I. BASIC DEFINITION -
Act + Mental State + Causation + Result = Crime – Defenses – Defenses
II. ACTUS REUS - a voluntary act, omissions do not usually count. A. VOLUNTARY ACT COMMON LAW 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.
MPC No person may be convicted of a crime in the absence of conduct that includes of which he is physically capable.
DIFFERENCES
MPC Liability for the commission of an offense may NOT be based on an omission unaccompanied by action UNLESS: the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense, or a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
DIFFERENCES MPC: duty to act MUST be imposed by law
B. OMISSION COMMON LAW Elements failure to act legal duty to act capability to act Legal Duty to act: act: Can be statutorily defined or implied by the required elements of an offense Common Legal Duties: Landowner‟s duties regarding property Duties arising out of relationship b/w actor and victim Contractual Duty Tort law creates a duty where actor voluntarily assumes responsibility Duty to rescue if actor created peril Doctor‟s have no duty to aid unless person requiring aid is a patient Knowledge of duty not required
CL: some non statutory legal legal duties
III. MENS REA - A mental state is required for most crimes.
Strict liability and public welfare welfare offences are the exception. To prove an offense, the prosecution must prove mens rea as to every element of the offense
A. TYPES COMMON LAW (willfully) – to to consciously Intentionally (willfully) – cause the result or when one is virtually certain that the object will occur as a result of 's conduct. Recklessness – Recklessness – A A heightened criminal negligence or conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Negligence – Negligence – Objective Objective fault should have been aware that his conduct created a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the social harm would result.
MPC Purpose - conscious object with conduct & results. Must be aware of the existence or believe or hope that such circumstances do exist Conscience awareness Knowledge – Knowledge – Conscience that results are practically certain to occur Recklessness - Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Should have been aware Negligence – Negligence – Should of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Rule of thumb Purpose = desire for a certain outcome Knowledge = indifference to a certain outcome
DIFFERENCES MPC splits intentionally into purpose and knowledge MPC clear distinction between negligence and recklessness - not on the degree of risk involved but on D's knowledge of the risk. MPC provides that when it is not clear which element a mens rea applies to, apply it to all elements of the offense MPC where the statute is silent on Mens Rea, recklessness is required .
B. STRICT LIABILITY - Where there is no mental state required for an offense COMMON LAW Public welfare and traditional crimes. Created by statute
MPC Under MPC, SL crimes are generally restricted to violations and are punishable by fines, not incarceration public welfare crimes;
DIFFERENCES MPC is generally the same as CL.
IV. RESULT A. CAUSE IN FACT - Causation is only required for result crimes. COMMON LAW Conduct satisfies the but-for test. Actual cause exists when the result that constitutes the criminal offense would not have occurred when it did but for 's voluntary act (or omission)
MPC MPC only requires actual causation and uses the same but-for test as CL. Cause in fact
DIFFERENCES MPC only requires actual causation.
MPC MPC handles proximate causation within the mens rea as to results Satisfy but for test only. No intervening causes
DIFFERENCES For MPC, proximate causation is handled within mens rea (but for).
Establish mens rea and you can establish causation; then use to determine if the result was too distant or accidental in occurrence to have a just bearing on 's liability or on the gravity of the offense.
Purp/Know: Causation not established if result was not what was intended, unless: 1. just a different person (Transferred Intent) 2. Injury less than intended
If the result deviates too far from what is foreseeable, then one will be exculpated for purpose and knowledge crimes. If not, then will be convicted even if there is an intervening actor.
Reck/Neg: Causation not established if result not within risk the actor was or should have been aware of, unless: 1. just a different person (Transferred Intent) 2. Injury less than risked
B. PROXIMATE CAUSE COMMON LAW Forseeability Test To determine proximate cause, one must determine whether the actor was the direct cause and whether there were any intervening actors or intervening causes (coincidences) that severer the causal chain back to No intervening causes unless the cause is foreseeable or de minimus. Intervening Acts - Intervening acts can sufficiently break the chain of causation; Dependent intervening acts: occur where the intervening actor acts because of a condition brought upon by the 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). De Minimus: when the original act would not have caused the death Dangerous Forces Rest: The danger has to cease at some point.
V. CRIME A. HOMICIDE 1. MURDER - unlawful killing of a human being COMMON LAW 1st Degree Murder: Malice aforethought. Acting with Intent to Kill
MPC Purposely or knowingly, or recklessness plus. Premeditation and deliberation are not required.
nd
2 Degree Murder a/k/a Depraved Heart , gross recklessness, malignant heart, Implied Malice, intent to do serious bodily harm DEFN: Acts in the face of an unusually high risk that conduct will cause death of serious bodily harm. Under certain exceptional circumstances nd
Felony murder (typically 2 ) - during the commission or attempted commission of a felony in which death results. Complicity: Accomplices are strictly liable; no mens rea required.
Recklessness Plus – reckless under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life. Complicity: Accomplice – abets with requisite intent before or during the commission of the offense. Accomplice Mens Rea: - Purposefully promotes or facilitates in the commission of a crime. - Must act with culpability sufficient for the commission of the offense - FMR makes him an accomplice in the underlying felony making him strictly liable for the death because he had the mens rea as to the result. - MPC deals with accomplice liability in reckless or negligent contexts.
a. MITIGATION - LESSENS MURDER TO MANSLAUGHTER COMMON LAW MPC Provocation Doctrine Extreme Emotional Disturbance: Act would have to fit in these categories in order to get the manslaughter instruction to the jury: 1. Extreme assault or battery upon the D 2. Mutual combat 3. D‟s illegal arrest 4. Injury or serious abuse of D‟s close relative 5. Sudden discovery of spouse‟s adultery Limitations Does not apply when enough time has passed so that the perpetrator should have cooled off b/c then you are back to cold blooded killing.
Can mitigate from murder to manslaughter even when intent to cause death was present. Two components: - Extreme mental or emotional disturbance - That has a reasonable cause - Under the circumstances as the actor‟s sees it
DIFFERENCES MPC includes gross bodily harm 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. CL murder has degrees first degree includes certain enumerated types of homicide (lying in wait; by poison, etc.); or a willful, deliberate, and premeditated (WDP) killing All other forms are 2 nd degree murder. "malignant heart" is usually 2 nd degree
DIFFERENCES MPC Broadens Mitigation by - No time limitation – no cooling off - No limitation that person killed must have been the provoker. - Leaving out exclusions for mitigation MPC requires that be aware of the risk being taken (recklessness).
-
It used to only be allowed when the provoking incident occurred in the presence of D. b. FELONY MURDER COMMON LAW One is guilty of Murder if she kills another person, even accidentally, during the commission or attempted commission of any felony. Independent Felony/Merger Rule – Underlying felony must be independent of the murder. Causal Connection Required: Either…
MPC Recklessly manifesting extreme indifference to the value of life are inferred during the commission of -
Robbery Rape deviate sexual intercourse Arson Burglary Kidnapping or Felonious escape
DIFFERENCES Code does not have an express felony M rule, it implies recklessness plan during commission of inherently dangerous felony
Agency Theory: The causation limitation requires that the killing be in furtherance of the felony, or at least by an agent of the felon. The mere fact that a death occurs during the commission of a felony will not nec essarily subject the felon to felony M. Or… Proximate Cause: 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.
Complicity One who intentionally assist another person to engage in conduct that constitutes the offense.
Non-Felon Rule: FM rule typically only applies if the death is of a non-felon.
2. MANSLAUGHTER COMMON LAW Voluntary MS – homicide without malice aforethought “Heat of passion" – an Intentional killing without malice - committed in response to legally adequate provocation
Involuntary MS – unintended killing with no malice or “Misdemeanor manslaughter” - an unintentional killing that occurs during the commission of an unlawful act.
MPC Reckless - unlike reckless M, here the conduct, although reckless, does not manifest an extreme indifference to the value of human life
DIFFERENCES
OR Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance (EMED)
3. NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE COMMON LAW None
MPC A criminally negligent killing of the third degree
DIFFERENCES Equivalent to involuntary MS under the Common Law
B. INCHOATE 1. ATTEMPT - an ct inn furtherance of an intent to bring about certain consequences which would in law amount to a crime. COMMON LAW Mens Rea For the Attempt, D must have specific intent - an intent to do an act or to bring about certain consequences which would in law amount to a crime
MPC Mens Rea - (1099) D must have the purposeful intent to 1. Do the act 2. Accomplish the result 3. Under the same circumstances
Negligent or Reckless crimes - Attempt to commit is logically impossible
The mens rea for attempt is o ften higher than the one required for the target offense. Generally, the required mens rea is purpose.
Merger Rule: Attempt merges with the completed crime. Actus Reus - Tests Proximity test – measures the attempt by how physically and dangerously close D came to actually committing the crime.
Actus Reus – (1099 ex. of conduct) - D must perform a substantial step toward committing the crime. - D‟s conduct must be corroborative of D's purpose.
Probable desistance – If conduct of D goes beyond that of a reasonable person in a similar situation, then he‟s probably liable for attempt.
Attempt is graded as the most serious crime that is attempted , except an attempt of a first degree crime is second degree attempt.
DIFFERENCES CL - Actus Reus tests are jxd specific
Most states no attempt for Felony Murder
Unequivocality (res ipsa loquitur) – Objective Test for attempt. An act amounts to attempt only if it firmly shows the ‟s intent to commit the crime. The act “speaks for itself”
Merger Rule Applies
Last Proximate Act - D must have done everything except the last act required to complete the offense. (This test could miss a lot of attempts) Attempt is a lesser offense of the target crime . a. DEFENSES COMMON LAW Legal Impossibility: D took all actions, but actions could not result in a crime. Traditionally: NO DEFENSE Modern View: Abandonment is a defense, if it is complete and voluntary.
NOT A DEFENSE Factual impossibility is not a defense: D took all actions to commit crime but b/c of some missing fact the crime was thwarted.
MPC
DIFFERENCES
Abandonment is a defense, if it is voluntary and complete (manifesting a renunciation of criminal purpose, not just a postponement). Imaginary Offense Defense 5.01(1)(a) Where the actor is mistaken in his belief that his intended conduct is an offense. Inherent Impossibility Defense 5.05(2) No possibility of a crime actually happening from D‟s conduct
Traditional View: Abandonment is never a defense.
2. CONSPIRACY COMMON LAW Elements: 1. An agreement b/w 2 or more people 2. with intent to agree 3. and intent to achieve objective
MPC Actus Reus Unilateral agreement (a subjective view) and overt act
DIFFERENCES MPC - knowledge is not enough. CL - knowledge and agmt to assist may be enough. MPC is unilateral.
Plurality requirement – bilateral agreement – an objective view. Exception: Wharton‟s Rule: Conspiracy liability is barred where the criminal act itself requires more than one person. Hub And Spoke (one common center with reasonably independent subagmts or Chain Relationship (a series of agmts all of which are regarded as part of a single larger scheme) Actus Reus: Formation of the group along, no overt act Object of Agmt - need only be unlawful / wrongful. Nature of the Agmt - does not require objective evidence of the a greement; mainly
Overt Act - No overt act is required for serious (1 st or 2nd degree) felonies, but required for all other offences. Must be some act, no matter how trivial or innocent Object of Agreement – criminal act Merger – merges with the crime unless there are further conspiratorial crimes to be carried out. Mens Rea (1101) The purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense. Courts are left to their discretion to decide whether purpose applies to all elements of the offense, or just the result.
CL lets off if state cannot prove that there was another person with the requisite mens rea. Overt act requirement is only in MPC. MPC merges and CL does not. MPC rejects the Pinkerton Doctrine. Hearsay evidence may be brought in to prove the conspiracy, but not the substantive offense.
mental in nature; its concerted action, conversation, and conduct
No Merger - does not merge into an attempt or the completed offense. Mens Rea Requires specific intent (purposeful) with: 1. intent to agree (may be inferred from conduct, but not from mere kno wledge) 2. intent to carry out the object crime. Some courts allow conviction if the second mens rea (as to object crime) is merely knowledge. (SPECIAL SITUATIONS ONLY)
Mere knowledge is not usually enough, but can be when combined with a stake in the success of the object crime. Punishment - punishment is the same for conspiracy as for the object crime in all cases but 1 st 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 said to have aided and abetted in its commission.
Punishment - charged as the substantive offense that is conspired to produce. Pinkerton Test - all members of a conspiracy can be held as accomplices of any crime in furtherance of the conspiracy and any foreseeable result of it. Liability holds even if the co-conspirator did not assist the perpetrator. a. DEFENSES COMMON LAW Barbri says withdrawal was not a common law defense Abandonment, unless the offense is completed (once there is agreement) abandonment is not a defense. Can relieve liability for future crime of former conspirators.
MPC
DIFFERENCES
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.
C. COMPLICITY 1. ACCOMPLICE - An accomplice is one who intentionally assists another person to engage in conduct that constitutes the offense COMMON LAW Types To be charged, Principal must have completed the offense Accomplice can only be liable after conviction of the principal Accessory before the fact – incites or abets but is not present at the time of the crime. Accessory after the fact – if you aid a perpetrator after the completion of a felony, you can be liable if you have knowledge the felony was committed, and personally give aid to felon to hinder his apprehension or punishment Actus reus MUST assist the perpetrator in committing
MPC Types Accomplice – incites or abets with requisite intent before or during the commission of the offense. Mens Rea Purposefully promotes or facilitates in the commission of a crime. Actus Reus - must attempt or agree to assist perpetrator - Must act with culpability sufficient for the commission of the offense
DIFFERENCES MPC – Those that agree to aid or attempt to aid but do not actually aid are also liable 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 - knowing facilitation is not enough to establish liability. A victim cannot be an accomplice. CL - If the perpetrator is justified, then there is no accomplice liability because
the offense **accomplice need not be necessary for successful completion of the offense **Can consist of encouragement alone
there is no crime. CL- excuses do not transfer from perpetrator to accomplice A victim accomplice (underage girl in statutory rape) cannot be an accomplice unless there is a legislative exception.
Abetting -is any significant assistance in the commission of an offense Inciting – encouragement even if not accompanied by physical aid.
Knowing or reckless facilitation is sufficient to establish complicity in some courts
Mens rea That which is 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 inferred from the first. Accomplice is liable for all crimes that are a reasonably foreseeable result of the contemplated crime. a. DEFENSES COMMON LAW Withdrawal - Must take place before the events are unstoppable - Inciter(encourager) – communicate an renunciation of the crime to the perpetrator - Abettor – Must render the assistance gave ineffective
MPC Withdrawal - Wholly depriving his prior assistance of effectiveness, - Provide a timely warning of the plan to law enforcement - Make an effort to prevent the commission of the offence
DIFFERENCES
COMMON LAW Elements of Rape: Forcible Penetration of female by male Against V‟s will
MPC MPC 213.1, pg 1124
Alternatives to force allowable: - Fraud to such a degree that woman either: - did not know she was having intercourse - did not know intercourse was not w/ Husband
Force required: More than intercourse?
DIFFERENCES Modern trends vary greatly from both CL and MPC: - Gender neutral terms recognizing rape doesn‟t have to be by male/against female - Broader view of coercion, focuses on lack of consent instead of force - Only require verbal resistance - Marital exemptions removed - Statutory age increased - No corroboration required - No cautionary jury instructions - Rape Shield Laws: V‟s sexual history no longer admissible unless prior history is b/w V and D
D. RAPE
Husband incapable of raping wife - main concern was to protect the honor of husband/father D’s mental state irrelevant Ds perception of Vs mental state irrelevant
Admissible evidence: Delay in victim reporting crime Some Jdxn require corroboration Prior sexual conduct (Prostitutes incapable of being raped Prejudicial Jury Instruction: Rape is easy to charge and hard to prove therefore requires
Defines rape as being committed by a male with a female victim
Mistaken reasonable belief in consent can provide a defense MPC 213.6, pg 1126-7 (1) mistake of age not a defense (2) prohibits rape b/w husband and wife (3) victim‟s promiscuity a defense (4) complaint must occur in 3 months (5) requires corroborative testimony Children under age of 10 presumed lack of consent
Modern View Crime is: 1. Crime of violence 2. Sex Crime, and 3. Privacy Offense
close scrutiny Punishment: death penalty until 1977 - violates 8th amendment cruel and unusual Children under age of 10 presumed lack of consent
E. THEFT COMMON LAW Divided into Several CL Crimes: 1. Larceny 2. Embezzlement 3. False pretenses Larceny: Actus Reus (1) Trespassory taking: D takes possession of the personal property of another without consent or in absence of justification - Possession: a person has sufficient control over the property to use it in an unrestricted manner - Custody: person has the right to control, but does not have unrestricted use rights - “Continuing Trespass”: even if the initial taking was consensual, as soon as the intent of the actor changes, some courts have held that trespass begins at that point (2) Carrying away: Any movement of the property qualifies (3) Of Personal Property of Another: - title is irrelevant, - Only personal property qualifies, not real property, - Intangible Property is covered under different laws - If you give your property to someone for repair, you have given them lawful possession Mens Rea (1) Intent to permanently deprive the other of property (2) Must concur with the taking (3) “Continuing trespass” theory can overcome concurrence requirement b/c a new “trespassory” taking is manufactured to concur w/ intent Embezzlement: (1) Taking of possession (2) of personal property (3) Lawfully entrusted to D (4) and D converts it to his own use - Common with financial crimes and shipping Cases - Very thin difference b/w larceny and Embezzlement
MPC Theft by Unlawful Taking 223.2, pg 1132 - Unlawful taking of another‟s movable or immovable property - Mens Rea is the same as CL: purposeful Theft by Deception 223.3, 1132 - Similar to CL false pretenses - purposely obtain another‟s property by deception - deception must be purposeful - does not include puffing or immaterial misreps - obtain means to bring about a transfer of a legal interest in the property Theft of Property Lost, Mislaid or Delivered by Mistake 223.5, 1133 - one who comes into control of property he knows has been lost, mislaid or delivered by mistake - with purpose of depriving TO, he fails to take reasonable measures to restore property to TO Theft of Services 223.7, 1134 - one who purposely obtains services by deception or threat or by false token or other means to avoid payment for the service. - must know services are typically compensated - where payment is typically immediate (hotels, restaurants) mens rea is presumed - a person who knowingly diverts services to his own benefit for which he is not entitled has committed theft
DIFFERENCES MPC: if you remove something attached to another‟s land, it is theft CL: if you remove something attached to another‟s land, it is not theft, it is a tort MPC: distinction between possession and custody is removed, if you exercise unlawful control over property, you are guilty MPC recognizes theft of nonproperty (Services) MPC recognizes that theft can occur even if you don’t carry away the property
False Pretenses: (1) Actor transfers title (2) In another‟s property (3) To the actor - Typically involves fraud and misrepresentation - Ex: Using counterfeit money to buy gas or groceries
VI. DEFENSES A. JUSTIFICATION - conduct that is otherwise criminal, but that here is either "right" or "not wrong" under the circumstances. 1. DEFENSIVE FORCE JUSTIFICATION COMMON LAW A person is justified in using force on another: - he is not an aggressor - he reasonably believes force is necessary - to protect from imminent use of unlawful/aggressive force by another Retreat Required (minority of states) - must be able to retreat to complete safety - person must be aware of a place of safety - “Castle Rule” is exception: do not have to leave your own home Requires IMMINENT Threat clear and imminent danger only action will avoid danger no effective alternative must have clean hands harm caused is less than harm avoided Deadly force: Only allowed when life is being threatened requires retreat to a public place never allowed for unlawful arrest
MPC Self Defense, 3.04, pg1085 (1)A persons is justified in using defensive force if: - the actor believes - such force is immediately necessary - for the purpose of protecting himself - on the present occasion (2)If you know you can retreat, then deadly force is off the table (2)(b)Deadly force is justified if one faces a threat of death, SBH, forcible rape, or kidnapping. Defense of Other Persons 3.05, pg 1086 Essentially same as CL
DIFFERENCES MPC looks at the D's subjective belief, the belief need not be reasonable. MPC replaces imminence with the phrase "immediately necessary" so that one may use force sooner under than CL. MPC - deadly force is more broad than CL one who acts with the purpose causing death or GBH qualifies In CL force not likely to cause death or SBH is not deadly force even if it was the 's purpose to kill.
Defense of Property 3.06, pg 1087 - Use of force only after request actor to desist if possible - Deadly force available even where life is not threatened
Defense of Property: - no more force than reasonably appears necessary for defense of possessory interest - deadly force is NEVER allowed - Early CL allowed use of deadly force in own home, now only if D reasonably believes lives are in jeopardy Defense of Other Persons - Deadly force unavailable if person being defended is capable of subduing attacker or retreating - Conversely, if deadly force is justified, but you are capable of subduing, must subdue
2. LESSER EVILS DEFENSE COMMON LAW is justified if he reasonably believes he is avoiding the greater evil and: (1) the harm is imminent (2) the harm caused is proportionally LESS than the harm avoided
MPC Was action necessary to avoid a greater harm or evil?
DIFFERENCES MPC does not have an immediacy requirement.
Choice of Evils 3.02, pg 1084 - Conduct believed to be necessary to
MPC if caused it accidentally, he can still claim necessity
(requires proof)
avoid harm or evil
There must not be an alternative.
- The harm sought to be prevented is greater than the harm caused
may not have created the necessity. - If the actor recklessly or negligently brought about the harm avoided, and the harm caused has a mens rea of reckless or negligence then justification disappears.
can never take another's innocent life out of necessity.
se
only applies when a natural force created the necessity. (Traditionally, however, after MPC most CL jurisdictions have adopted a broader approach)
though if he recklessly or negligently created the necessity, he may be held for crimes of recklessness and negligence. MPC allows se in cases where a natural force did not create the necessity.
3. PUBLIC AUTHORITY JUSTIFICATION COMMON LAW Goal: to protect a societal interest or advance societal good by person with authority Justification arises where there is: Special authorization, plus Evoking conditions, allows Necessary force Exceptions to Authorization Requirement: - all persons are authorized to use force to prevent suicide - authorization to use force against a person preparing to commit or has just committed a crime (under certain circumstances)
MPC Public Authority 3.08, pg 1091 Force is justifiable in following - parent/guardian - teacher or other entrusted with care - guardian of an incompetent person - doctor or therapist - Warden or other official - One responsible for safety of vessel - one authorized by law to maintain order
DIFFERENCES
Evoking Conditions - threat of harm not required - whenever a recognized interest is endangered, or - an opportunity to further an interest is Presented Necessary Force and Proportionality must use least harmful conduct Acting with “proper purpose” No need to be absolutely necessary generally statutorily limited
B. EXCUSE - wrongful conduct, but under the circumstances, D is not morally culpable or blameworthy 1. DURESS COMMON LAW Actor must be under the coercion; acting under the duress; and must have clean hands Not a defense for homicide. A defense if performance of an otherwise criminal act occurs 1) Under threat of imminent infliction of death or GBH 2) If he reasonably believes death or GBH will be inflicted on himself or immediate family if he does not perform
MPC MPC 2.09, pg 1082 (1) Duress is an affirmative defense: - D was coerced to commit offense - a person of reasonable firmness would have been unable to resist (2) Defense is unavailable if D inserted himself in situation recklessly or negligently
DIFFERENCES MPC abandons the CL requirements of deadly force and imminency in favor of excusing whenever a person of reasonable firmness would also have yielded to coercion; MPC is one of general applicability may be used in murder cases MPC does not require that an imperiled party be s relative.
The act is termed excusable rather than justifiable.
MPC similar to CL in that it is limited to threats or use of unlawful force and does not apply to coercion by natural sources.
2. INSANITY- DISABILITY EXCUSE COMMON LAW Either: 1. Actor is aware of the conduct, but does not know it is criminal (God told me to do it) 2. Actor knows conduct is criminal, but lacks the ability to control it. (god told me to do it)
MPC MPC 4.01
Requires a mental disease or defect
Does not include abnormality manifested by repeated criminal or antisocial conduct
DIFFERENCES
Substansial capacity- If, at the time of action, due to mental defect or disability, D lacked substantial capacity - to appreciate criminality of conduct - or to conform conduct to law
Subnormality: Suffering from low intelligence, requires same cognitive dysfunction
3. MISTAKE a. OF FACT COMMON LAW Not a defense to a Strict Liability Crime Honest mistake defense available for specific intent crimes (less strict than r easonable mistake) Reasonable mistake defense available for general intent crimes (NJ‟s codified law)
MPC MPC 2.04(1)(a)(b), pg 1078 Must negate the mental state required to establish any element of the offense.
DIFFERENCES 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.
If Mistake caused an offense to be greater in degree than actor originally thought, mistake doesn‟t get him off, but affords him the lesser degree of offense
MPC – Look at the world through the ‟s eyes in a factual (not legal) manner MPC/CL - No mistakes get you off for strict liability. b. OF LAW COMMON LAW Ignorance of the law is no excuse Exceptions - mistake must be reasonable and honest. - No reasonable notification/publishing - Specification in Statute that knowledge of law is req‟d.
MPC MPC 2.04(3)(a)(b) pg 1078 Exceptions to general rule: - Specification in Statute that knowledge of law is req‟d. - Reliance on Official Statement - No reasonable notification/ Publishing Where mistake is based on permission by gov‟t official, D must prove by preponderance of the evidence that official had the authority to approve action
DIFFERENCES CL and MPC approaches are similar. In general, unless falling into a recognized exception, ignorance of the law is no defense. MPC codifies the CL reasonable reliance doctrine.
4. INTOXICATION COMMON LAW Intoxication results from taking intoxicating substance: 1. Without knowledge of its nature 2. Under direct duress imposed by another or 3. Pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the substances intoxicating effect. Actor lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law
MPC MPC 2.08, pg 1082 Intoxication only serves as a defense if: - it is not self induced (involuntary) - is pathological (excessive, not an alcoholic)
DIFFERENCES
In those circumstances, intoxication must cause a lack of substantial capacity to: appreciate criminality conform conduct to law
5. IMMATURITY COMMON LAW All those below a certain age are immature
MPC MPC 4.10, pg 1098
Bars defense completely regardless of “mental” age of actor
Provides that Juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction over children less than 16
Some states provide that immaturity is a rebuttable presumption: i.e. you can charge a minor as an adult if you can prove it. Not a question for the jury: results in determination of which court hears case
Children 16 or 17 can be tried as an adult only where Juvie has no jurisdiction or has waived jurisdiction
DIFFERENCES
