I.

BASIC DEFINITION -- Act + Mental State + Result = Crime -- Defenses

Utilitarian: general deterrance (sends message to others that crime doesn’t pay), specific deterrance (punish D to deter D from future criminal
activity), rehabilitation (prevent future crime by reforming an individual by providing skills, phych aid,etc so D will not need or want to commit
offenses), punishment (no more pain than necessary to fulfill the deterrant goal)

Retributivist--just desserts (punishing wrongdoer is justified because deserved response to wrongdoing), rationale (wrongdoing creates a moral
disequilibrium in society), punishment (should be proportional to the harm caused and actor's culpability

II. ACTUS REUS = a voluntary act that gives rise to criminal liability, omissions do not usually count
A. VOLUNTARY ACT
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Requires a voluntary and a social harm. An act is No person may be convicted of a crime in
voluntary if ∆ willed the action or if he was sufficiently the abscense of conduct that includes of
free that she could be blamed for his conduct. The which he is physically capable
social harm is the wrong caused by ∆'s voluntary act

*VOLUNTARY ACT* Martin v. State -- [after being arrested at his home, was taken by officers on to a highway where he manifested a
drunken condition] Criminal liability must be based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or omission to act which was physically possible to
have performed
B. EXCEPTIONS
1. OMISSIONS
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
No crime unless there is a legal duty to act Types: Same as CL criminal liability imposed for None
the omission of an act which ∆ is physicall
Statute capable Notes
Contract Not obtaining reasonably available help can
Special Relationship make ∆ liable, no matter what ∆'s phycial
Assumption of Care capabilies
Peril wrongfully created for another
*OMISSION(NEGATIVE ACTS) People v. Beardsley --[D was spending night with a woman other than his wife, failed to get
medical treatment for his companion when she took a fatal overdose of morphine] while it is the moral duty of every person to extend to others
assistance when in danger, a person who fails to act to save the life of someone to whom he does not satand in the legal relation of protector is not
chargeable with manslaughter

*DISTINGUISH ACTS OF OMISSION* Barber v. Superior Ct. -- [permantely comatose patient following surgery was taken off of
artificial respiration and nutrition, leading to death, D, physician, was charged with murder] absent objection from the spouse of one permanently
comatose, a doctor is under no legal duty to keep the patient alive through forced respiration and nutrition

2. INVOLUNTARY ACT
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Can negate the action or serve as an affirmative defense. Involuntary acts: reflex, convulsion, MPC extends CL such that acts done under
Done in a state of unconsciousness. But cannot be self- movements during sleep, movements under hypnosis and in states of unconsciousness are
induced (ie induced by drinking EtOH) or the result of hypnosis, and unconscious "no action"
movements
*VOLUNTARY/INVOLUNTARY ACT* State v. Utter -- [after stabbed his son to death, he asserted the defense of conditional response,
contending that he was incapable of committing a culpable act b/c he was in an automatistic state] an "act" within the defintion of homicide, must be
a willed movement
III. MENS REA = criminal intent. A mental state is required for most crimes. Strict liability and public welfare offences are the exceptions.
A. TYPES
COMMON LAW
Intentionally (willfully) -- to consciously cause the
result or when one is virtually certain that the object will
occur as a result of ∆'s conduct
Knowingly--correctly aware, Willful Blindness
MPC
Purpose -- Conscious object with conduct &
results. Must be aware of the existence or
believe or hope that such circumstances do
exist
Knowledge -- Conscience awareness that
results are practically certain to occur
To prove an
DIFFERENCES
MPC splits intentionally into purpose and
knowledge
MPC clear distinction between negligence and
recklessness--not on the degree of risk
involved but on ∆'s knowledge of the risk

Recklessness -- A heightened criminal negligence or Recklessness -- Conscious disregard of a MPC provides that when it is not clear which
conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable substantial and unjustifiable risk element a mens rea applies to, apply it to all
risk elements of the offense
Negligence -- Objective fault ∆ should have been aware Negligence -- Should have been aware of a Where the statute is silent on Mens Rea,
that his conduct created a substantial and unjustifiable substantial and unjustifiable risk recklessness is required
risk that the social harm would result
Maliciously -- When one intentionally or grossly
reckless causes the social harm prohibited by the statute
Rule of thumb Willfull Blindness
Purpose = desire for a certain outcome
Knowledge = indifference to a certain MPC--if one deliberately avoids knowledge
outcome because of the belief that knowing would be
bad, then ∆ satisfies mens rea of knowledge.
Requires high probability
CL--Only have to be aware of probably
existence of element
*MENS REA* Regina v. Cunningham --[victim was partially asphyxiated by seeping gas after D stole the gas meter from the basement of her
building, D was charged and convicted for the injury to victim] Malice requires either an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that was in
fact done or recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not

*INTENT* People v. Conley --[in a fight outside a large party, D hit victim with a wine bottle, breaking his upper and lower jaws, other facial
bones, and some teeth] a person who, in committing a batter, intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm or permanent disability or
disfigurement commits aggravated batter-----when offenses are defined in terms of result, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
a D either had a conscious objective to achieve the harm defined or was consciously aware that the harm defined was practically certain to be caused
by his conduct---intent can be infered from the surrounding circumstances, the offender's words, the weapon used, and the force of the blow
B. ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
For a crime requiring mens rea of:
Purpose -- ∆ must be aware of the existence
of such circumstances (attendant), or
believes or is aware they exist

Knowledge -- Aware that his conduct is of

that nature or that such circumstances exist;
only requires high probability of existence

Reckless -- Conscience disregard of

substantial and unjustified risk
Negligence -- Should be aware of substantial
or unjustified risk
*KNOWLEDGE OF A.CIRC* State v. Nations --[D owned and operated a bar where police found a 16yr old girl dancing for tips] To
"knowingly" engage in criminal conduct, D must have actual knowledge of the existence of the attendant circumstances which constitute the crime---
MPC expands definition of "knowingly" to include even willful blindness, but the state legislature chose to enact the narrower definition, limitin
"knowingly" to only actual knowledge---not checking ID means she did not know or at best willfully shut her eyes and only aware of high probability
not aware of conduct

*STATUTORY INTERPRETATION* Flores-Figueroa v. U.S. -- [D was convicted of the predicate crimes of entering U.S. without
inspection and misusing immigration docs, as well as of aggravated ID theft. D contended that he his conviction for aggravated ID theft had to be
overturned b/c the Govt failed to prove that he knew that the ID he used while committing the predicate crimes belonged to someone else] before D
may be convicted of the crime of aggravated ID theft under statute, the govt must prove that she or he knew that the ID she used to commit predicate
crimes belonged to somone else
C. SPECIFIC INTENT/GENERAL INTENT
COMMON LAW
Applies to mens rea. Defined by the crime
General Intent -- volitional doing of a prohibited act.
Only require intent to commit the act constituting the
crime. Can infer all mens rea from observing the
conduct
Specific Intent -- intent to do some further act or cause
some additional consequences beyond that which must
have been committed or cause in order to complete the
crime. Acts in addition to general intent. Proof of
specific intent is required, but it may be circumstantial
MPC DIFFERENCES
MPC does not distinguish between general This is exclusively a CL issue
and specific intent
General intent -- ∆ desired to commit an
actus reus; intent to do the conduct (Mistake
must be honest and reasonable to negate mens
rea element of the crime)
Specific intent -- ∆ desired to bring about
something further; intent to do conduct and
further intent (Mistake must be honest only to
negate mens rea element of crime)

**To negate specific intent, a mistake must be honest MALUM IN SE -- an act that is wrong in
accordance with natural law, without respect
to whether it is prohibited by statute (no
mistake of law/fact defense)

**to negate a general intent, the mistake must be honest MALUM PROHIBITUM --prohibit only
and reasonable conduct(mistake of law/fact is defense b/c
an arbitrary rule disallowing good faith
mistake defense is unfair)

*MISTAKE OF FACT* People v. Navarro --[D was charged with grand theft ((intent to steal the property)) for taking four wooden beams
from a construction site, he unsuccessfuly requested the court to instruct th ejurty that if he in good faith believed he had the right to take the beams,
he should be acquitted, even if his belief is unreasonable]---if one takes personal property with good faith belief that the property has been abandoned
or discarded by the true owner, he is not guilty of theft, even where such good-faith belief is unreasonable

*MISTAKE OF LAW* People v. Marrero ---[D charged with illegal firearms possession, argued that he mistakenly believed himself exempt
from the ambit of the statute proscribing possession] a good faith mistaken belief as to the meaning of a criminal statute is no defense to a violation of
a malum in se crime statute
 *MISTAKE OF LAW* Cheek v. United States --[D was charged with willfully failing to file a federal income tax return and willfully
attempting to evade his income tax, he argued that bc he sincerely believed that the tax laws were invalid, he acted without the willfulness required
for conviction] Any person who willfully attempts to evade or defeat the requirement that he pay a tax on his income shall be guilty of a felony where
it can be shown that he knows and understands the law

D. STRICT LIABILITY -- Where there is no mental state required for an offense; liability for all injuries proximately caused by a party's conducting of
certain inherently dangerous activities without regard to negligence or fault
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Public welfare and traditional crimes. Create by statute Under MPC, SL crimes are generally MPC is generally the same as CL; generally
restricted to violations and are punishiable offenses punishable by imprisonment
by fines, not incarceration --public welfare cannot be understood to be public welfare
crimes offenses, but must require mens rea

Staples v. U.S. --[D was convicted b/c he had not registerd in the National Firearms Registration a rifle which had been modified to be capable of
fully automatic fire, he claimed that he did not know of the rifle's automatic firing capability] When construing a statute as dispensing with mens rea
would require the D to have knowledge only of traditionally lawful conduct, a severe penalty is a further factor tending to suggest that Congress did
not intend to eliminate a mens rea requirement---some indication of congressional intent, express or implied, is required to dispense with mens rea as
an element of a crime
Garnett v. State --[D, a 20yr old retarded man, was convicted of second degree statutory rape for having intercourse with a 13yr old] The state statute
prohibiting sexual intercourse with underage persons makes no reference to the actor's knowledge, belief, or other state of mind----silence as to mens
rea from legislative history suggests it is a strict liability crime

IV. RESULT
A. CAUSE IN FACT -- Causation is only required for result crimes
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Conduct satisfies the but-for test. Actual cause exists MPC only requires actual causation and uses MPC only requires actual causation
when the result that constitutes the criminal offense the same but-for test as CL. Cause in fact
would not have occurred when it did but for ∆'s
voluntary act (or omission)
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
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 ∆'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)
Apparent Safety Doctrine: even though the D has
created a dangerous situation, she is not responsible for
the ensuing result if it can be determined that the
dangerous situation created by the D is over--that the
victim, once at risk, has reached apparent safety
MPC
MPC handles proximate causaion within the For MPC, proximate causation is handled
mens rea as to results. Whether the result
was too distant or accidental in occurrence to
have a just bearing on ∆'s liability or on the
gravity of the offense
If the result deviates too far from what is
foreseeable, then one will be exculpated for
purpose and knowledge crimes. If not, then
∆ will be convicted even if there is an
intervening actor
For risky crimes, the result must have been
foreseeable in order to convict
DIFFERENCES
within mens rea
Purpose/Knowledge: Causation not
established if result was not what was
intended unless: 1) ∏ just different person
(transferred intent); 2) Injury less than
intended
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
Exceptions to forseeability:
Take the Victim as you find him -- Condition
unforseeable, but ∆ still liable.
Voluntary intervening act - Result foreseeable
but ∆ not held liable
V. CRIME
A. HOMICIDE
1. MURDER--unlawful killing of a human being
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
A killing committed purposely or knowingly,
Homicide with malice aforethought or gross recklessness. MPC includes GBH under recklessness
Premeditation and deliberation are not
Malice Aforethough has four possible states of mind: required MPC's mens rea is equivalent to CL's intent.
1. Intention to kill another human: One may but need Gross recklessness--reckless under
not, infer the intent to kill from the use of a deadly circumstances manifesting extreme When MPC uses recklessness as the mens rea,
weapon indifference to human life it is similar to CL's malignant heart killings

Statutes have been enacted which give

2. Intention to inflict grievous bodily harm degrees of to CL murder:
1st Degree: lying in wait; by poison; wilful,
deliberate and premeditated (WDP) killing;
felony murder (enumerated felonies include
3. Gross Recklessness (depraved heart)-Acts in the
arson, rape, robbery, or burglary)
face of an unusually high risk that conduct will cause
death of serious bodily harm. Wanton and willful
disregard of an unreasonable human risk
2nd Degree: "malignant heart" is usually 2nd
degre
4. Felony Murder--during the commission or
attempted commission of a felony in which death
results. Strict liability for homicide
 a. PROVOCATION--mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance --

Homicide committed under the influence of MPC requires that D be aware of the risk
extreme mental or emotional disturbance for being taken (recklessness). MPC's use of
Must be committed in sudden heat of passion under which there is reasonable explanation or EMED is a broader form of CL provocation
adequate provocation; no coolling off period. excuse defense

Heat of Passion MPC equivalent of provocation EMED v. Heat of Passion (HoP)

**EMED applies to all types of homicide vs.

Adequate Provocation: HoP only applies to intentional homicides

**EMED words alone may be adequate vs.

aggravated assault or battery HoP where they are not
**EMED has no cooling time requirement
mutual combat and HoP does
serious crime against close relative
illegal arrest
observation of infidelity
 b. FELONY MURDER
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
One is guilty if she kills another person, even Does not distinguish felony murder, but Code does not have an express felony M rule
accidentally during the commission or attempted MPC raises a presumption of "recklessness
commission of any felony and indifference to human life" if the ∆
during the commission or attempt of certain
felonies.

Inherently dangerous test -- the lower bound for

acceptable felonies. The felony must be inherently
dangerous
Merger Rule -- Upper bound for acceptable felonies.
Felony must be independent from the murder. This
excludes felones arising during the commission of a
murder
However, this is not absolute, the
prosecution must still prove it. The jury is
simply permitted to infer extreme If the felony is one of the enumerated felonies
indifference to human life from the (arson, burgluary, robbery, or rape), then this
commission of the felony. M is 1st degree. If not, then it is 2nd degree
∆ may present evidence that the felony was
committed in the manner that does not
manifest extreme indifferece to human life.
It is up to the jury to decide. Therefore,
gross recklessness during a felony can be a
predicate for felony M

The causation limitation requires that the killing be in

furtherance of the felony. The mere fact that a death
occurs during the commission of a felony will not
necessarily subject the felon to felony M.

The central issue is the foreseeable risk of death. In

most jurisdictions, no felony M if the person who
commits the homicide is a non-felon who is resisting the
felony

A few states apply a proximate causation test which

holds a felon responsible for the killing by a non-felon if
the felon proximately caused the death/set in motion the
events that lead to the death
2. MANSLAUGHTER
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Voluntary MS -- homicide without malice aforethought Reckless --- unlike reckless M, here the
conduct, although reckless, does not
manifest an extreme indifference to the value
of human life

"Heat of Passion" -- Intentionally killing committed in Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance

response to legally adequate provocation (EMED

Imperfect justification -- a killing tha tis the result of an

act, lawful in itself, but done in an unlawful manner

Involuntary MS -- unintended killing

Criminal Negligence -- Killing resulting from gross
negligence. (This would include MPC Recklessness as
well)

Unlawful Act "Misdemeaner manslaughter" -- an

unintentional killing that occurs during commission of
an unlawful act. Includes malum in se (wrong in itself)
felonies and misdemeanors
VI. DEFENSES

A. JUSTIFICATION -- conduct that is otherwise criminal, but that here is either "right" or "not wrong" under the circumstances
1. SELF DEFENSE
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
∆ if not the agressor is justified in using force if: ∆ if not the aggressor is justified in using MPC looks at the ∆'s subjective belief, the
(deadly) force if: belief need not be reasonable.

1. ∆ reasonably believes it is necessary to 1. ∆ honestly believes such force is If ∆'s belief was negligently or
defend ∆'s person immediately necessary to protect ∆'s recklessly formed, one can be liable
person harm is unlawful (SUBJECTIVE for reckless or negligent use of deadly
STANDARD) force

2. ∆ must be threatened with physical harm
2. Deadly force is justified if one faces a MPC replaces imminence with the phrase
threat to death, GBH, forcible rape, or "immediately necessary" so that one may use
kidnapping. A threat without that force sooner than CL
purpose is not deadly force, even if a
weapon backs up the threat

3. ∆ reasonably believed the threatened harm is If ∆ knows/realizes he can be completely MPC -- deadly force is more broad than CL.
unlawful safe by retreating, ∆ must: One who acts with the purpose causing death
or GBH qualifies.

(OBJECTIVE STANDARD) 1. if ∆ unlawfully starts a non-lethal In CL force not likely to cause death or GBH
conflict, he does not lose his priviledge is not deadly force even if it was the ∆'s
of self-defense if V escalates it into a purpose to kill
lethal assault

5. Deadly force must additionally show
reasonable belief ∆ is imminently facing deadly
force
2. Retreat is required within one's home MPC does not include the non-deadly
or office if the actor was the initial aggressor
aggressor an dhe wishes to regain his
right to self-defense or even if he was
not the aggressor

6. ∆ had no opportunity to retreate (Old 3. ∆ no duty to retreat from home even

common law standard from a co-dweller
 7. ∆ may always use non-deadly force to protect
oneself against an unlawful aggresor

When ∆ is the aggressor, he loses his right to use force.

∆ may purge himself of this status as the aggressor and
regain his right to self-defense by removing himself
from the fray and successfully communicating that fact

Duty to Retreat:
If ∆, as the aggressor uses non-deadly force, and victim *MPC: uses subjective standard; looks at
responds with deadly force, ∆ may immediately regain whether you believe you can retreat safely
his right to self-defense

DUTY TO RETREAT: ∆ has duty to retreat ONLY if

you kno wyou can retreat in complete safety; No duty to *EXPECTION: castle doctrin--no duty to
retreat if you're not using deadly force, no duty to retreat retreat from your own home. If the threat is
in NM imment you won't be able to retreat safely
2. NECESSITY
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
∆ is justified if he reasonably believes that he is ∆ is not justified unless ∆ not only MPC requires that ∆'s reasonable belief
avoiding the greater evil reasonably believs that ∆ is avoiding the actually be true
greater harm, but ∆ is actually avoiding the
greater harm

Balance of evils must be positive Balance of evils must be positive MPC does not have an immediacy
requirement

There must not be an alternative There is no immediacy requirement a ∆ may MPC if ∆ caused it accidentally, he can still
not intentionally caused the necessity claim necessity though if he recklessly or
negligently created the necessity, he may be
held for crimes of recklessness and negligence

The harm must be imminent ∆ may take a life if the balance of evils is MPC allows defense in cases where a natural
positive. Defense may apply in homicide force did not create the necessity
cases

may not have created the necessity This defense applies but not limited to
emergencies created by natural forces, nor is
limited to physical harm to persons or
property

∆ can never take another's life out of necessity If ∆'s belief is mistake, can be held for crime
requiring either negligence or recklessness

Defense only applies when a natural force created the If ∆ negligently or recklessly caused the
necessity necessity, he may be held for crimes of
negligence and recklessness

When the balance of evils is negative, ∆ may be held

strictly liable
B. EXCUSE--wrongful conduct, but under the circumstances, D is not morally culpable or blameworthy
1. DURESS
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

MPC abandons the CL requirement of deadly

force and imminency in favor of excusin ∆
Duress is an affirmative defense to unlawful whenever a person of reasonable firmness
∆ may be excused if: conduct by ∆ if: would also have yielded to coercion;

* ∆ was compelled to commit the offense

*∆ was threatened with death or GBH (or if 3rd by the use or threatened use of force by
party is so threatened) by another human the coercer upon her or another

* A person of reasonable firmness in ∆'s

situation would (also) have been unable MPC defense is one of general applicability.
*∆ reasonably believes that the threat is genuine to resit the coercion May be used in murder cases

Defense is not available if ∆ recklessly

*∆ felt that the threat was "present, imminet, and placed himself in the position where he
impending" at the time of the act would likely be subject to coercion

If ∆ negligently put himself into such a

position, the defense is available to him for
*∆ felt that the only way to avoid the harm was to all cases except those in which negligently MPC does not require that an imperiled party
give in to the threat suffices to establish culpability be ∆'s relative

*∆ was not at fault in exposing himself to the

threat

Duress is not a defense to an intentional killing. Some MPC similar to CL in that defense is limited
states recognize an imperfect defense whereby murder is to threats or use of unlawful force and does
reduced to manslaughter not apply to coercion by natural sources
C. GENERAL
1. MISTAKE
a. OF FACT
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Must negate mens rea of the crime charged. Ignorance or mistake must negate a mental
state element required in the definition of the
offense
∆ not guilty if MoF negates the specific intent portion No SI or GI, MF applies to all offenses in MPC/CL--no mistake gets you off of strict
of the crime same manner liability

Figure out the mens rea for each and

For general intent offenses not guilty if MoF was: every element of the crime
MPC--Look at the crime through the ∆'s eyes
* honest and reasonable in a factual (not legal) manner

* Guilty if MoF was honest, but unreasonable

Moral Wrong Test--There should be no excuse for a
mistake where, if the facts had been as the actor
believed them to be, his conduct would be immoral,
albeit legal

Legal Wrong test--the defense of mistake-of

fact is inapplicable if the defendant would be
Legal Wrong Test--a person is guilty of criminal offense guility of a lesser offense had the facts been
X, despite a reasonable mistake of fact, if he would be as she believed them to be. Unlike CL, the
guilty of a different, albeit lesser , crime Y, if the defendant will be punished at the level of the
factual situation were as he supposed lesser, rather than greater offense
b. OF LAW
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES

MPC does not recognize a defense of CL and MPC approaches are similar. In
mistake of law unless there is expressed general, unless falling into a recognized
No defense, but exceptions negation exception

Mistake of law negates an element of

Exceptions--mistakes must be reasonable and honest the crime charged ignorance of law is no defense

Reliance on Official Statement Reliance on Official statement

No reasonable notificiation/publishing No reasonable notification/publication

Specification in Statute that knowledge of law is
required