1. 2.

The rule is that, to find a person guilty, we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the party has completed the actus reus, the mens rea, concurrence & the partys actions are the actual & proximate causes of the crime. Actus reus must be a voluntary act or failure to act when imposed by law. An act is physical behavior that gives rise to the criminal behavior. Here the act was X. Here D voluntarily completed the actus reus with volitional movement by doing Y. The defense may argue Xs act was not voluntary. A D will not be culpable of the actus reus where Ds actions were not voluntary. State v Utter. Here X b/c Y , Ds actions were not voluntary but more like a muscle spasm or blink (MPC 2.01(2). It is likely the prosecutions/Ds argument will prevail. Omission Exception: MPC 2.01 (1) A person is not guilty of an offense unless his L is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission of performing an act of which he is capable. L based on omission is permitted when: . The law defining the offense provides for it. The duty to act is otherwise imposed by law Barber-euthanasia case; omission + no legal duty = no actus reus. Defense MPC 2.01 (2) reflexes/convulsion do not constitute voluntary act b/c its not voluntary Omission General Rule MPC 2.01 (3) omission is not Actus reus unless there is a duty imposed by law or otherwise sufficient i. Omission: 5 possibilities for imposing criminal liability (Jones: first 4 possibilities) 1. Status relationship: **spouse to spouse 2) Parent to child 3) innkeeper to inebriated client 4) Master to apprentice 5) Ships master to crew and passengers 2. Contractual duty 3. Voluntary assistance - assumed care of another and so secluded the helpless person so as to prevent others from rendering aid (Beardsley mistress poisoned herself) PG136) 4. Statutory obligation (bad Samaritan) 5. When a person creates a risk of harm to another

3.

4.

Mens Rea requires D must act w/ the intent specified in the statute describing the crime. Here, in order to find D culpable, D must have acted (knowingly/purposefully/recklessly/Negligently) when X. MPC 2.02(2) defines (K/P/R/N) as(pg968) Under CL Mens Rea requires D must act:
- w/ Malice meaning D intentionally or recklessly caused the social harm. - Intentionally meaning Ds desire is to cause the social harm; or D acted w/ knowledge that it was virtually certain the result would occur as a result of Ds conduct. - Knowingly meaning D is aware of a high probability of the existence of the fact. - Willfully meaning intentional or purposefully. - w/ Negligence meaning a gross deviation from the standard of reasonable care. - Reckless meaning D disregarded a substantial & unjustifiable risk of which he was aware. * Negligence differs from Reckless based on the state of mind. Negligence is an objective standard where D should be aware. Recklessness is a subjective standard where D was in fact aware. *Judge Ostrich in US v Heredia said if D has purposefully avoided the truth D can still be convicted of knowing based off the Doctrine of Willful Blindness.

5. Therefore D acted w/ (define K/P/R/N ie practical certainty) b/c. The defense may argue (lesser crime) b/c. Here mens rea will need to be proven via circumstantial evidence at trial, for example if T then P. FOR MURDER: It is also important to show premeditation in this case. In order to find premeditation, P must find that D deliberated prior to engaging in the act, which can occur in an instant. State v Guthrie. Here DTherefore we can/not find more than enough deliberation to satisfy premeditation. 6. The last element of mens rea that should be discussed is transferred intent. The doctrine of transferred intent applies when harm intended for one individual inadvertently causes a 2nd person to be hurt instead. Under the law, the individual causing the harm will be seen as having intended the act by means of the transferred intent doctrine. Similar to Regina v. when Ds bad intent to steal transferred 2nd degree murder. Therefore Ds mens rea in regard to X will be transferred to P.

C. Recklessness occurs when D consciously disregards a substantial risk, which is a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person. Recklessness involves an objective, unjustifiable risk, and subjective awareness elements. KNOWS OF RISK D. Negligence - should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk such failure is a substantial deviation from standard care. To determine Neg. an objective standard is used where D must have taken very unreasonable risk light of the situation. MPC= K/P/R/N CL= Specific/General Intent E. Specific Intent Crimes: Attempt, Conspiracy, 1st degree murder Assault, Larceny F. Under CL Malice P must show D acted with reckless disregard or highly probable act would result in the specific harm. G. General intent is Ds mens rea of his/her own acts, which constitute a crime. EXCEPTION Mens rea may be satisfied if the crime is Strict Liability. SL is disfavored @ common law & MPC. In order to find SL the courts need indication of congressional intent in order to dispense w MRea requirement. Severity of penalty can indicate whether offense is subject to SL or not. Here the penalty is X which is not/very severe thus the legislature probably intended no/mens rea. - Statutes w/o common law roots are more likely to Constitutionally impose SL SL Policy Pros: 1. need for deterrence is great & proving MRea is difficult, 2. Penalty is small & # of cases/violators is large, 3. No stigma attached to conviction (malum prohibitum) SL Policy Cons: 4. Penalizes morally innocent 5. Crim Law has stigma; should require at least negligent conduct 6. lack of deterrence 7. Constitutional issues

6. The final element is causation. Causation has two elements, actual cause and proximate cause. Both 7.
must be met to assign culpability. To find whether actual cause exists, courts will apply the but for test. This test asks, but for Ds actions, would the crime have occurred. Here, Therefore, actual cause exists in this case. We must also find Ds actions to be the proximate cause or legal, cause of the crime. The test for whether proximate causation exists is whether the victims death was reasonably foreseeable, or was the natural and probable result of Ds conduct. People v Rideout. Here, Ds actions are the proximate cause as reasonably foreseeable/direct & natural/ not too remote, resulting in Vs death (MPC 2.03). a. acceleration - if the death occurred when it did. Accelerates but for the s voluntary act (shooting him), would he have died when he did? (Contribution w/o acceleration is not sufficient). b. substantial factor - (exception to but-for test) - 2 s, acting independently, commit 2 separate acts, each of which is sufficient to bring about the prohibited result. TEST: Was the s conduct a substantial factor in bringing about the result?

8. However the defense will argue that there were intervening and superseding cause that broke the chain of causation
between D actions and Vs death. One potential intervening cause (Act of Nature/Coincidental/Human Intervention: see below) Omissions generally will not cause a break in the causal chain. FACTOR DE MINIMIS - s causal responsibility for ensuing harm is exceptionally insubstantial in comparison to that of an intervening cause. RESPONSIVE (DEPENDANT) INTERVENING CAUSES an act that occurs in reaction or response to the s prior wrongful act. Does not relieve the initial wrongdoer of criminal responsibility, unless the response was unforeseeable or highly abnormal or bizarre. COINCIDENTAL (INDEPENDENT) INTERVENING CAUSES- a force that does not occur in response to the initial wrongdoers conduct. - breaks chain of proximate causation unless foreseeable INTENDED CONSEQUENCES ( MRea)***CASE- REGINA V MICHAEL- Mother wanted son dead- got what she wanted, not through nurse, but through neighbor. (MPC-remoteness-did intend harm?) APPARENT SAFETY DOCTRINE (Dangerous forces) When a s active force has come to rest in a position of apparent safety, the court will follow it no longer.**CASE- PEOPLE V RIDEOUT (accident, then goes back into the road) VOLUNTARY HUMAN INTERVENTION (FREE, DELIBERATE, INFORMED) A is more likely to be relieved of criminal responsibility in the case of free, deliberate and informed -voluntary, knowing and intelligentintervening human agent than in the case of the intervention of a natural force or the actions of a person whose conduct is not fully free. (SUICIDE)...PROVE THE VOLUNTARY INTERVENTION DOES NOT APPLY TO MAKE A GOOD ANSWER: Her action was not voluntary because she didnt have free choice.(was emotionally distraught)

9. Concurrence requires the actus reas and the mens reas to occur at the same time. 10. D may argue the Defense of: 11. Insanity meaning a medical defect or illness negates the mens rea element at the time of the offense. Five tests of
insanity are MNaghten Test focuses exclusively on cognitive disability where a person is insane if 1) did not know the nature & quality of his act or 2) he knew it but did not know it was wrong. Irresistible Impulse Test expanded MNaghten viewing D insane if 1) action was irresistible & uncontrollable impulse; 2) was unable to choose between right & wrong behavior 3) he lacked the will to control his actions. MPC Test which Ds lack of substantial capacity to 1) appreciate the criminality of his conduct or 2) conform his conduct to the law. (Does not require total mental incapacity.) Product (Durham) Test (no longer used) Federal Test has same elements as MPC but requires total mental incapacity.

12. Intoxication allowing defense to specific intent crimes (purpose/knowing) but not General intent (Highly unlikely
to succeed)(US v Veach). Here

13. Involuntary intoxication which only applies when substance is taken w/o knowledge, or under duress of another
or via medical advice or pathological intoxication. Further, pathological intoxication may be a complete defense by way of temporary insanity. Here

14. Self defense by Nondeadly force meaning (General rule, w/no duty to retreat) D may use reasonable force as
appears necessary to protect himself. Here

15. Self-defense by deadly force meaning if D is w/o fault, faced w/ unlawful force, and the deadly or
great bodily harm threat is imminent. Here V was the aggressor making D w/o fault. Here V was performing X crime which is unlawful. Here the threat was imminent b/c D reasonably believed V was acting in the present. The MPC limits the aggression to death, serious bodily injury, forcible rape or kidnapping. However, P may argue the Retreat Rule under the MPC which limits deadly force to occasions that dont allow the nonaggressor to retreat safely. D may argue CL majority allows for deadly force even if retreat is optional. Both CL & MPC allow no retreat in non-aggressors dwelling place (Castle Doctrine).

16. Habitation Doctrine allows for deadly force to defend home against unlawful intrusion. The policy is a
man habitation is one place where he may be at peace no one will disturb him unless invited, or warranted.

17. SD by Battered woman syndrome allows for lethal force defense if commissioned during attack by
partner, but generally not for a non-confrontational or 3rd party killing.

18. Anticipatory Self defense (prof Morse) allows for preemptive striking. 19. Right of an aggressor to use SD: Generally the one who starts a fight has no right to use force but may regain it in 2 ways: withdrawal (must be done in good faith by removing self from event & communicating it to the other person) or sudden escalation. Here, 20. Unlawful force doctrine does not allow a SD of a person against justified force ie shooting an arresting
officer.

21. Causation Theory of excuse states but for the aggressors action, D would not have taken a life. Therefore the innocent person is not to blame for the killing. 22. Character Theory states that an action beyond Ds character is excusable. 23. Choice Theory allows the act of killing another to save ones life is nearly instinctual. 24. Unlawful arrest allows for the victim of excessive police force to use reasonable force to protect himself including deadly force if his life is reasonably in jeopardy. 25. Defense of others is allowed depending on 1) relationship w/person aided 2) Status of person aided. Here there is a reasonable appearance of the right to use force. Here, 26. Defense of Dwelling: Nonlethal force is justified when reasonably believed the conduct is necessary to prevent,
stop anothers unlawful action in or on their property. Lethal force is justified in 2 situations: 1) to prevent personal attack in a riot situation 2) or prevention of person intending on a felony in a dwelling. Here,

27. Defense of other property: Lethal force is not allowed. Non-lethal force in defense of unlawful interference (ie
trespass, conversion) Cant be used to regain possession of wrongfully taken property. Here,

28. Necessity allows for otherwise criminal act to be justified as a result of a force of nature. An objective test is used
to weight social harm vs implied harm. Here x

29. Under CL Duress must be 1) an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury 2) a well grounded fear the
threat will be carried out 3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm. Duress allows for otherwise criminal act to be justified as a result of a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm on self or family member under MPC. CL no defense to murder. Here,

30. Mistake of fact is a defense if the ignorance is reasonable and negates the mens reas required to establish a
material element of the crime or the law allows for mistake as a defense. (MPC 2.04) Here,

Exception: However, Mistake of fact only applies when belief no guilt of any crime. Regina v prince - Strict liability require no mens rea thus mistake is no defense.

31.

Mistake of law is almost never a defense unless D acts in reasonable reliance of an official stmt or

law is unpublished. D must prove defense by a preponderance of evidence. People v Marrero -General Rule of mistake of law: Ignorance of the law is no excuse (Gardner v People) -Limited exceptions: Exception 1. Weiss (different law mistake) Mistake regarding a different law may negate a mens rea element of the offense -Exception 2. Note 1 Entrapment by estoppel: D has reasonable belief that conduct is not a violation of the law when D has reasonably relied on an official statement of the law, later determined to be wrong, contained in an official interpretation of the public official who is charged by law w/ the responsibility for the interpretation or enforcement of the law defining the offense. -Exception 3. Lambert v California (1957) Due process, lack of notice allows for ignorance of the law to be a defense when accused wholly passive and unaware of any wrong doing is brought up on charges.

32. (CL) Moral wrong doctrine: when a court applies the mistake doctrine but still permits conviction of an actor
whose mistake of fact was reasonable if D was culpable. -According to the Moral- Wrong Doctrine one can make a reasonable mistake regarding an attendant circumstance and yet demonstrate moral culpability worthy of punishment. P must show that if the facts had been as D believed them to be, Ds conduct would still be immoral. Elements of MWD: 1. Whether Ds mistake of fact was reasonable or unreasonable? (If latter then conviction) 2. Look at facts through Ds eyes? 3. Evaluate the morality of Ds conduct, based on the facts as D reasonably believed them to be Criticisms of the doctrine: 1. It permits the conviction of a person who did not know & had no reason to know that his conduct would violate the law. 2. Who determines immorality? Who is to say that D knew his conduct was immoral? (CL) Legal wrong doctrine: if Ds conduct based on the facts as he believes them to be constitutes a crime- not simply an immorality- he may be convicted of the more serious offense that his conduct establishes. (MPC 2.04 lesser offense) Entrapment occurs if intent for the crime originated from law enforcement, not D. The 2 elements are 1) the criminal design must originate from law enforcement & 2) D must not have been predisposed to commit crime. Here, D may argue entrapment b/c

33. 34.

CRIMES:
35. In order to find D guilty of Attempt P must show D had the intent to commit the offense, & took a substantial step toward
the commission of the offense. Attempt is a specific-intent offense. Mere preparation is not sufficient to constitute attempt the target crime. Here there is/not mere preparation b/c 36. Crts have 6 tests to determine actions go beyond preparation to attempt. Last act test is where the attempt occurs at least by time of the last act. Here Physical proximity test is Ds conduct need not reach the last act but must be proximate to the completion of the crime. Here Dangerous proximity test is where an attempt occurs when the Ds proximity to the offense allows for its completion. Here Indispensable element test is where an attempt occurs when D has obtained control of an indispensible part of the criminal plan (ie gun). Probable desistance test an attempt occurs when D has reached a point where it was unlikely D would voluntarily desisted from commission of the crime. Here Unequivocality test is where an attempt occurs when Ds conduct, manifests his criminal intent. D may argue the defense of Impossibility/Abandonment. Factual impossibility is no defense to attempt./ Abandonment is not a defense. 37. Accomplice: D is an accomplice (Principal in the 2nd degree) or of P(rimary party) if D intentionally assists P to engage in the conduct that makes a crime. Assist meaning aiding, abetting encouraging, soliciting, advising, and/or procuring the commission offense. Intent may be found through physical conduct, psychological influence, or omission (ie fail to inform cops). -

The natural-&-Probable-Consequences Doctrine adds an accomplice is guilty of the primary crime and all crimes that are reasonably foreseeable to the commission of that crime. D may claim Innocent-Instrumentality Rule makes P the principal actor when P uses a non-human or nonculpable-human agent. D may argue the defense of justification since P was found not guilty for reason of self defense. Accomplice is an act (possible indirect) where conspiracy is an agreement.

38. Solicitation: In order to find D culpable of Solicitation P must show D asked, enticed, induced or counseled another
(conspirators) to commit a crime. He is the mastermind that plans, schemes, suggests, encourages and incites solicitation. Morally D is more culpable than conspirators. Here D may argue Renunciation as a defense b/c

39. Conspiracy is a specific intent crime that does not merge. In order to find D culpable of Conspiracy P must show that Ds
1) intent to combine w/others 2) to accomplish the criminal offense. There must be agreement (evidence may bee weak), 2)an overt act (that furthers the conspiracy) 3) plurality of at least 2 persons (Modern one w/ undercover cop). Here D may argue Implausibility this is not a defense under CL or MPC. D may argue Abandonment under CL says D must have communicated his withdrawal to all co-conspirators, and under MPC D further will need to thwart the success of the conspiracy to be seen as renunciation. The Pinkerton Rule adds that D is still culpable of any crimes prior to abandonment. Further each party of a conspiracy is liable for every offense committed by every other conspirator in furtherance of the unlawful agreement. Thus D made be found culpable for X Y Z crime in the commission of the parent crime of A. D may also argue the Wharton Rule under CL does not allow the charge of conspiracy if only 2 people are in commission of the act.

40. 41. 42. 43.

Homicide: Definitions
CL defines Murder as the killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought. CL defines Manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being by another w/o malice aforethought. D has malice aforethought if his state of mind is 1) the intention to kill a human being OR 2)the intention to inflict grievous bodily injury on another OR 3) extremely reckless in the disregard of human life OR 4) the intention to commit a felony during which a death results.

44. CL has degrees of murder while MPC does not. 45. Willful, premeditated, deliberate= 1st degree murder

46. Extreme recklessness (Depraved Heart) is where malice is implied if conduct manifests an extreme indifference to life. 47. Felony Murder Rule allows for the conviction of murder if death occurs in the commission of a typically dangerous felony
( ie robbery/arson/rape/kidnapping). 1)underlining offensive must be inherently dangerous 2) merger doctrine only different mens rea of original harm 3) killing must be in furtherance of felony (Temporal & causal connection/resgestae acceptance) 4) Agency (CL says Felon must be the cause of death)vs. Proximity Doctrine (MPC says anyone can kill for felon to be guilty) 48. CL In order to find D culpable of Voluntary Manslaughter P must show that D acted in the sudden heat of passion as a result of the victims provocation. The heat of passion is at the moment of the homicide. Here D Adequate provocation is determined by a jury using the objective reasonable person standard. Here a reasonable person would see the victims act as adequate b/c D must not have a reasonable opportunity to cool off. Here Finally there was a causal link between provocation, passion, and homicide. Here.. Words alone do not constitute adequate provocation. 49. Unlawful Act (misdemeanor-manslaughter) when death occurs during commission of a non-felony crime. 50. MPC allows for an act of murder to be manslaughter when D is suffering from an extreme mental/emotional disturbance which is determined subjectively through the view point of D. Specific provocation is not required, nor cooling off rule, and words alone can result in MS for EMED defense. 51. RAPE: Under CL D, a male, is culpable of rape during sexual intercourse with V, a female not his wife if it is committed 1) forcibly, 2) by means of deception, 3) while V is unconscious/asleep OR 4) V is not competent to give consent ( ie drugged, mentally disabled, or underage). Rape is a general intent offense. Here D, is a male which had intercourse with V a female not Ds wife b/c the facts say so. Here the act was/not forcible b/c D threatened serious bodily harm/V resisted by X, and V did not consent by saying X. Under MPC 213.1 (1) a male is guilty of rape if acting purposely, knowingly, or recklessly in the act of intercourse w/ a female if 1) female is under 10y/o 2) unconscious 3) female is forced by threat to her or another w/ imminent death, grievous bodily harm, extreme pain or kidnapping OR 4) he drugged her. Under CL Statutory rape is a strict liability crime which MPC does not address. Gross sexual imposition under MPC happens when D had sexual intercourse w/ female and 1) female submits by non-violent threat (ie loss of job) 2) female is unable to appraise nature of conduct b/c of mental defect 3) he is aware that she mistakenly believes he is her husband.

52. THEFT: In order to find D guilty of Theft P must show Ds trespassory taking, & carrying away the personal property of
another with the intent to permanently deprive the possessor of the property. Theft is a specific intent crime. Here 53. Trespass is the dispossession of anothers property w/o consent (includes fraud). 54. Only tangible forms of personal property not real estate are subject to larceny. 55. Of another (MPC 223.0(7) includes ownership interest. 56. Possession is not necessarily ownership and may be constructive or actual. Under CL leased items may be taken from lease by owner constituting theft b/c lease had the right of use. Custody vs Possession: - Possess happens when person has sufficient control over it to use in a reasonably unrestricted manner - Custody happens when person has control over item but right to use it is restricted by its constructive possessor (ie employer) (Breaking Bulk) - employee, bailee of closed container of goods, or obtained via fraud all have limited use 57. Carry away (CL)is virtually any movement & is not required under MPC. 58. Personal property (CL)is not real property, intangible, nor wild life. Under MPC 223 allows for intangible, real, and tangible property. Stolen property of a 3rd party is also larceny. 59. Specific intent to steal- Continuing-Tresspass Doctrine allows for the moment of theft to occur after the taking and upon the decision of the taker to keep the item. 60. D may argue he believed in good faith he had rights of possession to the property of another. This negates the specific intent to steal. 61. D may argue abandonment b/c

1) Actus Reus 2) Mens Rea 3) Actual Cause 4) Proximate Cause 14th Amd Due Process Clause: Beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged winship court Utiltarian Justification
When not to punish: 1. Goundless 2. In efficacious 3. Theories of Punishment a. Goals of punishment: Two Prong Test: Gementerra (stealing mail & sandwich board) : no purely humiliating sentences i. Condition imposed for permissible purposes? AND ii. Condition reasonably related to the purposes? b. Proportionality: A punishment is excessive & unconstitutional (8TH AMENDMENT): Coker Case (Rape case-death zpenalty) c. Makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment OR . Punishment is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime. y * In order to allow capital punishment use only first rule.

Benefits pg35

I.

a. Three interrelated corollaries to legal principal (aka Vagueness test): 14TH AMENDMENT i. Criminal statutes should be understandable to reasonable persons. ii. Criminal statutes should not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. 1. Morales Case - Chicago Gang loitering law iii. Judicial interpretation of ambiguous statutes should be biased in favor of
accused (Lenity doctrine).

Justification Defenses Allowed when: Triggering conditions permit a necessary & proportional response Response must be

(a)Necessary: imminent threat of harm & (b) Proportional in relational to the harm threatened (deadly force only for deadly force) Elements of Self Defense: 1. A necessity component: applies only to the extent that force is necessary (must be imminent) 2. A proportionality requirement: a person is not justified in using force that is excessive in relation to the harm threatened 3. A reasonable-belief rule that overlays the defense: 1. Subjective component: jury must determine that D subjectively believed 2. Ds belief must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would have possessed - Unreasonable act may be an imperfect or incomplete claim of self defense= mitigates the offense to manslaughter. Deadly force is force likely or reasonably expected to cause death or serious bodily injury, state of mind to the likely outcome is irrelevant. ( ie shooting at lamp and hitting victim) Aggressor as one whose affirmative unlawful act is reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences or one who threatens or provokes (aggressor do not have the right of self defense/ an aggressor must withdraw in good faith from the confilct and fairly communicate this fact, expressly or impliedly to his intended victim.) Deadly aggressor is a person whose acts are reasonably calculated to produce fatal consequences. Castle Exception to the retreat rule: the home is viewed as a persons final sanctuary from external attack, and not required to retreat from his dwelling. Co-dweller innocent is not required to retreat from the home even if aggressor also lives there. Imminent: a force is said to be imminent if it will occur immediately Anticipatory self defense: (prof Morse) preemptive striking Unlawful force: a person may not defend himself against the imposition of lawful (justified force) ie cant shoot an officer that is arresting u Excuse: Causation Theory of excuse- but for the aggressors action, D would not have taken a life. Therefore, the innocent person is not to blame for the killing. Character theory: Choice Theory: The act of killing another to save ones life is nearly instinctual. Unlawful arrests: Victim of excessive police force is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, including deadly force if his life is reasonably appears to be in jeopardy ( what about prison) Self defense requirements under CL 1. Honest & reasonable fear, 2. Immediate, imminent, unlawful threat 3. Proportional response 4. Lack of being initial aggressor 5. Observation of duty to retreat, if any. Self defense requirements: Threat actual or apparent of the use of deadly force Threat must be unlawful and immediate D must have believed that he was i Retreat to the wall doctrine: at common law use of deadly force was forbidden to one to whom an avenue of safe retreat was open. Modification: Reasonable necessity one may stand his ground and use deadly force whenever it seems reasonable necessary

Castle doctrine: one who through no fault of his own is attacked in his own home has no duty to retreat therefrom. Exception: Synopsis of Rule of Law. Self-defense is not an available defense to (1) one who provokes conflict or is the aggressor in it or (2) one who does not retreat if he can safely do so.

y y

The right to use deadly force in self-defense is not available to one who provokes a conflict or is the aggressor in it. Exception: D withdraws from conflict & communicates intent to withdraw to her adversary. Rules for approaching Intoxication Defenses (CL) How did D become intoxicated? Voluntary vs involuntary How did intoxication affect Ds culpability? What type of offense is D charged with? US v Veach Intoxication may be a defense if crime requires a specific intent, requiring mens reas. @ CL voluntary intoxication (not a defense) If act is illegal than highly improbable defense (ie smoking joint that has PCP) Duress Human force Concerns mens rea D does a bad act Dnt accept brainwashing Actor voluntary acts V Necessity Force of nature Concerns actus reus D acts to preserve general welfare

CL Duress requires: (1) an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury; (2) a well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out and (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm. Vs MPC 2.09. (defense against a person)

To invoke the CL defense of necessity, the crime committed must have been done to prevent (i) a significant evil; (ii) there was no adequate (legal) alternative and (iii) the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided. Or MPC 3.02 1. Conduct the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to another is justifiable, provided that: a) The harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by law defining the offense charged 3) When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation requiring a choice of harms or evils the justification is unavailable in a prosecution for any offense in which recklessness or negligence suffices to establish culpability. (duress/necessity under CL no defense to murder) To invoke the defense of necessity, the crime committed must have been done (i) to prevent a significant evil; (ii) there was no legal alternative and (iii) the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided. (force of nature)

Habitation Doctrine: A person may use deadly force to defend her home against unlawful intrusion.

Rational: A mans habitation is one place where he may rest secure in the knowledge that he will not be disturbed by person, coming w/in, w/o proper invitation or warrant, and that he may use all of the force apparently