Equivalent to involuntary MS
under the Common Law
VI. DEFENSES
A. JUSTIFICATION - conduct that is otherwise criminal, but that here is either "right" or "not wrong" under the circumstances.
1. SELF DEFENSE
COMMON LAW
if not the aggressor is justified in using
force if
MPC
if not the aggressor is justified in
using (deadly) force if
10
DIFFERENCES
MPC looks at the 's subjective
belief, the belief need not be
reasonable.
If 's belief was negligently or
recklessly formed, one can be
liable for reckless or negligent
use of deadly force
MPC replaces imminence with
the phrase "immediately
necessary" so that one may use
force sooner under than CL.
MPC - deadly force is more
broad than CL one who acts
with the purpose causing death
or GBH qualifies
In CL force not likely to cause
death or GBH is not deadly
MPC
is not justified unless not only
reasonably believe that is avoiding
the greater harm, but is actually
avoiding the greater harm.
Balance of evils must be positive.
There is no immediacy requirement a
may not have intentionally caused the
necessity.
may take a life if the balance of evils
is positive. se may apply in homicide
cases
This se applies but not limited to
emergencies created by natural forces,
nor is limited to physical harm to
persons or property.
If 's belief is mistaken, can be held for
crime requiring either negligence or
recklessness.
If negligently or recklessly caused
the necessity, he may be held for crimes
of negligence and recklessness.
DIFFERENCES
MPC requires that 's
reasonable belief actually be
true.
MPC does not have an
immediacy requirement.
MPC if caused it accidentally,
he can still claim necessity
though if he recklessly or
negligently created the
necessity, he may be held for
crimes of recklessness and
negligence.
MPC allows se in cases where
a natural force did not create the
necessity.
2. NECESSITY
COMMON LAW
is justified if he reasonably believes that he
is avoiding the greater evil.
Balance of evils must be positive.
There must not be an alternative.
The harm must be imminent.
may not have created the necessity.
can never take another's life out of
necessity.
se only applies when a natural force created
the necessity.
When the balance of evils is negative, may
be held strictly liable.
B. EXCUSE - wrongful conduct, but under the circumstances, D is not morally culpable or blameworthy
1. DURESS
COMMON LAW
may be excused if
was threatened with death or GBH (or if a
3rd party is so threatened) by another human
reasonably believes that the threat is
genuine
felt that the threat was "present, imminent,
and impending" at the time of the act
felt that the only way to avoid the harm was
to give in to the threat
was not at fault in exposing himself to the
MPC
Duress is an affirmative defense to
unlawful conduct by if
was compelled to commit the offense
by the use or threatened use of force by
the coercer upon her or another
A person of reasonable firmness in 's
situation would (also) have been unable
to resist the coercion.
se is not available if recklessly
placed herself in the position where she
11
DIFFERENCES
MPC abandons the CL
requirements of deadly force
and immanency in favor of
excusing whenever a person
of reasonable firmness would
also have yielded to coercion;
MPC se is one of general
applicability may be used in
murder cases
threat.
Duress is not a defense to an intentional
killing. Some states recognize an imperfect
defense whereby murder is reduced to
manslaughter.
2. INSANITY
COMMON LAW
M'Naghten Rule is insane if, at the time
of the criminal act, he was laboring under
such a defect of reason, arising from a disease
of the mind, that he
Did not know the nature and quality of the act
he was doing; or
If he did know it, if he did not know that what
he was doing was wrong (i.e. he did not know
the difference between right and wrong).
Irresistible impulse test - that states that
was insane if
She acted from an irresistible and
uncontrollable impulse;
She lost the power to choose between right
and wrong and to avoid doing the act in
question, as that her free agency was at the
time destroyed; or
The 's will has been otherwise than
voluntarily so completely destroyed that her
actions are not subject to it, but are beyond her
control.
Pure cognitive test concerned with 's ability
to appreciate the nature and quality of his
conduct. Is the current law
C.
MPC
Substansial capacity- One is not
responsible for her criminal conduct if,
at the time of the act, as a result of a
mental disease or defect:
lacked substantial capacity to
Appreciate the
wrongfulness/criminality of conduct
or
To conform conduct to the
requirements of the law
DIFFERENCES
MPC incorporates a revised
version of the M'Naghten test +
pure cognitive test.
MPC
Must negate the mental state required
to establish any element of the offense.
DIFFERENCES
steals diamonds believing
theyre glass - MPC petty
larceny; CL grand larceny.
steals glass believing its
diamonds, MPC petty
larceny and attempted grand
larceny and CL petty larceny
and attempted grand larceny.
MPC Look at the world
through the s eyes in a factual
GENERAL
1. MISTAKE
A. OF FACT
COMMON LAW
Must negate mens rea of the crime charged. .
not guilty if MoF negates the specific intent
portion of the offense.
For general intent offenses not guilty if MoF
was honest and reasonable. Guilty if MoF
was honest, but unreasonable
Moral Wrong test If granted MoF, will hold
for a higher offense when were the situation
as he supposed it to be, his conduct
constituted this lesser offense.
12
MPC
MPC does not recognize a defense of
mistake of law unless there is express
negation
Specification in Statute that knowledge
of law is reqd.
Collateral Law
Reliance on Official Statement
No reasonable notification/publishing
DIFFERENCES
CL and MPC approaches are
similar. In general, unless
falling into a recognized
exception, ignorance of the law
is no defense.
MPC codifies the CL reasonable
reliance doctrine.
MPC
Same as common law.
DIFFERENCES
MPC
Same as common law. No Hybrid legal
impossibility. (MPC looks at mens rea)
DIFFERENCES
2. IMPOSSIBILITY
A. OF FACT
COMMON LAW
None; that is, the person who tries to shoot
someone with a water gun, thinking it was a
real gun, would not have a defense of factual
impossibility. If the facts were as he believed
them to be the victim would be dead. Some
cases look like factual impossibility but are
not; ex. man attempts to kill victim with
voodoo doll. While this is impossible, it is
inherently impossible, not per se factually
impossible; in the voodoo case the victim
would still be alive if the facts were as he
supposed them.
B. OF LAW
COMMON LAW
Cannot punish for a crime that is not a crime.
Hybrid legal impossibility - Where the actors
goal is illegal but impossible due to a factual
mistake of a legal status of an attendant
circumstance. ie. Man has sex with girl
thinking she is 15 when she is really 18.
Some courts recognize this se
13