Section

Voluntary Act

MPC
No person may be convicted of a crime in the absence of conduct that includes a voluntary or act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable. Involuntary: reflexes, convulsions, conduct during unconsciousness, sleep, or due to hypnosis. -

Common Law
Actus reus: voluntary act that causes social harm. Act: simply a bodily movement, a muscular contraction. Voluntary: movement of the body which follows our volition. Hypnotism: Voluntary acts but excusable. Linked to retributivists respect for human autonomy. Must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Sufficient that Ds conduct included a voluntary act. Martin: Ms conviction had to be overturned b/c the statute required a voluntary appearance on the highway, which did not occur here. Possession: inchoate offense that requires proof that D knowingly procured or received the property possessed or that she failed to dispossess herself. Robinson: cant make illness (addiction) a crime. Powell: statute prohibiting getting drunk in public was upheld. Commission by Omission: omission of a common law duty to act. Status relationship (founded on dependence); implied or express contractual obligation; creation of a risk; voluntary assistance; statutory duty. Vicious will. Intent: it is his desire to cause the social harm OR he acts with knowledge that the social harm is virtually certain to occur as a result of his conduct. Transferred intent is highly debatable. Knowingly: intended the harmful result; is aware of the fact or correctly believes that the fact exists; willful blindness. Willful: intentional; an act done with a bad purpose. Negligence: deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have observed in the actors situation. Look at: gravity of harm, probability of such harm, burden to the D of stopping the risky conduct. Reasonable Person: Ds unusual physical characteristics are incorporated but not unusual mental characteristics. Reckless: disregarded very substantial and unjustifiable risk (of which he was aware). Specific Intent: emphasize that the definition of the offense expressly required proof of a particular mental state. General Intent: any offense for which the only mens rea required was a blameworthy state of mind.

Omissions Mens Rea

Mistake of Fact Mistake of Law Actual Cause Proximate Cause SelfDefense

The omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable. Liable if: law defining the offense provides for it OR if the duty to act is otherwise imposed by law. Not convicted of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently with respect to each material element of the offense. Distinction between general and specific intent disregarded. Purposely: conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. For attendant circumstances, acts purposely if aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist. Knowingly: aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result. For attendant circumstances, acts knowingly if aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such attendant circumstances exist. Recklessly if he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material risk will result from his conduct. Negligent if he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. Objective: Reasonable person in the actors situation. Reckless is default if nothing else is given. A mistake is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any element of offense. Exceptions: if the actor would have been guilty of another offense had the circumstances been as he supposed. Permits punishment at the level of the lesser offense.

Generally no excuse. Exceptions: reasonable reliance (public official); fair notice (statute not known to her and was not published); mistake that negates mens rea.

But for (sine qua non) rule. Exclusive meaning of causation in criminal law. D has not acted with the requisite culpability unless the actual result was not too remote or accidental in its occurrence. Relates to actors culpability. If he believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the exercise of unlawful force by the other individual on the present occasion. Based on subjective belief though it has to be reasonable. Deadly force is justified if its immediately necessary to protect against: death, serious bodily injury, forcible rape, or kidnapping. Cant use deadly force if you are the provoker. May not use deadly force against aggressor if he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating.

Specific intent crimes: exculpatory if it negates the particular element of mens rea. General intent crimes: if the actors mistake negated his moral culpability for the crime and was reasonable. Strict liability: no mistake of fact defense. Moral-Wrong Doctrine: no exculpation for mistake where, if the facts had been as the actor believed them to be, his conduct would still be immoral. Legal-Wrong Doctrine: no exculpation for mistake where, if the facts had been as the actor believed them to be, his conduct would still be illegal. Ignorance of the law excuses no one. The law is definite and reasonable, so there is no such thing as a reasonable mistake of law. Exceptions: reasonable-reliance doctrine, official interpretation of law, fair notice. Different-law mistake: claimed mistake relates to a law other than the criminal offense for which the D has been charged. Defense for specific intent crimes but not general intent. Not a defense: advice of private attorney. Factual cause or cause-in-fact But for test. Treats actual causation and mens rea as independent concepts. Legal cause An act that is a direct cause of social harm is also a proximate cause of it. Intervening cause: de minimis contribution; foreseeability; responsive intervening cause; coincidental intervening cause; intendedconsequences doctrine; apparent-safety doctrine; free, deliberate and informed human intervention; omissions. Objective. Justified in using force upon another if he reasonably believes such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by the other person. Deadly force is only justified in self-protection if the actor reasonably believes that the use is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful use of deadly force by the aggressor. A person is justified in acting on the basis of reasonable and erroneous appearances. (Not available for unreasonable belief.) 3 parts: necessity, proportionality, reasonable belief. Aggressor has no right to a claim of self-defense. Deadly aggressor may regain right to self-defense if they withdraw in good faith from the conflict and fairly communicate that fact to his intended victim. If any of the elements of the defense are missing, the defense is wholly unavailable to a D. Castle Exception: a non-aggressor is not ordinarily required to retreat from his dwelling, even though he knows he could do so in complete safety.

OTHER STATES: Retreat majority rule: permitted to use deadly force to repel an unlawful deadly attack even if he could retreat safely. Retreat minority rule: threatened by deadly force must retreat if he is aware that he can do so in complete safety. Imperfect defense: nondeadly aggressor who is victim of deadly force must retreat; one who kills another b/c he unreasonably believes that factual circumstances justify killing is guilty of manslaughter. BWS: can usually introduce evidence of the decedents prior abusive treatment of her. Transferred-Justification Doctrine: Ds right to self-defense transfers from intended to actual victim.

Defense of Others

Intervenor may use deadly or nondeadly force to the extent that such force reasonably appears to the intervenor to be justified in defense of 3rd party. Can use if: D uses no more force to protect X than D would be entitled to use in self-protection, based on the circumstances as D believes them to be; under the circumstances as D believes them to be, X

A person is justified in using force to protect a 3rd party from unlawful use of force by an aggressor. Parallels the third partys right of self-defense. Was originally limited to people related to intervenor by consanguinity, marriage, or employment. Alter Ego: Could only use force to defend a 3rd party if the party being defended would in fact have been justified in using force, and

Defense of Property Defense of Home

would be justified in using such force in self-defense; D believes that her intervention is necessary for Xs protection. Not required to retreat. Required to attempt to secure Xs retreat if X would be required to retreat under the rules of selfprotection. Neither D nor X is required to retreat in a home. Can use nondeadly force upon another person to prevent or terminate an entry or trespass if he believes: the other persons interference is unlawful; the intrusion affects property in the actors possession; nondeadly force is immediately necessary. Can use force to re-enter and re-capture property if: he believes that he was unlawfully dispossessed of the property; and either the force is used immediately after dispossession or he believes that the other person has no claim of right to possession of the property. Nondeadly force not okay if: didnt request desistance; it would cause substantial risk of serious bodily harm to trespasser; if both parties think they are lawful. Can use deadly force if believe that: intruder is seeking to dispossess him of the dwelling; intruder has no claim of right to possession of the dwelling; such force is immediately necessary to prevent dispossession. (Reasonable person standard) Can use deadly force (for house or other things) if he believes that: the other person is attempting to commit arson, burglary; such force is immediately necessary to prevent commission of the offense; and either the other person previously used or threatened to use deadly force against him or use of nondeadly force to prevent commission of the offense would expose him to another innocent person to substantial danger of serious bodily injury. Choice of Evils defense. 3 conditions: conduct is necessary to avoid harm to himself; harm to be avoided is greater than that sought to be avoided; no legislative intent to exclude the conduct plainly exists. Rejects imminency and no-fault requirement. General applicability. Unavailable if actor recklessly placed herself in a situation in which it was probable that she would be subjected to coercion. Does not require imminency. General applicability (can use for homicide). Does not require that imperiled person is D or family member. Limited to threats of unlawful force. Not recognized for any interest other than bodily integrity is threatened.

force in the same degree, in self-defense.

A person in possession of real or personal property is justified in using nondeadly force against a would-be dispossessor if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful dispossession of the property. No deadly force. Request desistance first and then use only as much force as necessary. May not use force to recapture property unless a person acts promptly and with nondeadly force.

Early Common Law: can use deadly force to defend home. Middle Approach: Can use deadly force if other person intends an unlawful and imminent entry of house and intends to injure someone and deadly force is necessary to repel intrusion. Narrow Approach: Can use deadly force if other person intends an unlawful and imminent entry of dwelling and intruder intends to commit a forcible felony therein and such force is necessary to prevent intrusion.

Necessity

Duress

Intoxicatio n

Doesnt distinguish between specific & general. Not guilty if, as a result of intoxication, he lacked the state of mind required in respect to an element of the offense. For reckless crimes, voluntary intoxication is not a defense. Conduct during unconsciousness is involuntary. Affirmative defense based on intoxication if the actor suffered from pathological intoxication or involuntary intoxication OR the actors condition qualifies under ALI t est of insanity.

Insanity

A person is not responsible for her criminal conduct if as the result of a mental disease or defect she lacked substantial capacity to: appreciate the criminality of her conduct OR to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law. Cognitive and volitional prongs.

Diminishe d Capacity Attempt

Evidence that the D suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of his conduct is admissible if it is relevant to prove that he lacked a mental state that is an element of the charged offense. Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance: expands on the sudden heat of passion doctrine and permits (but doesnt require) state courts to recognize a partial responsibility defense. [Reduces murder to manslaughter.] Issue is whether there was a reasonable explanation or excuse based on Ds psychological characteristics, for his emotional disturbance. Two elements: purpose to commit the target offense AND a substantial step. Felony. Abolishes defense of legal impossibility. Recognizes defense of abandonment if voluntary and completely renounced. Mens rea: must be her conscious objective to engage in the conduct or to cause the result that would constitute the substantive offense. Purpose or knowledge. Actus reus: substantial step.

Has to choose between violating a relatively minor offense OR suffering substantial harm to person or property. 6 conditions must be met: faced with a clear and imminent danger; direct causal relationship between his action and harm to be averted; no effective legal way to avert the harm; harm that the D will cause by violating the law is less serious than harm he seeks to avoid; lawmakers hadnt previously anticipated the choice of evils; D must come to the situation with clean hands. Limitations: natural forces; doesnt apply to homicide cases. It was right for person to make the choice they did. 5 possibilities: another person threatened to kill or grievously injure the actor or a third party unless she committed the offense; the actor reasonably believed the threat was genuine; the threat was present, imminent, and impending at the time of the crimin al act; there was no reasonable escape from the threat except through compliance with the demands of the coercer; the actor was not at fault in exposing herself to the threat. Threat must come from a human being. Must threaten to cause death or serious bodily harm. Must be imminent. Must be directed at D or a family member. Unavailable if at fault. Excuse. Not an excuse for an intentional homicide. Person shouldnt be blamed. Disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body. Not a defense; a failure of proof claim. Voluntary intoxication: knowingly ingests something he knew/should have known could cause intoxication. Includes alcoholism or drug addictions. If voluntary, no defense. Exceptions: did not harbor state of mind; unconscious; long-term intoxication-induced fixed insanity (not in CL). General intent voluntary is not a defense. Specific intent voluntary is a defense. Involuntary intoxication: coerced to ingest; innocent mistake; unexpectedly intoxicated from a prescribed medication; pathological intoxication. Involuntary is a defense to all. Incompetent to stand trial: lacks the capacity to consult with her attorney and understand; lacks a rational understanding of proceedings. Generally, mental illness is not a defense but insanity is. MNaghten Test: cognitive based. She did not know the nature and quality of the act that she was doing; if she did know it, she did not know it was wrong. Irresistible Impulse: volitional capacity. She acted from an irresistible impulse; she lost the power to choose between right and wrong (free agency was destroyed); actions beyond her control. Product Test: excused if act was but for product of a mental disease or defect. Federal Test: Severe mental disease or defect so that she was unable to appreciate: nature and quality of her conduct; wrongfulness of conduct. Failure of proof defense. Specific Intent: admissible to negate. General Intent: inadmissible. Mitigates murder to manslaughter.

Misdemeanor. Common law assault = attempted battery. Mens rea: actor must intentionally commit the acts that constitute the actus reus of an attempt AND must perform these acts with the specific intention of committing the target crime. Specific intent (purpose). Actus reus: must be perpetration not preparation. Last Act Test: person performed all of the acts that she believed were necessary to commit the target offense. Physical Proximity Test: attempt does not arise unless an actor has it within her power to complete the crime almost immediately.

Guilty if: the actors purpose is to promote or facilitate the commission of a substantive offense; with such purpose, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in conduct that would constitute the crime, an attempt to commit it, or would establish the other persons complicity in its commission or attempted commission. Recognizes a solicitation to commit an attempt. Object of the conspiratorial agreement must be a criminal offense. Overt act required either of person or of co-conspirator. Specific intent offense. Two or more people must intend to agree AND intend that the object of their agreement be achieved. Mens rea: purpose. Conspiracy is defined in terms of the guilt of a single party (unilateral approach). Chain conspiracies described in 5.03(2). Grades a conspiracy to commit any crime other than a felony of the first degree at the same level as the object of the conspiracy. People who agree to commit crimes but are arrested are as dangerous as those who commit crimes. Cant be convicted of both the conspiracy and the object of the conspiracy. A person with multiple criminal objectives is guilty of only one conspiracy if the multiple objectives are part of the same agreement OR part of a continuous conspiratorial relationship. Neither factual nor legal impossibility is a defense to criminal responsibility. Doesnt apply Whartons Rule. Person may not be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime if she would not be guilty of the consummated substantive offense. Guilty of criminal homicide if she unjustifiably and inexcusably takes the life of another human being purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. Murder: actor unjustifiably, inexcusably, and in the absence of a mitigating circumstance kills another: purposely or knowingly; recklessly, under the circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. (1st degree) No degrees of murder under the code. Manslaughter: recklessly kills another or kills another person under circumstances that would ordinarily constitute murder, but which homicide is committed as the result of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. ( 2nd degree) Negligent homicide: involuntary manslaughter at common law. (3rd degree) Extreme recklessness is non-conclusively presumed if the homicide occurs while the actor is engaged in, or is an accomplice in, the commission or attempted commission of, or flight from, one of the dangerous felonies specified in the statute. Some states limit to inherently-dangerous felonies (look at felonies in the abstract). Some states limit to independent felony. Agency Approach: felony murder rule does not apply if an adversary to the crime, rather than a felon, personally commits the homicidal act. Proximate Causation: felon is liable for any death that is the proximate result of the felony. Reasonable person: average disposition, sober at time of provocation and of normal mental capacity. EMED affirmative defense in manslaughter is intended to incorporate common law doctrines: heat of passion and partial responsibility. Subjective and objective component. Cover all property: anything of value (includes land and intangible property). Property of another: property in which any person other than the actor has an interest. Embezzlement: D came into possession of the personal property of another in a lawful manner; and D thereafter fraudulently converted the property. Sets out different forms of theft, but the offenses are consolidated in that the prosecutor may prove a different form of theft than was specified in the indictment, as long as the Ds right to a fair trial is ensured. -

Solicitatio n Conspirac y

Dangerous Proximity: act is so near to the result that the danger of success is very great. Indispensable Element: presence or absence of an indispensable element. Probable Desistance: actor reached a point where it was unlikely that he would have voluntarily desisted from his effort to commit the crime. Unequivocality Test: a persons conduct, standing alone, unambiguously manifests her criminal intent. Legal impossibility: defense; law does not proscribe goal that the D sought to achieve. Factual impossibility: not a defense; intended end constitutes a crime, but she fails to consummate the offense because of an attendant circumstance unknown to her. Abandonment: not a defense. Mens rea: specific intent. Actus reus: one person invites, requests, commands, hires or encourage another to commit a particular offense. Solicit to get X to be principal in 1 st degree; she wants to be 2nd degree. Basis for accomplice liability. Attempted conspiracy. Object must be to do either an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. (Arguably violates fair notice constitutiona l requirement.) Intent encompasses purpose and knowledge. Agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act or series of criminal acts, or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means. Misdemeanor. Plurality requirement. Offense of the conspiracy does not merge into the attempted or completed offense that was the object of the conspiracy (ex. Can be convicted of offense AND attempted offense.) Does NOT require an overt act. Treat the initial agreement between the parties as one that implicitly incorporated the later objectives. Neither factual nor legal impossibility is a defense to criminal conspiracy. Whartons Rule doesnt apply to crimes that necessitate 2 people Cant be convicted if it would frustrate a legislative purpose to exempt from prosecution.

Homicide

A fetus must be born alive to constitute a human being. Murder: the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought. Manslaughter: an unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethoug ht. No degrees, just voluntary v. involuntary distinction. Death must occur within a year and a day of homicidal act.

Felony murder

Res gestae: Applies when a killing occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony. Proximity. Causation.

Provocatio n Theft

Rape

Felony offense. A male is guilty of rape if, acting purposely, knowingly, or recklessly regarding each of the material elements of the offense, he has sexual intercourse with a female under any of the following circumstances: female is less than 10 years; female is unconscious; he compels the female to submit by force or by threatening her or another person with imminent death, grievous bodily harm; he

Provocation/Sudden Heat of Passion: intentional homicide committed in sudden heat of passion as the result of adequate provocation mitigates offense to voluntary manslaughter. 4 elements: heat of passion; adequate provocation; no time to cool off; causal link leading up to homicide. Paradigms: aggravated assault; mutual combat; commission of a serious crime against close relative; illegal arrest; observation of spousal adultery. Larceny: trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the possessor of the property. Conduct offense. Felony split into grand and petit (by twelvepence). Trespass: taking of victims personal property w/o consent. Possession: sufficient control over it to use it in a reasonably unrestricted manner. Asportation (carrying away): even a hairs breadth counts. Mens rea: specific intent. Can be inferred from recklessness. Larceny did not protect land or intangible property. Ferae naturae were not property. It is larceny to steal stolen property from a thief. Defenses: good faith belief that he has a right to possess the property. Lost property: depends on possessory interest of the owner at the time it is discovered and the finders state of mind when he retrieves the lost property. Mislaid property: depends entirely on his state of mind when he takes possession of the property from the owner. Embezzlement is not a common law offense. False Pretenses: obtaining property by false representation of an existing fact. Mens rea: uttered knowingly and designedly and with the intent to defraud. Carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will. Only referred to vaginal sex. Defined in terms of females lack o consent. Marital Immunity Rule: a husband could not rape his wife. General-intent crime: D need not possess an intention that sex be nonconsensual.

administers or employs drugs or intoxicants in a manner that substantially impairs the females ability to appraise or control her conduct. Partial marital exception; nonconsensual intercourse with a spouse is not rape. 1st degree if: guy inflicts serious bodily harm on the female or another during rape; female was not a voluntary social companion who had previously permitted him sexual liberties. Otherwise, always a 2nd degree. Gender specific. Sexual intercourse includes all kinds. Focus shifted to males conduct. Objective standard: woman of ordinary resolution. Prosecution barred if complaint not brought w/in 3 months. Silent about admissibility of prior sexual history evidence. Statutory rape provision. Gross Sexual Imposition: 3rd degree; sexual intercourse with a female if she submits as a result of a threat; has sexual relations with a female with knowledge that she is mentally ill and cannot understand the nature of her acts; she is unaware that a sexual act is being committed upon her or she thinks guy is her husband. Corroboration Rule.

Statutory rape provision for girls under 10. Gender specific. Punishable by death. Actus reus: forcibly; by means of certain forms of deception; while the female is asleep or unconscious; or upon a female incompetent to give her consent. Consent: male can miscalculate; must be voluntary; if withdraw consent during sex, its not rape. Resistance requirement in forcible rape cases. Corroboration Rule: testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to uphold a conviction and did not need to be corroborated. Some states disagree. Rape Shield: Evidence regarding her prior consensual acts has always been admissible. Now, rape shield laws have been enacted by the majority of states and deny D the opportunity to give evidence of her prior sexual conduct or reputation for chastity.