Mens Rea Knowingly awareness, correctly believes, or awareness of high probability to exist AND deliberate action to avoid OR fails to investigate (Ostrich) MPC - Supplied MR applies to every element of crime under MPC If no MR mod: K, P, or R suffice If MR placed in middle, mods elements after. Purposely Actor’s conscious objective conscious obj to: -engage in conduct; -hopes circm exist; -to cause result INTENTION Knowingly Actor is aware of a high probability of its existence. Aware that: -conduct is of such nature; -circum exist; -result virtually cert to occur. Recklessly Willfully Malice Reckless Negligence Voluntary Act Causation p.25 Act done w/ bad motive; sometimes intentional Similar to reckless, but many times requires intention Disregard of sub and unj risk; “not give a damn” Negligently COMMONLAW INTENT Common Law If MR unclear, look for leg intent If no MR for jurisdiction, SL If MR listed in middle, modifies elements after Default: “knowingly” - stapleton Gen Int: any MR will do Spec Int: (1) requires proof of ∆’s objective/purpose to bring about the harm OR listed in statute Intentionally, - ∆’s conscious Purposefully objective; OR virtually certain to occur. deliberate ignorance = positive knowledge Conscious disregard of sub and risk that: -∆ engaging in such conduct; -proscribed circumstances exist; -result will occur. SBJ STD (i) S&U risk; & (ii) gross deviation of Std of Care of reasonable person. -∆ just SHOULD have known, doesn’t need to know OBJ STD Deviation of std of care; fails to appreciate risk; obj std Need at least 1 vol act for crime–if none, can’t prove for even strict liability crime Involuntary act never blameworthy – reflex/convulsion; acts during hypnosis; unconsciousness or sleep; bodily movement not the product of conscious effort or habit. Possession IS a vol act Common Law MPC Actual Cause But for the actor’s conduct, would the result have occurred? - Concurrent – when two actions inflict same result (two gunshots at same time – both equally culpable) Proximate Cause Is result foreseeable from actor’s conduct? Extremely unusual event ≠ prox. Intervening Causes – must supersede ∆’s Vol Act; must break the chain Responsive/Dependent Act – ∆ still liable Coincidental/Independent – ∆ is not liable unless it was foreseeable MPC uses “but for” test for actual case; however, uses the requisite mens rea for proximate cause. – rejects “dependent and independent” causes – P – liable if causes harm intended (death by wolves instead of plane); liable if same action but different victim – K – same harm contemplated & not too remote to have just bearing on actor’s liability –R & N– result cannot be too remote - Omission Free human action – ∆ is not liable Simple Neg IS foreseeable and ∆ still liable ∆ takes V as he finds him Common Law - Mistake of Fact Mistake of Law Generally, no duty to act. UNLESS: (1) legal duty, (2) status relationship; (3) voluntarily assumed care of another and secluded help, (4) creation of peril, or (5) statute. Common Law Strict Liability = NOT A DEF. Specific Intent = Must negate MR Gen Intent = Must be reasonable Exception: Moral Wrong Doctrine Legal Wrong Doctrine = mistake as to degree of crime; guilty to level as of crime committed; run risk of greater crime Common Law NOT A DEFENSE MPC - MPC - - MPC - Vicarious Lia. Attempt p.28 Liability for omission only when duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law; OR when defined by law §2.04(1) MOF defense if negates MR to establish element of crime; OR law provides mistake as def. MPC doesn’t distinguish between gen/spec intent Strict Lia - Must prove culpability to each element; true strict liability doesn’t exist at MPC NOT A DEFENSE Ex: Law is not known to actor AND not published or made available Ex: Acted on reliance from: statute, case, ad. order, off. interpretation by individual who is officially charged w/ interpret law Ex: Lambert – law is reg in nature, passive in character, punishes omission, and no notice. Conviction in absence of conduct; however, no liability for crime punished by imprisonment where individual didn’t commit, have knowledge, or give consent to crime Common Law NEED: ∆ must have SPECIFIC INTENT to commit the target offense – mere recklessness will not suffice – intent can be inferred by conduct, risk to V so great as to assume intent to kill Intent Plus Test: Att = intent + some act look at how much movement away from from of intent and how it establishes intent Equivocality Test: Att = intent + uneq act the point when ∆’s action shows intent – his action is taken alone – when his actions unambiguously manifest criminal intent Last Act Test: Att = performing last act necessary e.g. ∆ pulls trigger Proximity Test: Att = act in suff. prox. That creates reas prob. crime will occur actor has ability to commit almost immediately MPC NEED: 1. 2. SPECIFIC INTENT Substantial Step (strongly corroborates w/ ∆’s intent–lying in wait, searching for V) ABANDONMENT DEFENSE: ONLY MPC Valid if (1) ∆ abandons crime or prevents it from being committed, and (2) ∆’s conduct manifests complete renunciation of criminal purpose. Rape p.10 Common Law - Sexual intercourse w/o consent can be shown by female’s resistance OR by failure to resist due to fear by force Traditional: no force w/o resistance to utmost. No threats. Thompson: Force ≠ coercion/threats; must be actual physical force Rusk: force w/ reasonable resistance or verbal resistance MTS: force = lack of consent Mistake = a reasonable mistake as to consent is def. Some courts now require affirmative “yes” to show consent MPC - Mens Rea: P, K, or R Gross Sexual Imposition: compelling by threat that would prevent resistance by woman of ord. resolution = guilty Fraud in Factum – if ∆ isn’t aware she’s consenting to sex, is a defense. Fraud in Inducement – if ∆ is aware she is consenting to sex, not a defense Homicide p. 16 Common Law MPC Unlawful killing w/ malice af. MURDER [No mal af. Req] 1. The killing of a human being by another human being either: i. purposely; ii. knowingly; or iii. recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; OR 2. Felony Murder – jury decides if acts show extreme recklessness [no premed req in mpc] Actus Reus: Issues rare, maybe if not a “human being” <– MOF? Malice Aforethought = ex or implied – intent to kill, Intent GBI, Extreme reckless murder How to Prove Premeditation: (Planning activity, evidence of motive, manner was exacted) How to Prove Intent: How to Prove Substantial: Look at the gravity of the harm – not necessarily % game – is the actor’s conduct - - MURDER I intentional Lying in wait, kill by explosives (etc) Willfull & delib & premed Fel Murder (inherit danger fel.) (spec enumerated fel) MURDER II [Intentional/unint] Intent to kill w/o premed Intent to inflict GBI Gross Recklessness/Depraved heart: (i) death us likely to result from the actor’s conduct, (ii) the actor consciously disregards the risk the conduct poses, MANSLAUGHTER 1. Murder mitigated by Extreme Emotional Distress 2. Mere reckless killing – Did the ∆ act from intense feelings [subjective component] for which a reasonable person in the actor’s position would believe to be reasonable [objective component]? NO CRIM NEGLIGENCE – shouldn’t be punished w/ MS for lacking conscious disregard, neg killing = lesser crime of neg homicide NO FEL MURDER – BUT, if death occurs during crime, might prove recklessness (iii) the risk is unjustified. Fel mur – un-enumerated VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER [intentional] Voluntary = intentional kill, but provocation - Adequate provocation – JUDGE DECIDES – serious battery or threat of deadly force. TEST FOR ADEQUATE PROV Was the actor in HOP? (did it cloud the mind or unseat reason?) Was there trigger event/adequate provocation? (battery, extreme assault, mutual combat, adultery. words, gen not, but IS exception – sex in woods) Would reasonable person have cooled off? Unavailable is significant lapse of time @ CL. However, could be rekindled. Objective reasonableness - INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER [Unintentional] Any killing w/o malice aforethought Negligent (should be aware of risk but isn’t) homicide Merely reckless killing (gross reck goes to MII) Misdemeanor MS 1. 2. TEST FOR EED Did the actor act under EED? If so, was there a reasonable explanation for the actor to be in the state of EED? ∆ acted under EED (sbj) EED=intense feelings sufficient for loss of control Reasonable explanation for the EED (obj) –NOT REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE HOMICIDE!! REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE REASON THE ACTOR FEELS LIKE HE DOES!! Determined from the the point of view from a person in the actor’s position under the circumstances as he believes them to be. Assessment of Reasonableness: - Whether the actor’s loss of self control can be understood in the terms that arouse sympathy in the ordinary citizen. What IS considered: personal handicaps, external circumstances What is NOT considered: idiosyncratic moral values Might be considered: unusual sensitivities; mental illness In reckless/negligent killings, weigh the actor’s conduct against the social utility of such conduct. Felony Murder FEL MURDER Limits: Proximate theory–(when bystn killed)–∆ liable for killings prox caused, even kill by 3rd prty Agency theory–when cofelon killed–all killings done by accomplices if furtherance of crm; must be foreseeable*not by 3rd parties or V’s* Inhr Dng Fel: FM only applies when crime in abstract carries risk of D or SBI; or circ dangerous Indep Fel: FM applies to kills only in furtherance of crime; ends when rel saftey Strict liability – the killing must occur during the commission or attempted commission of the felony. – Deaths while fleeing are part of the crime. Some states limit it to specified enumerated felonies Some limit to inherently dangerous crimes (in the facts or in it’ def) Indep. Fel. – felony must be ind. of the killing – ie. can’t be held to felony murder & manslaughter. NO “FELONY MURDER” UNDER MPC HOWEVER, the conduct of the actor may prove recklessness. Solicitation p. 30 Enticing of another person to commit a crime with the intention the other person commit the crime Agency Rule – the felons have to be cause of death – even if felon kills another felon; NOT if V shoots felon or bystander. Proximate Cause Rule – felons liable for ANY deaths that occur that are proximately caused by the criminal activity. Common Law Actus Rea: is completed the ∆ utters the offer; Mens Rea: is the specific intent to commit the target offense -Belief that crime is possible is sufficient - When agent unaware, ∆ is guilty for the crime committed - When agent aware, ∆ guilty of solic and agt guilty of crime *If ∆ and agt both aware, both are = culpable. Ie. solicit to murder and murder = both glty of murder and solic merges into murder. 2 views: solic as attempt vs solic no attempt Solicitation merges into TO DEFENSES Legal Impossibility IS defense Act, if completes, wouldn’t be crime. – not guilty Factual Impossibility is NOT defense. Circ beyond actor’s control – solicit to pickpocket w/ nothing in pockets – still guilty MPC §2.06 ∆ Guilty if (1) purpose is to promote/facilitate crime and (2) solicits, encourages, etc. person to (i)engage in crime or (ii) show involvement in the crime. **Solicitor cannot be guilty of attempt** -MERGES into TO Factual/Legal imposs NO DEF Renunciation IS DEF (1) Completely renounce criminal intent & (2) persuade or prevent crime from taking place Conspiracy (1) (2) (3) (4) An agreement (A.R.) between two or more persons; To commit a crime; With the purpose (M.R.) to enter into the agreement; and (5) With the purpose to achieve the T.O. (6) [Some states require overt act] M.R. can be inferred from knowledge – stake in the business, no other purpose for the use, etc. (prostitution/hotel case) – for tacit agreement – knowledge of use; or knowledge alone sufficient if crime is felony Req: knowledge of illegal use; & intent for use to further the crime Pinkerton Doctrine – Conspirator is liable for any substantive offense that is reasonably foreseeable and committed in furtherance of conspiracy How Big is conspiracy? Do the parties have a shared interest? Shared gain? Are the links between the parties foreseeable? Rejects pinkerton doctrine Actors vicariously liable for crimes committed by coconspirators only when they had same intent MPC REQUIRES OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE Object of conspiratorial agreement must be criminal at MPC RENUNC DEF – only if: (i) voices withdrawal and (ii) prevents crime from occurring. Under MPC, a single ∆ can be guilty of conspiracy if ∆ solicits and other person merely agrees – other person doesn’t have to have the intent to commit the T.O. E.g. undercover police officer, etc. How big is the conspiracy? MPC focuses on individual’s intent so there is really no defined answer. NO WITHDRAWAL – Once agreement, crime is committed and ∆ is guilty, but withdrawal can limit further liability if: (i) ∆ gives notice; and (ii) notice is given at time when they can abandon their plans NO AGREEMENT IF POLICE OFFICER; OR [CRIME REQ TWO PEOPLE – PRIVITY] Attempt T.O. Solic to join conspiracy Conspiracy Solic to commit TO T.O Conspiracy Does Not Merge into T.O. Merges conspiracy w/ T.O. DEFENSES Impossibility Factual Impossibility is not a defense. ∆ cannot accomplish crime because of some physical impossibility unknown to ∆ Legal impossibility is a defense. There is no law against what ∆ intends to do. Self Defense Use of Deadly Force is only justified when the actor: (i) Reasonably believes; it’s (ii) Necessary to prevent (iii) Imminent and unlawful; (iv) Use of deadly force by aggressor. *Cannot use deadly force to repel non-deadly threat Reasonable person in actor’s position imminent – must not be able to call for help; inevitable at some point ≠ immediate Gets rid of impossibility – A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime he purposely engages n conduct which would constitute the crime if the circumstances were as ∆ believed them to be. THINK: MPC PUNISHES WRONGFUL MIND Use of Deadly force is only justifiable only if: Actor believes it is necessary to protect against death, SBI, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse by force or threat of force. MPC relaxes the imminence requirement; use of force is justifiable if the actor reasonable believes the use of force was immediately necessary on the present occasion *∆ must reasonably believe the other person is about to use deadly force. *Initial Aggressors may not claim SD; UNLESS: I.A. must communicate desire to withdraw and in good faith attempts to withdraw RETREAT – Actor must retreat only if he knows he can do so safely. Also, must attempt retreat before use of deadly force. Majority of US states don’t have duty to retreat, but there is a sizeable minority who due. Depends on juris. **No duty to retreat in Fla. Reasonableness is determined from circumstances facing ∆ – wholly subjective – think Goetz. MUST retreat if he can do so safely except when in home. PURELY SUBJECTIVE BELIEF absurd. Perfect SD = reasonably believed UOF was necessary justified Imperfect SD = SD when missing one of the elements not justified = punishable MPC REJECTS alter ego rule. Alter Ego Rule – Actor can use D.F. for 3rd party if 3rd party has right to use DF. Duress Look whether it would push the ∆ into the crime rather than pull. Threat must be present and imminent. Battered Woman Syndrome – takes prior history of husband into account; however, doesn’t remove the regular elements of self-defense. (1) ∆ believed be could not escape her husband; (2) believed she could not get help from others; (3) ∆ was threatened by her husband; (4) abuse got worse over time. (1) A present & imminent threat of death or GBI unless the actor commits an offense. (2) The actor reasonably believes the threat is genuine. (3) There is no reasonable escape except through compliance w/ the demands (4) The actor was not at fault in exposing herself to the threat Never a defense to MURDER Necessity Intoxication (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) The actor is compelled to commit the offense (2) by the use or threatened use of unlawful force by the coercer upon her or another person (3) That a person of reasonable firmness in the ∆’s situation would have been unable to resist [sbj test] Tangible factors of ∆ are considered – hgt/wgt/etc COULD be a defense to murder. Due to natural forces of nature (fire, storms, etc.) creating clear and imminent danger, the ∆ reasonably believes that conduct is necessary to avert the danger, by conduct that is less serious than the harm to be avoided, the ∆ did not substantially contribute to the danger. - Generally, voluntary intox is NOT a defense to general intent. - Traditional rule is vol intox IS a def to spec intent b/c it could negate a specific mens rea of the crime. - unconsciousness normally defense, but not when brought on by vol intox. Invox is defense to all situations vol is defense. occurs: (1) coerced to take subst; (2) ingests by innocent mistake; (3) unexpected intox from prescribed med; (4) intox grossly excessive in proportion to the amount of substance the def thinks he is susceptible. -A person is not guilty of an offense if as a result of intox (vol or invol) he lacked req mens rea for an element. -EXCEPT: When recklessness is an element and actor would have been aware of the risk had he not been intox, still guilty.
