Actus Reus
1) Not just Thought/Neutral act/Status
(Freedom(R), Evidence(R), Error(U))
-Drug: Status vs possession/buy/sell
2) Not Involuntary
(MPC: Mind/body separation > CL)
( Martin (Police) Decina (Seizure))
(Not deserve (R), No deterrence (U))
3) Not Omission
Unless duty from statute/relationship contract/voluntary/conduct
( Billingslea (Narrow X) Oliver (Bring when drunk O), Beardsley (Within home
X) Barber (Medical X) Instan (Source of living O) Jones (contract cancel X)
4) Not Vague
Not just ordinary cannot understand
1) Civil Rights ( Shuttlesworth )
2) Too much discretion ( Papachristou )
Should strike, not defer ( Kolander )
Less so for business ( Sherman Anti-trust )
5) Not Unfair Interpretation
CL: Strict constriction (Lenity)
MPC: Fair constriction (Evolving term OK)
Follow legislature? ( Keeler vs Davis )
Less when moral wrong- warning inherent!
( Sobiek vs Keeler , but of murder?)
Purpose of Criminal Punishment
1. Retribution (Backward): Moral right to punish, debt to society, deserve doing so
2.
Utilitarian/ Prevention (Forward): 1)
General deterrence (but do people CBA?),
2) Incapacitation (not on street) 3) Special deterrence (learn lesson 4) Rehabilitation
(esp for juveniles)
Make duty to rescue?
1) Ability to stop
2) No risk doing so
3) Small # of rescuers
4) Harm serious
5) Omission not as serious
6) Good Samaritan provision
Mens Rea
1.Common Law
Stage2: Imputation (Felony Murder, Grading, Drinking) vs Stage 3: See intent/awareness
Maliciously- Intent/recklessly (through drawing inference) ( Cunningham , Faulkner )
Negligence- reasonable + subjective(given the circumstance) ( Smith - chance for rebuttal)
General Intent : All of harm is within the act vs Specific Intent : Prove a particular purpose beyond the conduct: (Cause harm in future- Larceny, Intent harm in future- Burglary, Require specific knowledge - receive stolen good knowingly)
2.MPC
Purpose
Conduct
Conscious Object
Circumstances Result
Awareness/belief/hope Conscious Object
Knowledge Awareness=Willful Awareness/belief/hope Aware/Practically Certain
Recklessness Not defined Conscious disregard of risk- gross deviation of law-abiding
Negligence Not defined Failure to perceive risk- a gross deviation of Reasonable
2.02(3) : If Nothing [R] 2.02(4) : Unless collateral objective (with/for purpose), apply all
3. Mistake of Fact : I did not mean to do the conduct at all!
CL : Honest for SI (but H/R if GI element- Yermain ), Honest+ Reasonable for GI ( Ogilvie )
MPC : Negate MR of material element, unless with a specific defense
Moral Wrong: Might be strict liability ( Prince )
4. Mistake of Law : I meant to do the conduct, but did not know it was illegal/apply to me
CL : No defense, unless 1) NJ Reasonable Reliance based on court ( Striggles , Hopkins ) 2)
Due Process as universal ambiguity/no fair notice 3) Failure of Proof- no specific knowledge
-Strict as: Administerability, force Due diligence, Courts should decide in grey area
MPC : No defense ( 2.02(9 )), unless official statement ( 2.04(3)(b) ), not published ( 2.04(3)(a) ), negate specific element ( 2.04(1) ), entrapment ( 2.13
- Cox )
Lambert: Rare case as 1) status 2) no alert 3) omission 4) malem prohibition in non business
5 . Mistake of Non-Criminal Law : I meant conduct, but thought wrong of non-criminal Law!
CL: Only defense at specific intent ( Long , Morisette)
MPC: MNCL= MoF - needs to negate MR
6. Grading
CL : Grading is SL- no defense
MPC : Depends on the culpability level, but can charge for lower crime ( MPC 2.04(2) )
7.
Intoxication
CL : Can negate MR of Special intent, (unless state prohibition) or 1) permanent brain damage
2) involuntary intoxication 3) unusually receptive response
-If GI Recklessness, exclude even evidence. Negligence, reasonable person, not drunk
Drunk is blameworthy (R), Deterrence/incapacitation as incentive (U)
MPC : Largely same- can negate the specific intent of the element
8. Public Welfare Offense
SL if PW offense- Malem Prohibitum + not a large harm/business context, even for people under you ( Morisette , Dotterweich , Park )
Freed : Not public welfare, but require only notice of hand grenade, as it is good enough notice
( Staples - but need to know exactly what) vs Lambert Less arbitrary, more legit security
Defense
Derivative: Negates MR/AR vs Collateral : MR+AR, but
1) Justified as the Right thing to do(Necessity/SD)
2) Excused as not blameworthy (Insanity/Infancy/Duress)
-Provocation is a mix of the two!
1) Necessity/ Choice of Evil
(Lose legitimacy, but Greater harm (U), Less BW(R))
CL : 1) Clear, Imminent evil (objective) 2) Effective 3) No legal avenue 4) No legislation against harm ( Markum )+
Not self-created + No Murder ( Dudley )
MPC 3.02
: 1) Belief (Subjective) + Actual (Objective)
Harm>Offense 2) No specific prohibition on it 3) Not against legislative purpose + not R/N if self creation
NYPL: Adds Immanency, removes Legislative Purpose
2) Self-defense
If proportional, Individual Autonomy (R), Cost/Benefit (U)
CL : 1) H+R(objective) + Imminent threat 2) Proportional
3) not initial aggressor (withdraw/deadly force)
( Goetz add circumstance vs Leidholm : Subjective)
MPC: 1) 3.04
Believes necessary to stop (Subjective) 2)
3.09
No defense to [R]/[N] crimes 3) Duty to retreat if safe
BWS : Allowed pattern/explanation of reasonable ( Kelly ), not psychological traits/ idiosyncratic values ( Bess )
-Not sleeping ( Norman ) as no immediate threat, but now wait for confrontation? Allow attempt to leave?
Duty to retreat : Reduce harm (U) vs autonomy (R)
-MPC duty, Consideration many, SYG FL ( Zimmerman )
-Castle exception- even MPC, unless disproportional
(Trap-gun)/ PM ( Brain Smith ). FL extension
3) Duress
CL : 1) Immediate 2) Reasonable person same 3) No other way + Not allowed for homicide, contributory harm, 3 rd P
MPC 2.09
: 1) Reasonable person 2) no other way 3) no contributory harm if R/N ( Williams ), but allow non-
Immediacy ( Toscana ), homicide 3) 3 rd party? ( Haney )
BWS : Allowed to show threat /no other way, but not reasonableness ( B.H
.)- retreat to insanity defense?

Sexual Assault
1. Actus Reus
CL: Carnal Knowledge + Against her will
+ Forcible + Women
MPC: Sexual Contact + Victim + Force +
Without Consent
A) Resistance
-Evidentiary, but society norm/bad farming
Old: Utmost physical Resistance ( Mills )
Current: Verbal is enough ( Jones )
MPC: Need not if reasonable fear…but good evidence ( Rusk )
B) Force
Old: Merged with reistance
Current: Extrinsic ( Jones ) vs FL, LA
MPC: Extrinsic/ physical, but explicit/ implicit threat is enough, ( Rusk )
C) Consent
Old: Defense if you have it
MPC: Sex without is offense -5 th /4 th
Def.: express/inferred (prior relationship), but can be overridden later
2. Mens Rea
CL: General Intent Crime ( Smith )
-Require H+R mistake
MPC : Forcible Rape is [K]-GI?, rest [R]
-tried SL when no/ [N] in MA ( Ascollio )
3. Intoxication Defense
-If complaint unconscious/intoxicated, 2 nd
-If drifting in and out, 3 rd
-Defendant drunk not a defense except FR
-Standard reasonable person, not drunk, unless state used victim intoxication in trial
( Mountry )
4. Others
-Still credibility question
-Should law lead change, or follow norm?
-Prevent most (U), Social Norms (R)
Homicide
Murder
MPC
: Homicide committed with [P]/ [K] or [R] with extreme indifference (rebuttable presumption if during robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape.
-no difference of 1 st and 2 nd !
Manslaughter : Reckless/ EMED Murder
-EMED=Provocation
Negligent homicide : MPC Negligent
1
Common Law
Murder : Homicide with malice st degree : Premeditated and deliberative,
Enumerated Felony Murder (arson, rape, robbery or burglary)
2 nd degree : Depraved Indifference/ AM
Heart, Unremunerated FM, Intent of Serious
Bodily Injury, Intent with no P/D
Manslaughte r: Homicide without malice
Voluntary Manslaughter : Intended to kill but was sufficiently provoked
Involuntary Manslaughter : Unintended killing (criminally negligent)
1. P+M Murder
CL : Premeditation (Planning) Deliberate (logical, not heat of moment)
-Bad as More blameworthy, (R), Can deter (U)
-Instantaneous planning possible ( Brown ), but repeated blows is not Deliberative
-Need planning/motive/manner ( Anderson ) Just Intent ( Bingham )
MPC : Just same as CL, non P+M is also just murder
2. Depraved Indifference Murder
CL: No intent- reckless but malice: aware (subjective) of grave (objective) risk ( Roe )
-Abandoned and Malignant heart needs against humanity, not just daughter ( Northington )
MPC: Extreme Indifference Murder, basically the same
3. Voluntary Manslaughter
CL : Intent + Provocation(Excuse + Justification, partial defense) Reasonable mistake OK ( Yanz )
Need 1) Provocation 2) Legally adequate 3) No cooling ( Gouniagas vs Berry ), -Bright line
(assault, friend assault, adultery, overreaction of self-defense) vs Reasonableness vs
Exceptions (words, Freddo )
-Overinclusive (Masculine, gay panic) vs underinclusive (words are sometimes enough)
MPC : Extreme Mental or Emotional Defense: 1) No rigid rules 2) No Cooling off 3)
Subjective, 4) Need not external (semi-insanity), but not unreasonable moral values ( Cassasa )
4. Felony Murder
-Super Deterrence (R, U), Felony more carefully (U)
CL : If death during felony, SL Murder, even when accident-
A. Dangerous Felony : Abstract : Categorical rule: Poison, destructive device, kidnapping vs possession of firearms ( Satchell ) vs As committed (Each individualized circumstances)
B. Merger: Integral Test ( Ireland , integral part of murder) vs Independent Felonious
Design Test ( Hansen, Robbing, burning… maybe scaring? ( ES : NO))
C. Causation : But For + proximate for furtherance of felony- arrest, escape… – 1) Time- right away or hospitalized, 2) No intervening event (Need inject drug Morris )
MPC : Semi abolishment, but Reckless Indifference is presumed under certain felonies for EI
-Requires Probable consequence for causation
FL : Co-felon kill co-felon is still FM
NYPL : Not commit homicide+ not armed with deadly weapon+ No reasonable ground of anyone with deadly weapon + no Reasonable ground of injury
Attempt
1. Actus Reus
Thought not enough (free speech, evidentiary)
A) Proximity (Common Law): How Close/future
Physical proximity looks near, Dangerous looks generally
Rizzo : Preparation X, Harper : Far from actual damage X
B) Res Ipsa : On its face/ past
Bowen and Rose: X under Dangerous Actor, but O
C) Substantial Step (MPC) : Corroborating with intent
-Include search/wait/entice/entry/…beyond CL
-Need more than just speech ( Gladish vs Goetze )
2. Mens Rea
A) Specific Intent for everything (CL)
Thacker : wary of punishing almost crime (R)
-But nonsensical to evidentiary justification; windfall
B) Intent for all except circumstance (MPC)
-Attendant circumstance were as believed
C) All MR for object offense (Colorado)
Minority view, has good reason for completed- seems a)as dangerous b) evidence is good vs 1) threat of action
2) possible harm
3. Grading
CL : Very light- misdemeanor
MPC : Same except for 1 st degree
4. Impossibility
1) reinforce AR, 2)Response police tactic
CL: Factual X, ( Farner ) Legal O( Dlugash )
MPC: No longer defense, unless so unlikely to result
-subjective viewpoint “as believed them to be”
-Loophole for incomplete offense- need to corroborate
True Legal (Did a conduct, but not a crime) always okay
5.
Abandonment
CL: No Defense- incentive to just do it
MPC : 1) Enough action to convict 2) pure change of heart, not about detection ( Ross )
-Conspiracy need to actually thwart
5. Not directly Implicated
-Everyone who participates have vicarious implicated, unless not furtherance of crime/superseding event
Agency Theory : My codefendants acts my acts
( Sopohpone , Antick :only suicide/attempted murder? – more careful
Proximate Cause Theory : Liable if set off motion-No break if police starts shooting because of felon-Super
Deterrence
-Even under AT, can use IE Murder in 3 rd party death
Redline : Mostly not apply when co-felon killed by police