Common Law Model Penal Code

Common Law Model Penal Code Actus Reus: Actus Reus: ●​ The external or physical part of the crime that ●​ A person is not guilty of an offense unless his causes social harm. liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act. ○​ A person may only be criminally liable if ○​ Voluntary act his conduct includes a voluntary act. ○​ Voluntary act: a willed muscular ○​ Omission contraction, willed by the brain sending ○​ Possession messages through the nerves to the limbs. ■​ Actual ○​ Omission: a failure to act, despite owing a ■​ Constructive legal duty to do so. Mens Rea: ■​ Statutory duty ●​ The mental state required for the conviction of the ■​ parent/child, spouse crime. ■​ Contractual ○​ Purpose: acting with intent to cause a ■​ Duty voluntarily assumed specific outcome. ■​ Where failure to act may create ○​ Knowledge: knowing that a specific risk of harm to others (not in all outcome is certain to happen. jdx). ○​ Recklessness: knowing that the risk exists ○​ Possession and acting anyway. ■​ Actual: ○​ Negligence: ignoring or not knowing of a risk that a reasonable person would have ■​ Constructive: known. ●​ Intent to control ●​ Stated Mens Rea: if the offense statute explicitly Mens Rea states a certain mens rea, this mens rea applies to ●​ The mental state required for the conviction of all material elements of that offense, unless a the crime contrary purpose plainly appears. ○​ Specific Intent: mens rea required by the ●​ Willful Blindness - § 2.02(7) statute ○​ When knowledge of the existence of a ■​ Purpose particular fact is an element of hte offense, ●​ Contemplated conduct such knowledge is established if a person ○​ Intent to act with a is aware of high probability of its secondary act existence, unless he actually believes that it contemplated does not exist. ●​ Contemplated impact ●​ Recklessness as Default ○​ ∆ hopes or ○​ If the MPC jurisdiction statute is silent as intends that to mens rea, recklessness is the default. their conduct ■​ This requires a great deal of fault will have on the part of the defendant. It is some future not sufficient that the defendant had impact or actual foresight of the risk, but effect, stated ignoring that risk was a gross in the offense. deviation from expected care. ■​ Knowledge Justification: ●​ One or more ●​ Self Defense elements is known ○​ Immediate: must be immediately necessary to the ∆ ○​ Necessary: to prevent death/ harm ○​ General Intent ■​ Recklessness ●​ Knowing that the risk exists, acting anyway ■​ Negligence ●​ Ignoring or not knowing of a risk that a reasonable person would have known. ■​ Subjective ●​ Partial Self Defense: ○​ Reckless/negligent killing out of self defense mitigates first degree murder to manslaughter. Excuse: ●​ Duress ○​ Threat ■​ Threat of injury is present, Mistake apparent, or impending. ●​ Mistake of Law ○​ Well-grounded Fear ○​ Either complete ignorance of the ■​ Must be harsh and immediate. criminality of conduct or knew about the ○​ No reasonable opportunity to escape law but wrongly assumed that the law did ■​ Objective standard, must be not apply to their specific situation. reasonable means of escaping. ■​ Not a defense when it concerns the ○​ Actor cannot be at fault for exposing criminality of the act. themselves to duress. ●​ Mistake of Fact ○​ Not a defense to murder ○​ May exculpate a defendant if: ■​ Some jdx allow it as a defense to mitigate murder to manslaughter. ■​ Specific intent: if the jury is persuaded that the ∆ has made a mistake Insanity - Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity: ●​ “A person is not responsible for criminal conduct that negates the specific if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental intent element. disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity ■​ General intent: requires the jury to either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct determine whether the mistake or to conform his conduct to the requirements of was reasonable or unreasonable. law.” ●​ Reasonable: entitled to the ○​ Lacking capacity to appreciate the defense wrongfulness of their actions ●​ Unreasonable: culpable ○​ Lacking substantial capacity to conform mental state. conduct to the requirements of the law. Justification: ●​ Self Defense: Attempt ○​ Necessity: must be necessary to avoid ●​ Conduct shall not be held to constitute a bodily harm. substantial step unless it strongly corroborates the ■​ Objective standard actor’s criminal purpose. ○​ Initial Aggressor: the person raising the ○​ Purpose to commit the crime defense cannot be the initial aggressor ○​ Act or omission (the one who started the fight) ■​ Looks at what has already been ○​ Imminency: the threat of serious harm done. must be imminent. ○​ Does not apply to felony murder or ○​ Proportionality: the use of force must be depraved heart murder. proportionate to the threat. ●​ Merger of Attempt ○​ Duty to retreat: no duty to retreat ○​ Attempt must be charged as attempt to ■​ Minority position holds a duty to commit felony X. retreat if safe to do so. ■​ If the felony is completed, attempt merges into the completed crime. Excuse: ●​ Duress ○​ Immediate Threat ■​ Threat of injury is present, apparent, or impending. ○​ Well-grounded Fear ■​ Must be harsh and immediate. ○​ No reasonable opportunity to escape ■​ Objective standard, must be reasonable means of escaping. ○​ Actor cannot be at fault for exposing themselves to duress. ●​ Necessity ○​ Lesser of two evils ■​ When faced with a choice of the two evils, choose the lesser. Abandonment: ●​ Voluntary: Occurs when the actor decides to stop commission of the attempted crime. ○​ A defense to a charge of attempt. ●​ Involuntary: occurs when an external force stops the commission of the attempt. ○​ Not a defense because it was not voluntarily abandoned. Solicitation: ●​ A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages, or request another to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime. ○​ Commands ○​ Encourages ○​ Requests ●​ Merger: solicitation may merge into conspiracy, but conspiracy will not merge into the target Insanity - Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity offence, they will be charged with both. ●​ M’Naughten Test ●​ Mens Rea: intent that another will commit the ○​ Did not know the nature and quality of the crime. act ■​ 99% of the time will know the Conspiracy nature and quality of the act. ●​ When one person enters into an agreement with ○​ Did not know that the act was wrong. another to commit a crime, the agreement is ■​ Lacking the ability to know the conspiracy. difference between right and ○​ Conspiracy to commit X wrong. ○​ Liability attaches as soon as agreement. Inchoate Offenses ●​ Elements: ●​ Attempt ○​ Intent to combine with others ○​ Proximity Test: the overt act required for ○​ Intent to accomplish the illegal objective an attempt must be proximate to the ○​ An overt act in furtherance of the completed crime, or directly heading conspiracy. toward the completion of the crime, or must amount to beginning to complete the crime. ■​ Nothing remains to be completed Defense to Conspiracy: except for the crime itself. ●​ It is an affirmative defense that the actor, after ●​ Gravity of the harm conspiring to commit a crime, thwarted the ●​ Degree of apprehension success of the conspiracy under circumstances ●​ Probability that the manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation conduct will result. of his criminal purpose. ■​ Forward looking - what is left to ●​ Elements: be done? ○​ Must notify law enforcement ○​ Unequivocality Test: an attempt is ○​ Must persuade co-conspirators not to committed when the actor’s conduct manifests intent to commit a crime. ■​ words/actions indicate that they plan to commit a crime ■​ Backwards looking - what has already been done. ●​ Mens Rea: ○​ Intent to engage in the conduct and ○​ intent to cause the outcome. ●​ No defenses to attempt under common law. Solicitation: ●​ Occurs when one person says to another, “why don’t you commit a crime” ○​ Suggests ○​ Requests ○​ Encourages ●​ Punishable at the attempt to solicit another person’s participation. Conspiracy: ●​ When one person enters into an agreement with another to commit a crime, the agreement is conspiracy. ○​ Conspiracy to commit X ○​ Liability attaches as soon as agreement. ○​ Intent to combine with others ○​ Intent to accomplish the illegal objective ○​ An overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. ●​ Pinkerton Rule: The overt act of one co-conspirator may be the act of another co-conspirator so long as it is in furtherance of the conspiracy. The additional acts that the co-conspirator engages in must be reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement. Defense to Conspiracy: ●​ No defenses to conspiracy. ●​ If a co-conspirator withdraws from conspiracy by telling the co-conspirator that they are not going forward with the criminal plan, they may avoid liability for other crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. ○​ Must effectively communicate intent to abandon. ○​ Still liable for conspiracy, but will not be liable for future crimes commit the crime. ■​ Must be successful. Complicity: ●​ A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when (a) acting with the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct. ○​ Same kind of mens rea as the primary. ●​ Actus Reus: ○​ Primary: the one committing the crime ■​ Will always be at the scene of the crime ○​ Secondary: the individual aiding the commission of the crime ■​ Aiding and abetting ●​ Assisting ●​ Soliciting ●​ Encouraging ■​ Psychological influence ●​ Mere presence is not enough ●​ Must be presence plus ■​ Omission may qualify when the individual has a duty to do something. Model Penal Code Murder: ●​ Criminal homicide constitutes murder when it is committed purposely or knowingly or it is committed under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human leaving. Extreme Mental and Emotional Disturbance: ●​ A homicide that is committed under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. ○​ Reasonableness of the explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believed them to be. Extreme Indifference Murder: ●​ Extreme recklessness is non-conclusively presumed if the killing occurred while the defendant was engaged in or was an accomplice in the commission or attempted commission of, or flight from, one of the felonies enumerated in the statute. Possession: