Actus Reus
Conduct/Circumstances/Results
Voluntary Act
Omission: voluntary omission + legal duty
Mens Rea
Mens Rea
CL
Generalized Mens Rea - malicious, willful,
MPC
§2.02 - P, K, R, N
corrupt
CL Mens Rea – usually recklessness or gross
negligence required
Mistake
Of Fact: negates mens rea
General intent (reasonable)
Specific intent
Strict liability
§2.04
Negates mens rea (not reasonable)
Official reliance
Second offense provision (can only be guilty of lesser)
Moral wrong theory
Crime wrong (lesser crime)
Of Law: Collateral Mistake
Official Reliance
Willful Blindness
Homicide
Murder
Causation:
but-for cause
proximate cause
eggshell skull
CL
AR = causing death/killing cause analysis
MR = malice aforethought:
• Intent to kill (P or K)
• Intent to cause GBH
• DHM: extreme recklessness
- magnitude, unjustifiability, awareness
• FM: analyze felony +
- Inherently dangerous
- abstract, as-committed
- In furtherance
- agency, proximate cause
-min: except death of co-felon
1st Degree
Murder + aggravating factor
Two tests: (1) premeditation = intent
(2) premeditation = intent + reflect
Anderson factors
Can include:
• FM (if felony is enumerated)
• intent to kill (P or K)
• intent to cause GBH
2nd Degree
W/out premeditation/deliberation
Can include:
• DMH
• Intent to kill (P or K)
• Intent to cause GBH
• FM (if felony not enumerated)
can’t attempt unintentional killing – specific intent requirement makes it attempted murder
CL
Specific Intent
Majority: P
Minority: parity
Actus Reus
Proximity, Equivocality
Result/circumstance not required
Impossibility
Result: factual (no defense)
Circumstance: legal (defense)
MPC
§5.01 mens rea of underlying offense +
Conduct: P
Result:
(i) complete: P or belief
(ii) incomplete: unclear (could be P)
Circumstance: parity
Complete: taken all steps he thought were necessary
Incomplete: Substantial step + strongly corroborative
Result/circumstance not required
No defense for legal or factual
But defense:
• inherently unlikely attempts 5.05(2)
• “true” legal impossibility 5.05(1)
Abandonment? MPC §5.01(5)
Complicity:
Mens Rea
Actus Reus
CL
Conduct: P
Result: parity (maj), P (min)
Circumstance: awareness for SL
Parity / P
natural and probable consequences
Aid or encourage
MPC
§2.06 purpose of promoting/facilitate the commission
Conduct: P
Result: Parity
Circumstance: left to interpretation
Aid, agree, or attempt to aid, solicit, encourage, order,
counsel
Conspiracy:
Mens Rea
Actus Reus
CL
Intent to agree
Intent to commit the offense that is the
objective / achieve unlawful objective
Agreement [ + overt act ]
2
MPC
§5.03
Intent to agree
Conduct: P
Result: P
Circumstance: commentary says left to ct’s discretion
Prof: but could argue for purpose
Agreement (commit, attempt, solicit, aid)
Act in pursuance by co-conspirator (≠ 1st/2nd deg.)
Act in pursuance by co-conspirator
Self-Defense:
CL
Reasonable belief force is necessary to defend against
immediate / imminent use of force &
∆’s force is not excessive / unreasonable
Minority: honest but unreasonable belief mitigates to
voluntary manslaughter
Deadly force: believes the other is about to use deadly force
/ commit seriously violent crime
MPC
§3.04(1) Believes such force is immediately necessary
for purpose of protecting himself against the use of
unlawful force by such other person
§3.09(2) If believe is negligently / recklessly formed, no
defense for crime requiring N / R
§3.04(2)(b) Believes deadly force is necessary to protect
himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping
or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
Not justified if ∆ provoked use of force or knows he
could avoid by retreating
Necessity / Choice of Evils:
CL
• Situation threatens imminent harm unless law is
broken OR ∆ believes so
• ∆ is not at fault for bringing about situation
• Harm avoided by breaking law exceeds harm it
causes
MPC
§3.02(1) ∆ believes conduct necessary to avoid harm / evil
• Harm avoided is greater than harm law prevents
• No specific treatment of the situation in statute
• No legislative purpose to exclude justification of necessity
§3.02(2): if ∆ was reckless / negligent in bringing about the
situation, not available for crime requiring R / N
Insanity:
CL
M’Naghten: ∆ suffering from mental disease or defect
such that ∆ did not know what he was doing or that it
was wrong
cognitive
Irresistible Impulse: mental disease or defect destroys or
overrides ∆’s self-control
volitional (supplement to M’Naghten)
3
MPC
§4.01(1) at the time of criminal conduct as a result of
mental disease or defect, ∆ lacks substantial capacity
either to appreciate the criminality / wrongfulness of his
conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of
the law
cognitive and volitional