Crim Law Chart

8/8/2019 Crim Law Chart

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim-law-chart 1/12

I. BASIC DEFINITION: Act + Mental State + Result = Crime – Defenses

II. ACTUS REUS: a voluntary act, omissions do not usually count.

A. VOLUNTARY ACT

COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

Requires a voluntary and a social

harm An act is voluntar y if ∆ willed the

action or if she was sufficiently free that she

could be blamed for her conduct. The social

harm is the wrong caused by ∆ 's voluntary

act.

No person may be convicted of a crime

in the absence of conduct that includes

of which he is physically capable. He

has to be physically capable.

B. EXCEPTIONS

1. OMISSIONSCOMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

No crime unless there is a legal duty to act

Types:Statute- you have duty to file an income taxContract- like a lifeguardSpecial Relationship

Assumption of Care

Peril wrongfully created for another

Same as CL criminal liability imposed

for the omission of an act which ∆ is

physically capable.

None

NOTES

Not obtaining reasonably

available help can make ∆

liable, no matter what ∆ ’s

physical capabilities.

2. INVOLUNTARY ACTCOMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

Can negate the action or serve as an

affirmative defense. Done in a state of

unconsciousness

Involuntary acts: reflex, convulsion,

movements during sleep, movements

under or the result of hypnosis, and

unconscious movements.

MPC extends CL such that acts

done under hypnosis and in

states of unconsciousness are

"no action."

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

A. TYPESCOMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

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 asubstantial 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.

Purpose - conscious object with

conduct & results. Must be aware of the

existence or believe or hope that such

circumstances do existKnowledge – Conscience awareness

that results are practically certain tooccur 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

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 knowledgeof 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 onMens Rea, recklessness is

required.



Knowledge = indifference to a certain

outcome 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 probabilityCL - Only have to be aware of

probable existence of element

B. ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCESCOMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

? 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

Knowledge - Aware that his conduct is

of that nature or that such

circumstances exist: only requires high

probability of existence.

Reckless: Conscience disregard of

substantial and unjustified risk

Negligence - Should be aware of

substantial or unjustified risk

C. SPECIFIC INTENT/GENERAL INTENT


Applies to mens rea. Defined by the crime

General Intent – volitional doing of a

prohibited act. Only require intent to commit

the act constituting the crime. Can infer allmens rea from observing the conduct.

Specific Intent – intent to do some further act

or cause some additional consequence beyond

that which must have been committed or

cause in order to complete the crime. Acts in

addition to general intent. Proof of specific

intent is required , but it may becircumstantial.

To negate specific intent, a mistake must be

honest.

To negate a general intent, the mistake must

be honest and reasonable.

MPC does not distinguish between

general and specific intent.

This is exclusively a CL issue.

General intent – ∆ desired to

commit an actus reus;

Special intent – ∆ desired to bring about something further

An alternative definition

Specific - intent to do conduct

and a further intent.

General - intent to do the

conduct.



D. STRICT LIABILITY - Where there is no mental state required for an offense


Public welfare and traditional crimes. Created

by statute

Under MPC, SL crimes are generally

restricted to violations and are

punishable by fines, not incarceration -

public welfare crimes;

MPC is generally the same as

CL.

IV. RESULT

A. CAUSE IN FACT - Causation is only required for result crimes.


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 only requires actual causation and

uses the same but-for test as CL.

Cause in fact

MPC only requires actual

causation.

B. PROXIMATE CAUSECOMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

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 D’s 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).

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.

If the result deviates too far from what

is foreseeable, then one will be

exculpated for purpose and knowledge

crimes. If not, then∆

will beconvicted even if there is an

intervening actor.

For risky crimes, the result must have

been foreseeable in order to convict

For MPC, proximate causation

is handled within mens rea.

Purp/Know: Causation not

established if result was notwhat was intended, unless:

1. Π just a different person

(Transferred Intent)

2. Injury less than intended

Reck/Neg: Causation notestablished if result not within

risk the actor was or should

have been aware of, unless:

1. Π just a different person

(Transferred Intent)

2. Injury less than risked

Exceptions to forseeability:

Take the Victim as you find him

- Condition unforeseeable, but

∆ still liable

Transferred intent - Result

unforeseeable but ∆ still liable

Voluntary intervening act -

Result foreseeable but ∆ not

held liable.



C. COMPLICITY

1. ACCOMPLICE - An accomplice is one who intentionally assists another person to engage in conduct that constitutes the

offense


Types

Principal in the 1st degree – Actually engage

in the act or omission that constitutes thecriminal offencePrincipal 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 principal’s

completion of the offense

Actus reusAbetting or inciting - The ∆ must havedirectly 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 doesn’t’ have to be aware of the of

the accessory’s 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

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

Generally, this second element can be inferredfrom the first.Accomplice is liable for all crimes that are a

reasonably foreseeable result of the

contemplated crime. Some jurisdictions allow

∆ 's to be accomplices to reckless or negligent

crimes.

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 withrequisite 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 theresult. This is how MPC deals with

accomplice liability in reckless or

negligent contexts.

MPC - no actual assistance for

accomplice liability is

necessary. Agreement to aid isenough.

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 accountablefor 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 alegislative 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 thereis sufficiently substantial benefi

to the knowing facilitator.



a. DEFENSES


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

Withdrawal

Wholly depriving his prior assistance

of effectiveness,

Provide a timely warning of the plan to

law enforcementMake an effort to prevent the

commission of the offence

V. CRIME

A. INCHOATE

1. ATTEMPT - an act done with the intention of committing a crime, that falls short of completing a crime


Mens Rea -

For the Attempt - Specific intent to commit

the acts or cause the resulting target crime.

For the Target crime - Intent necessary for thetarget 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

Probable desistance - Likelihood that ∆

would cease efforts to commit the crime given

the conduct ∆ has already committed.

Unequivocal (res ipsa loquitur) – An act

amounts to attempt only if it firmly shows the∆ ’s intent to commit the crime. The act“speaks for itself”

Last Proximate Act - test has been universally

rejected, is traditional common law

Attempt is a misdemeanor .

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.

However, here too, the mens rea for

attempt is often higher than the one

required for the target offense.

Generally, the required mens rea is

purpose.

Actus Reus

∆ must perform a substantial steptoward committing the crime.

∆ ’s conduct must be corroborative of

∆ 's purpose.

.Attempt is a felony.

Under MPC, ∆ may still be

held for the attempt even if the

target offense is neither

committed nor attempted by ∆

or anyone else.

CL - no definitive Actus Reus

test

MPC - does not use general vs.

specific intent language.

Most states no attempt for

Felony Murder



a. DEFENSES


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.

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

MPC – Only “true” legal

impossibility is a defense

∆ ’s conduct is an attempt if it

was only prevented by ∆ 'smistake of fact.

2. CONSPIRACYCOMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

Actus Reus

agreement to commit a criminal act or series

of acts, or to accomplish a legal act by

unlawful means.Object of Agreement - need only be unlawful /

wrongful.

Nature of the Agreement - need not be written

or even express. Can be implied from the

action of the actors

Act Doctrine - no further act is necessary in

most jurisdictions.Merger - does not merge into an attempt or thecompleted offense.

Mens Rea

Specific intent crime with 2 parts:

intent to agree

intent to carry out the object crime.

Some courts allow conviction if the second

mens rea (as to object crime) is merely

knowledge.

Attendant Circumstances - court has held that

mens rea here is the same as for the

substantive crime, even if it is strict liability.

Number of Parties Needed - two or more withthe requisite mens rea (multilateral theory).

Punishment - some jurisdictions treat all

Actus Reus

Agreement to commit a crime; attempt

to commit a crime; solicit another to

commit an offense; aid another in planning or commission of an offense.

Object of Agreement - must be a

criminal act.

Nature of Agreement - ?

Act Doctrine - No overt act is required

for serious (1st or 2nd degree) felonies,

but required for all other offences.Merger - merges unless there arefurther conspiratorial crimes to be

carried out.

Mens Rea

purpose to promote or facilitate the

object crime.

Mere knowledge is not usually enough,

but can be when combined with a stake

in the success of the object crime.

Attendant Circumstances - Code is

silent here, expressly leaving this to the

court to decide.

Number of Parties Needed - one with

the requisite mens rea (unilateraltheory).

Punishment - punishment is the same

MPC - knowledge is not

enough. CL - knowledge may

be enough.

MPC does not speak onattendant circumstances.

Object of agreement must be

criminal under MPC vs.

unlawful / wrongful in CL

MPC is unilateral.

CL lets ∆ off if state cannot prove that there was another

person with the requisite mens

rea.

Overt act requirements differ.

MPCe merges and CL does not.

MPC has heavier punishments.

MPC rejects the Pinkerton

Doctrine.

CL Attendant Circumstances is

counter-intuitive because how

can you agree to do something

of which you are not aware.

CL - In jurisdictions that do not

accept Pinkerton, you can be a

conspirator and not an



conspiracies as misdemeanors, usually graded

in relation to the target offense.

Pinkerton Test - all members of a conspiracy

can be held as accomplices of the crime and of

any foreseeable result of it. Liability holds

even if the co-conspirator did not assist the perpetrator.

for conspiracy as for the object crime in

all cases but 1st degree felonies.

Pinkerton Doctrine is rejected - if the

conspiracy goes beyond the intended

purpose, one is not guilty of any

foreseeable crime unless he can be saidto have aided and abetted in its

commission.

accomplice.

Hearsay evidence may be

brought in to prove the

conspiracy, but not the

substantive offense.

a. DEFENSES


No factual Impossibility

No legal impossibility

Abandonment

once the offense is completed (once there is

agreement) abandonment is not a defense.

Can relieve liability for future crime of former conspirators.

No factual impossibility

No legal impossibility

Abandonment

if the conspirator renounces his

criminal purpose and thwarts the

success of the conspiracy under circumstances demonstrating a

complete an voluntary renunciation of

criminal intent.

B. HOMICIDE

1. MURDER - unlawful killing of a human being


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

intention to inflict serious bodily harm (great

bodily injury)

Gross recklessness (malignant heart)- Acts in

the face of an unusually high risk that conductwill cause death of serious bodily harm.

Under certain exceptional circumstances.

Felony murder - during the commission or

attempted commission of a felony in which

death results.

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.

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

first degree includes certain

enumerated types of homicide

(lying in wait; by poison, etc.);

or a willful, deliberate, and

premeditated (WDP) killing; or

felony murder (enumerated

felonies include arson, rape,

robbery, or burglary).

All other forms are 2nd degreemurder. "malignant heart" is

usually 2nd degree



a. PROVOCATION - mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter


Must be committed in sudden heat of passion

under adequate provocationHeat of passion

Adequate provocation:

Aggravated assault or batteryMutual combat

Serious crime against close relative

Illegal arrest

Observation of infidelityNo cooling off period

Causal link between provocation, passion

and homicide

Extreme Mental or Emotional

Disturbance - Homicide committed

under the influence of extreme mental

or emotional disturbance for which

there is reasonable explanation or excuse.

MPC equivalent of provocation

MPC requires that ∆ be aware

of the risk being taken

(recklessness). MPC’s 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 timerequirement and HoP does.

b. FELONY MURDER


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. BARRK

Merger Rule – Upper bound for acceptable

felonies. Felony must be independent fromthe 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.

The central issue is the foreseeable risk of death. In most jurisdictions, no felony M if

the person who commits the homicide is a

non-felon who is resisting the felony.

A few states apply a proximate causation test

which holds a felon responsible for the killing

by a non-felon if the felon proximately caused

the death / set in motion the events that lead to

the death.

Suicide Exception - if the co-felon shoots

himself, it is not homicide at all, but a suicide

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 thatdoes 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.

Code does not have an express

felony M rule.

If the felony is one of theenumerated felonies (arson,

burglary, robbery, or rape), then

this M is 1st degree. If not, then

it is 2nd degree.



2. MANSLAUGHTER COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

Voluntary MS – homicide without malice

aforethought

"Heat of passion" - Intentional killing

committed in response to legally adequate provocation

Imperfect justification – A killing that is the

result of an act, lawful in itself, but done in an

unlawful manner.

Involuntary MS – unintended killing

Criminal Negligence – Killing resulting from

gross negligence. (This would include MPCrecklessness as well)

Unlawful Act “Misdemeanor manslaughter” -

an unintentional killing that occurs during the

commission of an unlawful act. Includes

malum in se (wrong in itself) felonies and

misdemeanors.

Reckless - unlike reckless M, here the

conduct, although reckless, does not

manifest an extreme indifference to the

value of human life

Extreme Mental or Emotional

Disturbance (EMED)

3. NEGLIGENT HOMICIDECOMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

None A criminally negligent killing 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 DEFENSECOMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

∆ if not the aggressor is justified in using

force if

∆ reasonably believes it is necessary to

defend ∆ ’s person

∆ must be threatened with a physical harm

∆ reasonably believed the threatened harm is

unlawful

The force used must be proportional.

Deadly force must additionally showreasonable belief ∆ is imminently facing

deadly force.

∆ had no opportunity to retreat (Old common

law standard)

∆ may always use non-deadly force to protect

oneself against an unlawful aggressor.

When ∆ is the aggressor, he loses his right to

∆ if not the aggressor is justified in

using (deadly) force if

∆ honestly believes such force is

immediately necessary to protect ∆ ’s

person

harm is unlawful

Deadly force is justified if one faces a

threat of death, GBH, forcible rape, or kidnapping. A threat without that

purpose is not deadly force, even if a

weapon backs up the threat.

If ∆ know/realizes he can be

completely safe by retreating ∆ must

if ∆ unlawfully starts a non-lethal

conflict, he does not lose his privilegeof self-defense if V escalates it into a

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 withthe 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 causedeath or GBH is not deadly



use force. ∆ may purge himself of his status

as the aggressor and regain his right to self-

defense by removing himself from the fray

and successfully communicating that fact.

If ∆ , as the aggressor uses non-deadly force,

and victim responds with deadly force, ∆may immediately regain his right to self-defense.

∆ does not have to retreat within ∆ 's own

dwelling even if one could do so in complete

safety.

lethal assault.

Retreat is required within one's home or

office if the actor was the initial

aggressor and he wishes to regain his

right to self-defense or even if he was

not the aggressor

∆no duty to retreat from home, evenfrom a co-dweller.

force even if it was the ∆ 's

purpose to kill.

MPC does not include the non-

deadly aggressor

2. NECESSITYCOMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

∆ 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.

∆ 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.

.

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 recklesslyor 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.

B. EXCUSE - wrongful conduct, but under the circumstances, D is not morally culpable or blameworthy

1. DURESSCOMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

∆ 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

threat.

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 unableto resist the coercion.

∆ se is not available if ∆ recklessly

placed herself in the position where she

would likely be subject to coercion.

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 generalapplicability may be used in

murder cases

MPC does not require that an



Duress is not a defense to an intentional

killing. Some states recognize an imperfect

defense whereby murder is reduced to

manslaughter.

If ∆ negligently put herself into such a

position, the ∆ se is available to her for

all cases except those in which

negligence suffices to establish

culpability.

imperiled party be ∆ s relative.

MPC similar to CL in that ∆ se

is limited to threats or use of

unlawful force and does not

apply to coercion by natural

sources.

MPC does not recognize ∆ se

when any interest other than

bodily integrity is threatened.

2. INSANITYCOMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

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 acthe was doing; or

If he did know it, if he did not know that whathe 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 rightand 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 ∆ 'sability to appreciate the nature and quality of

his conduct. Is the current law

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 toAppreciate the

wrongfulness/criminality of ∆ conduct

or

To conform ∆ conduct to the

requirements of the law

MPC incorporates a revised

version of the M'Naghten test +

pure cognitive test.

C. GENERAL

1. MISTAKE

A. OF FACT


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.

Must negate the mental state requiredto establish any element of the offense.

Logical Relevance Test - figure out the

mens rea for each and every element of

the crime.

If granted MoF, will hold∆ for a

lesser offense when were the situation

as he supposed it to be, his conduct

constituted this lesser offense.

∆ steals diamonds believing

they’re glass - MPC petty

larceny; CL grand larceny.∆ steals glass believing it‘s

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 afactual (not legal) manner



MPC/CL - No mistakes get you

off for strict liability.

B. OF LAW


No defense, but exceptions.

Exceptions - mistake must be reasonable and

honest.Collateral Law

Reliance on Official Statement

No reasonable notification/publishing

Specification in Statute that knowledge of law

is req’d.

MPC does not recognize a defense of

mistake of law unless there is express

negationSpecification in Statute that knowledge

of law is req’d.

Collateral Law

Reliance on Official Statement

No reasonable notification/publishing

CL and MPC approaches are

similar. In general, unless

falling into a recognizedexception, ignorance of the law

is no defense.

MPC codifies the CL

reasonable reliance doctrine.

2. IMPOSSIBILITY

A. OF FACT


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. Somecases 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.

Same as common law.

B. OF 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

Same as common law. No Hybrid legal

impossibility. (MPC looks at mens rea)

Crim Law Chart

Documents

Transcript of Crim Law Chart