CRIMINAL LAW LANGDELL CHART- MOSES

TOPIC MPC CL TPC

Mens Rea § 2.02: -Specific Intent §6.02a:
- purposely - General Intent -intentional
- knowingly - Criminal Negligence -knowing
- recklessly - Malice -reckless
- negligently -Knowledge -criminal negligence
- Willfulness
-Strict Liability
- Vicarious Liability
- Motive
- Transferred Intent
Intoxication and Mens §2.08: Generally is not a §8.04:
Rea - any form of defense regardless of - is not a defense
intoxication is a intent required. - may be used for
defense if it negates an -BUT: may be a defense mitigation
element of the offense against the specific intent
BUT: if reckless is the element of a crime
charge, intoxication is
not a defense if D
would have known the
consequences of his
actions when sober
Mistake of Fact §2.04: Specific intent crime: is §8.02:
- mistake is a defense if exculpatory if it negates - mistake must be
it negates the mental the specific intent req’t reasonable (use the
state required to General intent crime: is Reasonable Ordinary
establish any element exculpatory if it negates Prudent Person standard)
of the offense the actor’s moral
culpability and actor
honestly and reasonably
believed the mistake
Moral Wrong doctrine §2.04: Follows the moral wrong §8.02:
- doesn’t follow the doctrine - doesn’t follow the
moral wrong doctrine moral wrong doctrine
Legal Wrong doctrine §2.04: Follows the legal wrong §8.02:
- follows the legal doctrine, and the actor is - follows the legal wrong
wrong doctrine, and guilty of the higher doctrine, and the actor is
actor is guilty of the offense guilty of the lesser
lesser crime offense
Mistake of Law §2.04: Not a defense- everyone §8.03:
- Is a defense if it is presumed to know the - generally is no defense
negates the mental law - affirmative defense:
element required reasonable mistake of
law based on reasonable
reliance of an official
statement or
interpretation of law
Strict Liability §2.05: Follows for both jail and §6.02b:

Legality Doctrine (this is
definitional- no difference
between MPC, CL, and
TPC)
- bill of attainder (this is
definitional- no difference
between MPC, CL, and
TPC)
- ex post facto law (this is
definitional- no difference
between MPC, CL, and
TPC)
ACTUS REUS
“Voluntary”
requirement”
Omission to Act: always
must have a legal duty
before can have an
omission to act
- neither CL, MPC, or
TPC impose a criminal
-Only for non-jail non-jail offenses -Penal code recognizes
offenses that the legislature may
define crimes in a way
the dispenses with any
mental element
In order for an act to be 3 prongs:
criminal, it must be 1. criminal statutes
stated as such in the should be understandable
law (just because an act to ROPP
is immoral doesn’t 2. criminal statutes
mean its criminal) should be crafted as to
not delegate basic policy
matters to cops, judges
and juries for resolution
on an ad hoc basis
3. judicial interpretation
of ambiguous statutes
should be biased in favor
of the accused (rule of
lenity)
- special legislation
declaring a specific
person to be guilty of a
crime and subject to
punishment w/o either
a trial or conviction
- Criminalizes
behavior/action that has
already occurred
2.01: requires a Must be a voluntary act 6.01: person commits an
voluntary act, offense only if he
omission, or criminal voluntarily engages in
conduct conduct (including an act,
2.011: for violations omission or possession)
punishable by fine or knowledge =
civil penalty, a judge 1. knowledge of the
must first determine mere thing itself, not the
that the act is consistent actual properties of it, or
with law defining the 2. knowledge of the
offense actual nature of the thing
to result in criminal Only time omission to act to result in criminal
liability it must be is a crime is when you liability it must be proved
proved that: create the risk- then you that:
1. the conduct of the may have a duty to 1. the conduct of the
accused in failing to act rescue accused in failing to act
was accompanied by was accompanied by the
the requisite mens rea requisite mens rea
duty to rescue in a 2. that the accused 2. that the accused was
situation to which you are was aware of the facts aware of the facts giving
a stranger giving rise to the duty rise to the duty to act
to act 3. that the accused
3. that the accused owed a legal duty to the
owed a legal duty to the victim
victim 4. a causal relationship
4. a causal between the omission and
relationship between the result
the omission and the 5. that performing the
result duty was possible
5. that performing
the duty was possible Legal duty:
1. the status relationship
Legal duty: of the parties
1. the status 2. the particular fact
relationship of the situation
parties 3. by statute or law
2. the particular fact 4. by contract
situation
3. by statute or law
4. by contract
Possession 2.01(4): one is liable Possession: to have a 6.01b: possession is a
for the voluntary act of voluntary act, one must voluntary act if the
acquiring possession have possessor knowingly
and for the failure to knowledge/awareness of obtains or receives the
dispossess oneself of the position or control thing possessed or is
the property aware of his control of
the thing for a sufficient
time to permit him to
terminate control
Punishment Capital offenses= Treason: (a felony; only Ch. 12:
death penalty comes up during war Capital offenses: death
Felonies & times) - determined by penalty (or life in prison
misdemeanors nature of wrong without parole)
established by: Felony: determined by Felonies &
1. type of the penalty provided misdemeanors
incarcerating institution Misdemeanor: established by:
2. length of sentence determined by the 1. type of incarcerating
imposed penalty provided institution
2. length of sentence
imposed
Misprision of a Felony Requires a positive act If you witness a felony Doesn’t exist
of concealment of info and don’t try to stop it (or Art. 6701d: can punish
from the authorities at least report it if getting for failure to stop and
rather than imposing a involved were unsafe), render assistance when
duty to volunteer info this is a crime one is driving and injures
someone
- also failure to report
child abuse when have
 knowledge abuse is
occurring
OFFENSES
Criminal Homicide 1. Murder 1. Murder: the killing of 1. murder
2. manslaughter: a human being w/malice 2. manslaughter
aforethought 3. criminally negligent
2. Manslaughter: homicide
adequate
provocation/criminal
neglicence
- murder 210.2(1): murder: Intent to kill murder: 19.02: murder:
person is guilty of have to prove: intentionally or
murder if he 1. natural and probable knowingly causing the
unjustifiably and consequences rule: you death of another
inexcusably takes the intend the natural and 19.02b3: felony murder:
life of another person probable consequences of if one commits/attempts a
purposely, knowingly, your actions felony and in furtherance
recklessly or negligent 2. deadly weapons rule: of the felony commits an
210.2(1)(b): felony can infer intent to kill act clearly dangerous to
murder: extreme when X intentionally human life that causes the
recklessness is points a deadly weapon death of an individual
npresumed if the at Y 19.03: capital murder:
homicide occurs while Willful, deliberate, 1. cop/firefighter will
the actor is engaged in premeditated killings: involved in official duty
one of felonies intentionally, 2. killing someone
specified in the statute purposefully, and while committing a
- must be done in planned acts kidnapping, aggravated
manner that manifests Depraved heart sexual assault, burglary,
an extreme indifference murder: occurs when a etc.
to the value of human person’s conduct shows 3.
life an extreme indifference 4.killing someone
to the value of human life while escaping from jail
Felony murder: person 5.killing someone
is guilty of murder if she while in jail
kills another person 6. killing more than 1
during the commission or person either during the
attempted commission of same crime or in a series
any felony of similar, repeated
2 requirements: crimes
1. must be a close 7. killing a child under
proximity in terms of the age of 6
time and distance
between the felony and
the homicide
2. causation
requirement: but for the
felony, the homicide
wouldn’t have happened
- manslaughter 210.3(1): An intentional homicide 19.04: a person commits
1.recklessly kills committed in sudden heat an offense if he
 another, or of passion as the result of recklessly causes the
2. kills another under adequate provocation death of an individual
circumstances that mitigates an offense to
would ordinarily manslaughter
constitute murder, but Elements:
which homicide is 1. heat of passion
committed as the result 2. adequate provocation-
of extreme mental or ROPP standard
emotional disturbance 3. inadequate cooling
for which there is a time (and D didn’t cool
reasonable explanation off)
or excuse 4. causal connection
(much broader than
heat of passion
requirement)
- negligent homicide 210.4: 3d degree felony A form of manslaughter 19.05: a person commits
(similar to involuntary an offense if he causes
manslaughter) the death of an individual
by criminal negligence
(Human being) A fetus must be born A fetus must be born A fetus must be born
alive alive alive
(Year and a Day rule) Doesn’t follow this rule For the D to be liable for For the D to be liable for
criminal homicide, criminal homicide, victim
victim must die within a must die within a year a
year a day of the act day of the act inflicting
inflicting injury injury
Theft 223.1: consolidates all -Includes 3 offenses: 31.03: a person commits
common law offenses Larceny, Embezzlement, theft if he unlawfully
into 1: Theft: False Pretenses appropriates property
223.2(1): theft occurs if -Larceny: a trespassory with intent to deprive the
a person “unlawfully taking and carrying away owner of the property
takes” another’s of the personal property - the offenses of false
property of another with the intent pretenses, conversion,
- doesn’t require the to permanently deprive embezzlement, and
carrying away of the the possessor of the extortion, receiving or
property property concealing stolen or
- if the value of the - is a conduct crime: embezzled property are
property stolen is once have taken consolidated under this
>$500, it is a felony, something with this statute
otherwise it’s a intent, the crime is - appropriation means
misdemeanor completed w/o the owner’s effective
-MPC has different - property must have consent
sections of theft: ie been taken from the -stolen property does not
theft by unlawful possession of another- lose its character as
taking, theft by doesn’t involve stolen when recovered by
deception, theft by ownership or title any law enforcement
extortion - but these are - property that is agency
consolidated under mislaid is given more - is the value of the
theft definition favorable treatment than property is >$500, it is a
- prop. Of another = property that is merely felony, else it is a
property in which any lost misdemeanor
person other than the - CL: husband and wife
actor has an interest: couldn’t steal from each
223.0(7) other- were 1 person
- no difference in - intent to deprive must
treatment of property be formed at time of
mislaid or lost taking- can’t take with
- Re: False promises: intent to return, then later
MPC prohibits decide to keep and still
deception regarding a be larceny
person’s “intention or - possession: sufficient
other state of mind”- control over property to
223.3(1) use it in a reasonably
- however, can’t infer unrestricted manner
deception merely from - the person stolen
the fact that the from must have had
promisor didn’t deliver possession and not just
custody
- Bailor/bailee
dilemma: ie a trucking
company delivering
goods for another
company- the trucking
co. is given possession of
the crates, but the
contents of the crate are
only in the custody of the
trucking company- once
the truck driver opens the
crates and steals the
contents, he has
committed larceny

-Embezzlement: the
fraudulent conversion of
personal property of
another by a person in
lawful possession
- the D is entrusted
with the property but
intends to defraud
- intent must be formed
after lawful possession
- if D intends to restore
exact property taken,
then no embezzlement

-False pretenses:
obtaining title to personal
property of another by an
intentional false
 statement of past or
existing fact with intent
to defraud the other
- if victim is tricked
into giving up title =
false pretenses
- if victim is tricked
into giving up mere
possession = larceny by
trick
- misrepresentation
must be major factor in
victim passing title to D
- false promise (future)
does not equal false
pretenses
-Rape 213.1(1): a male is -carnal knowledge of a
guilty of rape if acting woman forcibly and
purposely, knowingly, against her will
or recklessly, he has - wife can’t be raped by
sexual intercourse with husband
a female under any of - at CL, is a general
the following intent crime
situations: - requires resistance by
1. the female is under the victim and force by
10 years of age the assailant
2. the female is -fraud in the inducement
unconscious, is not an offense: doesn’t
3. he compels the matter that victim was
female to submit by tricked into having sex-
force or by threatening consent is consent
her or another person -fraud in fact is an
with imminent death, offense: vitiates consent
grievous bodily harm, b/c victim doesn’t know
extreme pain, or what’s going on
kidnapping, -if the D entertained a
4. or he administers genuine and reasonable
or employs drugs or belief that the female
intoxicants in a manner voluntarily consented to
that substantially intercourse, then this is a
impairs the female’s defense
ability to appraise or -at trial, testimony of the
control her conduct victim was sufficient to
-a wife can’t be raped uphold a conviction- no
by her husband unless need for corroboration
the parties are living
apart under a formal
separation decree
-is a 1st degree felony
-can’t prosecute a rape
case if the victim didn’t
22.011: a person commits
sexual assault if the
person intentionally or
knowingly causes
penetration of the anus,
or female sexual organ,
or mouth of another
person by any means
without that person’s
consent
- occurs by force, by
threatened use of force,
the D knows the victim
has a mental defect and
can’t consent, victim is
unconscious, D has
administered drugs or
intoxicants etc
-fraud in fact is an
offense
statutory rape:
22.011(a)(2): is a sexual
assault if the actor
intentionally or
knowingly causes the
penetration of the anus,
mouth, or female sexual
organ of a child under the
age of 17 by any means
22.021: aggravated
sexual assault: this is an
offense if the person
intentionally or
knowingly causes a
 notify the authorities
within 3 months
following the rape
-Assault -an attempt to commit a
battery, or the intentional
creation of reasonable
apprehension of
imminent bodily harm
-also an attempted
battery
-Battery -an offensive or harmful
touching with mental
state (intent to injure or
criminal negligence)
-Burglary BrEADNIFe:
Breaking and
Entering
sexual assault and if the
person causes serious
bodily injury or death to
the victim in the course
of the same criminal
episode, or puts the
victim in fear of death or
serious bodily injury, or
kidnapping
- also a sexual assault
will be an aggravated
sexual assault without
severe injury, death, or
threats, if the victim is
under the age of 14 or
over the age of 65
22.01: a person commits
an assault if he
intentionally, knowingly,
or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another,
threatens another person,
or just causes physical
contact to another person
whom the D knows will
find the contact
offensive.
-this includes spousal
abuse
-combines assault and
battery
22.02: aggravated
assault: a person
commits this offense if
the person commits
assault and causes serious
bodily injury to another,
or uses or exhibits a
deadly weapon during the
assault.
-a mere threat of use of a
deadly weapon is an
aggravated assault
-same as assault
30.02: a person commits
burglary if, without the
effective consent of the
 Another’s owner, the D enters a
Dwelling at habitation or building not
Night with open to the public, with
Intent to commit a intent to commit a felony,
Felony theft or an assault
-entering means with any
part of the body or any
physical object connected
with the body
-Robbery -is a taking of personal 29.02: a person commits
property of another from robbery if, in the course
the other’s person or of committing a theft and
presence by force or with intent to obtain or
threats of immediate maintain control of the
death or physical injury property, he intentionally,
with the intent to knowingly, or recklessly
permanently deprive causes bodily injury to
another, or intentionally
robbery = larceny + threatens or places
assault another in fear of
- the theft need not be imminent bodily injury or
completed death
29.03: aggravated
robbery
-robbery + serious bodily
injury or death, or use or
exhibition of a deadly
weapon

DEFENSES
- [affirmative defense: an
outside reason why the D,
even though the
Prosecution has proved its
case, shouldn’t be held
criminally liable for the
crime… ie insanity
- must be pled in D’s
original answer or will be
forever waived
- For TX, defenses which
are affirmative defenses
are specifically stated in
the TPC]
-failure of proof
defenses: one that the D
introduces at his trial
showing the Prosecution
has failed to prove an
essential element of the
offense
-justification defense:
deals with conduct which
otherwise would be
criminal, but under current
circumstances is socially
acceptable and
undeserving of criminal
liability… ie self-defense
- excuse defense: despite
the fact that the D has
committed an illegal act,
he shouldn’t be blamed for
it…ie insanity,
involuntary intoxication
-specialized defenses:
crime- specific (are
specified in the statute
after the crime)
-extrinsic defenses:
reason external to the D’s
crime, for which the D
shouldn’t be convicted
ie statute of limitations,
diplomatic immunity
INSANITY - Substantial capacity -only required proving 8.01: is an affirmative
test: 4.01 that D had a mental defense if the defendant,
- D is not criminally disease or defect which as a result of severe
responsible if, as a caused him to commit a mental disease or defect,
result of mental disease crime did not know his conduct
or defects, he lacks was wrong
substantial capacity to
either:
1. appreciate the
wrongfulness of his
conduct
2. or conform his
conduct to the
requirements of the law
-Other tests currently in
use in US:
1. Durham Rule
(product test): the
unlawful act was the
a. product (D would
not have commited the act
but/for the disease or
defect)
b. of mental disease
or defect
 2. Federal Test: D
lacks appreciation of:
a. nature and quality
of her conduct, or
b. wrongfulness of her
conduct
3. Irresistible Impulse:
D wouldn’t control his
conduct even though he
knew what he was doing
was wrong
Diminished Capacity: 4.02(1): if, due to a
usually for mitigation mental impairment
- person not legally insane
beyond his conscious
but still mental control, the D lacked
dysfunction the capacity to entertain
the very culpability
which is indispensable
to his criminal
responsibility in the 1st
instance, he can’t be
declared guilty
Duress: an excuse defense 2.09: is an affirmative
- used when the threat is defense to unlawful
human conduct by D if:
1. she was compelled
to commit the offense
by the use or threatened
use of unlawful force
by the coercer or
another, AND
2. a person of
reasonable firmness in
her situation would
have been unable to
resist the coercion
- not available if the D
recklessly placed
herself in a situation in
which it was likely she
would be subjected to
coercion
Necessity: a justification 3.02:
defense - a person’s conduct is
- typically used with justified if:
natural or physical threat 1. he believes his
No diminished capacity 8.04: used in the case of
intoxication leading to
temporary insanity - only
used for mitigation
No one is privileged to 8.05: is an affirmative
cause the death of an defense
innocent person in order - for felonies: if actor did
to save their own life the act b/c he was
- Otherwise, elements: compelled to do so by
1. another person threat of imminent death
threatened to kill or or serious bodily injury to
grievously injure the D or himself or another
3d party unless he - for misdemeanors: if D
committed the offense did act b/c he was
2. actor reasonably compelled to do so by
believed the threat was force or threat of force
genuine
3. threat was present,
imminent, and impending
at time of criminal act
4. no reasonable
escape from threat except
through compliance
5. not D’s fault for
exposing himself to the
threat
-not in England, but in 9.22: same as MPC:
US - a person’s conduct is
-elements justified if:
1. D must be faced 1. he believes his

-a.k.a.: choice of 2 evils:
person must reasonable
believe that the
commission of the crime
was necessary to avoid an
imminent and greater
injury to society than that
involved in the crime
Self-defense
Defense of others
conduct is necessary to with a clear and conduct is necessary to
avoid harm to himself imminent danger avoid harm to himself or
or another 2. D must expect, as a another
2. harm to be reasonable person, that 2. harm to be avoided
avoided is greater than his action will be is greater than that sought
that sought to be effective in abating the to be avoided by the law
avoided by the law danger that he seeks to prohibiting his conduct,
prohibiting his conduct, avoid AND
AND 3. must be no effective 3. no legislative intent
3. no legislative legal way to avert the to exclude the conduct in
intent to exclude the harm such circumstances
conduct in such 4. harm D will cause plainly exists
circumstances plainly must be less serious than
exists the harm he seeks to
avoid
-for MPC, this defense 5. D must have clean
is not limited to natural hands
threats
3.04: a person is -nonaggressor is justified 9.31: follows the
justified in using force in using force upon common law:
upon another if he another if he reasonably - nonaggressor is
believes such force is believes that such force is justified in using force
immediately necessary necessary to protect upon another if he
to protect himself himself from imminent reasonably believes that
against the exercise of use of unlawful force by such force is necessary to
unlawful force by the the other person protect himself from
other on the present deadly force: can only imminent use of unlawful
occasion use deadly force in cases force by the other person
deadly force: only can when the D reasonably - not justified:
be used when in fear of believe force would be 1. in response to verbal
death, serious bodily used provocation alone
injury, forcible rape or -Generally no retreat 2. to resist an arrest or
kidnapping required search by a peace officer
Retreat: can’t use - BUT, MODERN 3. if D consented to the
deadly force if he TREND: must retreat if force
knows he can avoid you know you can 4. if D provoked the
using it by retreating - exception: Castle force
Doctrine: don’t have to 5. if D sought a
retreat, if attacked in discussion with another
your dwelling or person about their
business, even if you differences and the D was
could have safely done so illegally carrying a
weapon
3.05: justified if: Had to have a special 9.33: justified if
1. D uses no more force relationship with the 1. justified under self-
than that which D other person defense and
would use for self- 2. D reasonably believes
defense his intervention is
2. step into the intended necessary for the third
victim’s shoes - what D party’s protection
 reasonably believes the
intended victim would
do
3. D believes her
intervention is
necessary for the
intended victim’s
protection
Defense of property: Combines defense of Defense of property: Combines defense of
right to protect your property and defense Nondeadly force may be property and defense of
property from disposition of habitation: used to defend property habitation:
- 3.06(1)(a): person in one’s possession from 9.41:
Defense of habitation: may use non-deadly unlawful interference, a. if in lawful possession,
force to prevent a only if request to desist person is justified in
trespass upon land, or or refrain from activity using force the D
to prevent the carrying would not suffice reasonably believes is
away of personal immediately necessary to
property if he believes: Defense of habitation: prevent or terminate the
1. the other person’s may use deadly force if other’s trespass on the
interference with the he reasonably believes land or unlawful
property is unlawful such force is necessary to interference with the
2. the intrusion prevent an imminent and property
affects property in the unlawful entry of his b. if unlawfully
actor’s possession, dwelling dispossessed of land or
AND - no deadly force if its property D is justified in
3. nondeadly force is known there is no threat using force against the
immediately necessary of bodily harm other when D reasonably
believes the force is
-3.06(3)(d)(i): deadly immediately necessary to
force prohibited except re-enter the land and
in 2 ways: recover the property if
A. Dispossession of a the D uses the force
dwelling: a person may immediately or in fresh
use deadly force on an pursuit after the
intruder if he believes dispossession, AND
that… 1. D reasonably
1. the intruder is believed the other had no
seeking to dispossess claim of right, AND
him of the dwelling 2. the other
2. the intruder has no accomplished the
claim of right to dispossession by using
possession of the force, threat or fraud
dwelling, and against the D
3. such force is
immediately necessary 9.42: deadly force:
to prevent - person is justified in
dispossession using deadly force in
protection of property to
B. Prevention of the degree he reasonably
Serious property believes the deadly force
crimes: A person may is immediately necessary

- Spring Guns
(Mechanical devices)
BURDENS OF PROOF
- Burden of production:
Can shift from Plaintiff to
Defendant depending on
point in trial
- Prosecution has burden
of proving beyond a
reasonable doubt each
element of the crime
charged
use deadly force upon to prevent the other from
another, inside a committing or fleeing
dwelling or anywhere after committing arson,
else, if he believes that: burglary, robbery,
1. the other person is aggravated robbery, theft
attempting to commit during nighttime, and he
arson, burglary, reasonable believes it
robbery, or felonious can’t be protected by any
theft or property other means or not using
destruction deadly force would put D
2. such force is at risk of death or serious
immediately necessary bodily injury
to prevent commission
of the offense, and
either
3a. the other person
previously used or
threatened to use
deadly force against
him or another person
in his presence, or
3b. use of nondeadly
force to prevent
commission of the
offense would expose
him or another innocent
person to substantial
danger of serious
bodily injury
3.06(5)(a): prohibits May be used where the 9.44: may use a device to
the use of a mechanical intrusion is, in fact, such protect land or property if
device to protect that the person, where he 1. it’s not designed to
property if it is present would be cause, or known by the
intended to cause, or is justified in talking the actor to create a
known by the user to life or inflicting the substantial risk of
create a substantial risk bodily harm with his own causing death or serious
of causing death or hands bodily injury, and
serious bodily injury 2. use of the device is
reasonable under
circumstances
- Defendant has burden of
producing any evidence
regarding affirmative
defenses
- Burden of Persuasion:
the party who has this
burden bears the risk of
failing to convince the
jury that her factual claim
is true
INCHOATE CRIMES
-all inchoate crimes are
specific intent crimes
- those which are not
completed or carried
through
- Attempt: 5.01: Substantial step - An overt act performed 15.01:
test with intent to commit a -definition: a person
D is guilty of attempt if crime that falls short of commits an offense if,
-7 Attempt tests: 1.D’s purpose is to completing the crime with specific intent to
1. Last proximate act: commit the target (must have committed an commit an offense, he
nothing else to do but final offense and act beyond mere does an act amounting to
act 2. conduct constituting preparation) more than mere
2. Physical proximity: a substantial step preparation but fails to
geographical closeness toward the commission - is a misdemeanor effect the commission of
3. Dangerous proximity: of the offense regardless of nature of the offense intended
geographic or time offense sought to be
4. Indispensable element: - must have mens rea to committed -punishment: 15.01(d):
that keeps D from doing complete the crime or 1 category lower than the
the act, something that D cause the result offense attempted
needs to do but doesn’t
have control over it yet -only recognizes the -defense:
5. Probable desistance: defense of 15.04(a): renunciation
probability that D would abandonment defense:
stop or that D would 5.01(4): - it is an affirmative
change his mind abandonment: person defense that with a
6. Equivocality/res ipsa: is not guilty of an 1. complete and
the act speaks for itself attempt if voluntary renunciation of
7. Substanital step: 1. she abandons her his criminal objective, the
substantial step in effort to commit the actor
committing the crime crime or prevents it 2. abandoned his
from being committed criminal conduct or took
-Defenses: (factual and action to prevent the
impossibility is not a 2. her conduct commission of the
defense) manifests a complete offense
1. Legal impossibility: D and voluntary
did everything he needed renunciation of her
to do to complete the criminal purpose
crime, but he couldn’t
complete the crime for a
legal reason, this is a
defense
- ie trying to murder a
dead person

2. abandonment (or
renunciation): most
modern courts allow
exculpation if actor
voluntarily abandons
criminal intent before any
harm is done

-Solicitation 5.02(1): a person is -Occurs when a person 15.03: a person commits

guilty of solicitation if invites, requests, an offense if, with intent
1. actor’s purpose is to commands, hires, or that a capital felony or
promote or facilitate encourages another to felony of the first degree
the commission of a commit a crime (only be committed, he
substantive offense, applies to felonies and requests, commands, or
and serious misdemeanors) attempts to induce
2. with this purpose, he another to engage in
commands, (etc) -solicitation is a conduct that would
another person to misdemeanor constitute a felony
engage in conduct that -don’t have to actually do
would constitute a anything towards the -punishment: 1 degree
crime crime and other person lower than crime that
doesn’t have to agree would have been
-applies to all crimes -no solicitation occurs if committed
-can have an attempted solicitor intends to
solicitation commit the crime himself -defense: 15.04b:
only renunciation defense: it
-defense: 5.02(3): is an affirmative defense
“renunciation of that
criminal purpose” 1.under circumstances
occurs if manifesting a voluntary
1. the actor completely and complete
and voluntarily renunciation of his
renounces his criminal criminal objective,
intent, and 2. the actor
2. persuades other party countermanded his
not to commit the solicitation before the
crime or prevents them commission of the
from doing so offense and
3. took further
affirmative action that
prevented the
commission of the
offense
 NOTE: TX has a separate
section for criminal
solicitation of a minor:
15.031
- Conspiracy 5.03(1): D is guilty if -an agreement by 2 or 15.02:
he more people to commit a 1. D agrees with 1 or
1. agrees with other criminal act or series of more people that they or
people that they or one criminal acts one of them will engage
of them will engage in in conduct constituting an
conduct that constitutes - is a misdemeanor offense, and
a crime or an attempt or - only needed an 2. D or another party
solicitation of such agreement to convict (no performs an overt act
crime, or act required)
2. agrees to aid another - doesn’t merge into the -can infer an agreement
person in planning or offense (can have 2 constituting a conspiracy
commission of such separate charges) from the acts of the
crime parties
-defenses: factual and -this offense is 1 degree
-punishment: same legal impossibility lower than the actual
degree as the actual crime to be committed
crime
-defense: 15.04b:
-1.07(1)(b): person MULTIPLE PARTY renunciation defense: it
can’t be convicted and SITUATIONS: 2 types is an affirmative defense
punished for both Chain relationship: a that
conspiracy and the single, large conspiracy 1.under circumstances
object of the conspiracy in which all parties are manifesting a voluntary
interest in a single large and complete
- must have an actual scheme, all members are renunciation of his
act liable for the acts of criminal objective,
others 2. the actor withdrew
defenses- 5.03(1): no Hub and spoke: (think from the conspiracy
defense b/c all need is of a wheel): if a number before the commission of
an agreement and an of independent the offense and
attempt conspiracies are linked 3. took further
by a common member, affirmative action that
the hub is liable for all prevented the
the spokes but each commission of the
MULTIPLE PARTY spoke is not liable for the offense
SITUATIONS: other spokes
5.03(2): if a person -5 things not defenses:
guilty of conspiracy 15.02c:
knows a person with 1.1 or more of the co-
whom he conspires to conspirators is not
commit a crime has criminally responsible for
conspired with others the object offense
to commit same crime, 2. one or more of the co-
he is guilty of conspirators has been
conspiring with all of acquitted, so long as 2 or
these even if he doesn’t more co-conspirators
know their identity have not been acquitted
 3. 1 or more of the co-
conspirators has not been
convicted of a different
offence, or is immune to
prosecution
4. the actor belongs to a
class of persons that by
definition of the object
offense is legally
incapable of committing
the object offense in an
individually capacity, or
5. the object offense was
actually committed

-TPC is silent re:

Multiple Party situations
-- Wharton’s Rule re: -doesn’t recognize - CL created Wharton’s Silent
Conspiracy: rule
- RULE: if a crime takes
2 to do, then there is no
conspiracy
2 EXCEPTIONS:
1. 3d party: if more than
the minimum number of
people necessary to
commit an offense agree
to commit the crime, can
still charge all with
conspiracy
2. 2 person rule: if the 2
people who conspire are
not the same 2 who
commit the crime, can
still charge all with
conspiracy

ex. Adultery, dueling

PARTIES 2.06: Principal: perpetrator 7.01: parties to offenses:
-all such parties to the Accessory: a. a person is criminally
crime can be found - accessory b/f the fact: responsible as a party to
guilty of the principal one who did not do the an offense if the offense
offense act, but counseled or is committed by his own
Accessory at the fact = commanded it, or conduct or by the conduct
principal in the second assisted with guilty of another for which he is
degree knowledge. Was not criminally responsible
Accomplice 2.06(3)(a): present at the crime - each party to an offense
person is an accomplice - Accessory at the fact: may be charged with
in the commission of same as above except commission of the
an offense, if with was present at the crime offense
requisite mens rea, he - Accessory after the fact: - NO DISTINCTIONS
1. solicits the principal aided perpetrator to B/W ACCOMPLICES
to commit the offense hinder apprehension, AND PRINCIPALS-
2. aids, agrees, or trial, conviction, EACH PARTY TO AN
attempts to aid punishment, etc. OFFENSE MAY BE
principal in the - aka protector CHARGED AND
planning or CONVICTED W/O
commission of the - principal had to be ALLEGING THAT HE
offense, or convicted b/f any ACTED AS A
3. has a legal duty to accessories could be PRINCIPAL OR
prevent the commission charged ACCOMPLICE
of the offense -rule of mandatory -7.02: criminal
-includes all principals consistency: an responsibility for
and accessories b/f the accessory cannot be conduct of another: a
fact but excludes found guilty if the person is criminally
accessories after the principal is found responsible for an offense
fact innocent committed by the
- a person could be conduct of another if:
charged with being an 1. acting w/mens rea
accessory without the required for the offense,
principal being he causes or aids an
convicted of the crime innocent person to
engage in the offense
-accessory after the 2. acting w/intent to
face: is still treated promote or assist the
separately; punishment commission of the
for this crime usually offense, he solicits (etc)
bears no relationship to the other person to
principal offense- could commit the offense, or
even be higher 3. he has a legal duty to
prevent commission of
- 2.06(1): a person is the offense, he fails to
guilty of an offense if make a reasonable effort
he commits it by his to prevent commission of
own conduct or by the the offense
conduct of another 7.03: no defense that:
person for which he is 1. the actor is legally
legally accountable incapable of committing
- 2.06(2)(a): a person is the offense in an
legally accountable for individual capacity
the conduct of an 2. or that the person for
innocent or whose conduct the actor
irresponsible person if is criminally responsible
he has been acquitted
1. has the mens rea
sufficient for
commission of the
offense, and
2. causes the innocent
or irresponsible person
to engage in the
 criminal conduct
-2.06(2)(c): a person is
legally accountable for
the conduct of another
person if he is an
accomplice of the other
in the commission of
the criminal offense
CAUSATION:
a. “But/for” test
b. Is act the proximate
cause of the injury?
i. cause in fact, and
ii. legal cause
c. if so, then criminally
liable

-if intervening cause is

dependent or foreseeable,
D is still liable
-if an independent cause,
harm must not be intended
and the act must not be
substantial contributing
cause

Tests for exclusion (ways

of saying not proximate
cause)
1. tests for exclusion (de
minimus rule): the law
doesn’t look at trivial
things. If something is
only a very small factor, it
won’t be the proximate
cause
2. test for isolation: can
D’s acts be isolated from
the harm? If D has
reached a place of
apparent safety, the law
won’t follow

Tests for inclusion:

1. test of probability:
How foreseeable was the
result? Even though
remote, if it is foreseeable,
then it is proximate
- an intended
consequence is never
remote
2. dependent intervening
cause: if something is the
natural occurrence of what
the D sets in motion, the
D’s liability won’t be cut
off

-there is no contributory
negligence in criminal
cases
-negative acts of victim
are not superseding
-positive acts of victim
may cut off liability
-medical malpractice will
break chain of causation
and become the proximate
cause ONLY if it
constitutes the sole cause
-a series of natural
consequences will not cut
off liability
-the law will not follow a
cause after it reaches a
point of apparent safety
 REQUISITE INTENT FOR MAJOR CRIMES

SPECIFIC INTENT GENERAL INTENT MALICE STRICT LIABILITY

-1st degree murder - battery - murder - statutory rape
- solicitation - rape - arson
- attempt - kidnapping - malicious mischief
- conspiracy
- assault (attempted
battery)
- larceny
-robbery
-burglary
- forgery
- false pretenses
- embezzlement

Specific intent: requires not only the doing of an act, but also the doing of it with a specific intent or
objective
- cannot be inferred from doing the act- proof of specific intent is necessary
General intent: a general awareness of all factors constituting the crime
Malice: intent to do actus reus of a crime without justification
- the intent necessary for malice crimes requires only a wanton and willful disregard of a strong
likelihood of harm

VOLUNTARY V. INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION

VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION

- self-induced intoxicating substance w/o duress
- only temporary episode of incapacity, but not
mental illness
- taking substance (intoxicating)
- w/o knowledge of its nature
- under duress or fraud by another
- b/c of medical advice while unaware of effect
- may reach level of legal insanity
 SAMPLE EXAM QUESTIONS

Essay questions:
1. Billy Bob was concerned about a rash of thefts occurring around his neighborhood. “I’ll get anyone who
tries to break in to my house,” he said. He set up a spring gun, connected to his back door.
To support his drug habit, Bubba has been stealing from homes that his drug dealer tells him to.
Bubba goes to Billy Bob’s back door and sticks his head through the doggie door. He sees the spring gun and
decides to leave. As he is backing out of the doggie door, Billy Bob comes out and points a gun at Bubba.
After a heated argument, Billy Bob shot Bubba. However, the shot was deflected by Bubba’s lunch box,
hitting Billy Bob’s son, Bobby Lou, killing him. Analyze this under the MPC, CL, and TPC.

Multiple-choice questions:
1. After escaping from Happy Acres, Carlton shot the cashier at his local Starbucks. He said he didn’t
understand what the fuss was all about- “Starbucks multiply like rabbits- so slowing this couldn’t be wrong.
My favorite maple tree told me to send a message to corporate America.” Carlton should use which insanity
defense?
a. Durham Test
b. M’Naughten Test
c. Diminished Capacity Test
d. Substantial Step Test

2. Insanity is
a. an excuse defense
b. a justification defense
c. an extrinsic defense
d. an affirmative defense
e. a and d
f. b and d
g. a and c
h. none of the above
i. a, b, c, and d

3. Drag-racing which results in 1 party’s death would be what crime at common law?
a. reckless homicide
b. criminally negligent homicide
c. involuntary manslaughter
d. manslaughter

4. Someone who helps a perpetrator hide stolen goods after the crime is an (under Texas law),
a. accomplice
b. accessory after the fact
c. principal
d. none of the above

5. While driving his Hummer drunk, Tito slams into Ike’s Miata, sending him to the hospital. While at the
hospital, Ike’s doctor, Jiggity Jen accidentally spilled her slurpee on Ike’s paper cut he got earlier that day at
work. This causes a severe infection, and Ike dies. Tito is liable under:
a. but/for causation
b. proximate causation
c. dependent intervening causation
 d. no liability

6. Homer and Apu decided to steal parakeets from Mr. McConnaghey’s Naked Bongo Bar. They show up at
dusk, throw a brick through the window, and wait for the parakeets to fly out, catching them as they come
out. At common law, what are Homer and Apu guilty of?
a. burglary
b. larceny
c. false pretenses
d. vandalism

7. Jay and Silent Bob conspire to kill Ben Affleck. They create an elaborate scheme involving rope, a wok,
and a cow (Bessie). They get all their needed supplies, and show up outside Affleck’s apartment, waiting for
him to come out. After a few minutes, Silent Bob decides he can’t go through with this. Silent Bob
demonstrates to Jay that he can’t go through with the plan, grabs the rope and the wok, hops on Bessie, and
slowly saunters away from Affleck’s apartment. Which jurisdiction should Silent Bob hope he lives in?
a. Texas
b. Model Penal Code
c. Common Law Jurisdiction
d. Canada

8. Barney Fife was in the hospital for eating too many of Aunt Bea’s sweet potato pies in 1 sitting. His
doctors put him on Vicadin after they pumped his stomach. Thinking he was flying, he hopped on a gurney
and rode it to the end of the hall, crashing into Opie. Under the common law, what result for Barney?
a. guilty
b. guilty, but mitigated to a lesser sentence/crime
c. not guilty
d. not guilty by diminished capacity

9. Lucy convinced Ethyl to help her hide the jewelry she stole from Neiman Marcus. However, the cops
found the hidden jewels anyway. Thanks to Lucy’s fabulous defense attorney, Lucy is acquitted. The
prosecution is ready to go ahead with their case against Ethyl. Under common law, what result?
a. guilty, accessory after the fact
b. guilty, accessory at the fact
c. guilty, accomplice
d. not guilty

10. Kate was a roadie for Marilyn Manson. Her job was to cart around his stage makeup. Instead, one day
she decided to sell it on Ebay. Under Texas Law, what is Kate guilty of?
a. embezzlement
b. larceny
c. false pretenses
d. theft

11. Jack sets up a spring gun attached to his front door designed to shoot spitballs at anyone who tries to
break in. Under which jurisdictions is this allowable?
a. MPC
b. CL
c. Texas
d. a and c
e. none of the above
f. Canada
12. Bob the attorney lost his case- the jury didn’t believe his argument that his client was de-worming
orphans in Somalia instead of robbing the local Piggly Wiggly in Sugarland. What burden did Bob fail to
meet?
a. Burden of proof
b. Burden of production
c. Burden of persuasion
d. Burden of justification

13. On March 1, 2001, Elle shot Darcy. Darcy remained in a coma until March 1, 2002, when she dies. What
can Elle be found guilty of under common law? (Pick the best one.)
a. murder
b. attempted murder
c. aggravated assault
d. manslaughter

14. Captain Von Trapp kidnaps a few nuns from the local Convent. Driving to his secret house in the
mountains 6 hours away from the Convent, he runs over a singing woman dancing on a hilltop. Where would
he be guilty of felony murder?
a. MPC
b. CL
c. Texas
d. a and c
e. a,b, and c

15. Curly is a valet for Sullivan’s. Mr. Gates, a customer, hands Curly the keys to his Porsche 911. Curly,
taking the keys decides this valet job is for toadstools, and drives the car to his friend’s house in El Paso,
where Curly decides to start a new life as a masseuse. For what is Curly guilty under common law?
a. theft
b. larceny
c. larceny by trick
d. embezzlement

16. Faith witnesses Garth pointing a gun at Tim and swearing to pull the trigger. She knows Garth well and
he values her opinion. She does nothing. Is she guilty of a crime?
a. MPC= yes, CL= yes, TPC= yes
b. MPC= yes, CL= yes, TPC= no
c. MPC= yes, CL= no, TPC = no
d. MPC= no, CL = yes, TPC = no
e. MPC = no, CL = yes, TPC = yes

17. Congress is sick of Texans taking the law into their own hands. So, congress passes a law that declares
that any Texan who carries a gun on his person or in his car will be guilty of murder and immediately put in
jail for 40 years. Is this allowable?
a. Yes, Police powers
b. No, bill of attainder
c. No, ex post facto law
d. Yes, legality doctrine
18. Sydney is 5 months pregnant when Tully fell asleep at the wheel and accidentally crashes into her car,
sending Sydney spinning into a ditch. Both Sydney and her baby are dead. For what is Tully guilty at
common law?
a. Sydney’s death
b. Sydney’s baby’s death
c. both
d. neither

19. Bobby and Robby have a long history of hatred towards each other. Bobby finally decides he can’t take
any more of Robby’s crap, so he decides to strangle Robby and dump his body in the river. He goes over to
Robby’s house with some twine and a burlap sack. However, when he gets there, Bobby finds Robby already
dead. He decides to strangle the body anyway. He is prosecuted for attempted murder. What defense(s) are
available to Bobby under the MPC?
a. legal impossibility
b. factual impossibility
c. hybrid impossibility
d. all of the above
e. none of the above

20. Mario and Alberto are opposing mob bosses. They decide they need to have a duel. Each sends his
“right-hand man” to the duel. What conspiracy result under MPC?
a. guilty
b. not guilty based on Wharton’s Rule
c. not guilty under hub and spoke
d. guilty under chain relationship

True/False questions:
1. The prosecution has the burden of negating a claim of an affirmative defense.
2. Under the Model Penal Code, a man can rape a man.
3. Texas considers the sexual assault of a child under 14 to an aggravated sexual assault.
4. Under common law, if John comes to Jane’s rescue by killing someone, and John and Jane are strangers,
John is not liable under the common law.
5. MPC recognizes the Castle Doctrine.
6. Someone can attempt to solicit.
7. It is possible to physically hold something and still not have legal possession of it.
8. If a statute is ambiguous, it should always be construed in favor of the plaintiff
9. Neither the common law, the MPC, or the TPC impose a criminal duty to rescue in a situation to which
you are a stranger.
10.Duress is an affirmative defense in Texas