Criminal Law Outline

Fall 2003
Professor Tomkovicz
I.

II.

Justification of Criminal Punishment

A.
Why Punish
1.
Retribution
a.
Pure making someone suffer solely b/c they committed a crime
2.
Deterrence
a.
Specific deter individual for committing the same crime
b.
General deter public by setting examples of criminal punishment
3.
Rehabilitation
a.
Not good as a sole reason. Use other reasons for punishment and take opp for rehab.
4.
Incapacitation
B.
Limitation on Distribution of Punishment
1.
Culpability
a.
Restrict who were willing to punish to those w/fault or blameworthiness
b.
Not punishable for thoughts alone
c.
Requires an act b/c cant distinguish b/w fantasies/intent and so as not to stultify
emotional life
2.
Proportionality
a.
Make punishment fit the crime; dont punish more than necessary
3.
Legality
a.
No punishment w/o fair notice of the crime
Defining Criminal Conduct Elements of Just Punishment
A.
Culpability
1.
Actus Reus requirement
a.
NO exceptions for actus reus requirement
b.
Need for a Physical Act cannot be punished for thoughts alone
i.
An Act requires bodily movement - Actions are good proof of intent
ii.
Omissions qualify in some states
iii.
Martin v. State (public drunkenness)
a)
Police forced him to public area not voluntary appearance
c.
An act must be Voluntary
i.
CL: conscious exercise of will and in control of action
ii.
MPC 2.01 defines voluntary by what it is NOT:
a)
Reflex auto and inborn w/o reaching consciousness
b)
Convulsion abnormal, violent contraction of muscles
c)
Unconsciousness or sleep (unless the actor knew)
d)
Hypnosis debatable if it lowers or inhibits ability to control
iii.
In some cases, if your involuntary act causes harm, may be liable for voluntary
act preceding it. Ex: driving car w/awareness of history of seizures
d.
Omissions
i.
Omissions will be actus reus only if LEGAL DUTY:
a)
By statute
b)
Certain status relationship (Ex: parent/child; husband/wife..)
c)
Assumed contractual duty
d)
Voluntarily assumed duty and secluded so as to prevent others from
helping
e)
In some cases, if your action places a person in a dangerous situation,
may have legal duty to act
ii.
Good Samaritan Statutes also make omission actus reus
iii.
When liable for omissions, must be VOLUNTARY
e.
Possession as an Act
i.
Crime to have possession of contraband must have control long enough to
have opp to terminate possession
ii.
D must be aware of possession, but not legality
2.
Mens Rea Requirement
a.
Basic Conceptions
i.
Criminal act requires guilty state of mind; culpability
ii.
Specific intent

a)

b.

c.

Doing act with specific objective. Intent to do some further act or achieve
a further consequence. (Ex. Assault with intent to rob)
b)
Cannot be inferred from actions
c)
Ex: Attempt, 1st degree murder
iii.
Malice requirement for CL murder and arson.
a)
Requires intent to do particular harm OR reckless disregard for obvious
or high risk of harmful result
b)
Not open to specific intent defenses (vol intoxication/unreas mistake of
fact)
iv.
General intent awareness of facts in crime
a)
Intent can be inferred from actions
b)
Transferred intent (from person intended to harm to actual; Ex: felonymurder)
c)
Motive is not intent
MPC 2.02 tries to clear up inconsistencies and ambiguities
i.
Eliminates distinction b/w general and specific intent
ii.
4 culpable mental states:
a)
intent/purpose
1.
acts w/intent to engage in conduct or cause result
2.
Holloway (carjacking case) intent includes conditional intent
b)
Knowledge
1.
sufficient for crimes requiring willful conduct
2.
For conduct or circumstances awareness
3.
For result aware of likely or necessary result of conduct
4.
Aware of a high probability
c)
Recklessness
1.
Conscious disregard of substantial or unjustifiable risk
2.
Requires awareness of probable risk
3.
Gross deviation from reasonable care
4.
Wanton conduct
d)
Negligence (objective standard)
1.
Failure to be aware of very unreasonable risk (should have
known)
2.
Substantial deviation from std of care
3.
Violation of statute may be evidence of negl
iii.
Material elements:
a)
conduct all crimes include this element; some specify, some not
b)
attendant circumstances
c)
results of conduct some crimes do not have this element
iv.
Analysis of Statutes
a)
Mens rea must apply to each element in offense if not specified, the
stated mens rea applies to all elements
b)
If legislature does not specify mens rea, apply P, K, or R
c)
Higher state of mind satisfies lower mental state requirement (Ex:
purpose/knowledge satisfies recklessness)
v.
Regina v. Cunningham (steals gas meter, neighbor partially asphyxiated)
a)
Offense requires maliciously cause risk. Court gave wrong instr of
malicious
b)
Malicious: intent do particular harm, recklessness to life endangerment
EXCEPTION: Strict Liability
i.
Culpable regardless of mens rea as to certain elements (not necessarily all
elements)
a)
Morrisette (stealing govt ppty)
1.
Trial strict liability b/c knowingly only applies to conversion
2.
S.C. not strict liability; knowingly applies to all elements (incl
knowing US ppty)
ii.
Interpreting Congressional silence
a)
Strict liability b/c silence
b)
SL usually only for public welfare crimes, not SL for CL crime against
morals
c)
SL usually low penalty and no stigma
d)
Look at mens rea requirement of similar crimes

d.

e.

III.

Rape
A.

B.

e)
Look at legislative intent
f)
Resolve against unconstitutionality (X-Citement Video case)
iii.
For/Against SL
a)
For: efficiency, higher std of care, preventive potential (eliminates
activity)
b)
Against: shouldnt criminalize/stigmatize w/o culpability, favors
prevention at the cost of injustice to individual
c)
Middle ground: allow D opp to avoid liability by proving he wasnt
careless or was reasonable
iv.
MPC no SL even for petty offenses
v.
Mens rea claim is not defense, actus reus is defense
Mistake of Fact
i.
MPC 2.04 Ignorance/Mistake of fact is defense if negatives mens rea
a)
First determine required mental state, then decide if mistake negatives
mens rea
1.
If mens rea not stated, apply P, K, or R
2.
Genuine but unreasonable mistake still negates mens rea of
purpose, knowledge, recklessness
3.
IF negligence, then requires reasonable mistake of fact
4.
SL mistake not a defense
ii.
Some states follow MPC, others always require reasonable mistake
iii.
P has burden of disproving mistake to prove knowledge b.r.d.
Mistake of Law
i.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
a)
No defense if the mistake or ignorance is of existence or interpretation of
penal law
1.
To deter and encourage people to educate themselves on laws
2.
Mens rea requires intent to do act, not knowledge that act
violates statute
ii.
EXCEPTIONS to mistake of law defense:
a)
Mistake of collateral law (element defined by law outside penal law) is
defense if negatives mens rea
1.
Some jx may not allow defense at all.
2.
Regina v. Smith charged for destroying property. Mistake
about ownership (mistake of fact and collateral law).
iii.
MPC mistake of law IS a defense if
a)
Mistake about collateral law negatives mens rea OR
b)
When statute expressly includes exception (statute requires knowledge
of the law) OR
1.
Cheek v. US not guilty for not paying taxes b/c believed
income did not include wages
2.
statute required willful refusal to pay taxes. Mens rea not met
c)
Mistake as to meaning of the law is defense only if
1.
the statute in fact authorizes conduct, later determined
erroneous OR
2.
if interpretation is founded on official statement of the law

Perspectives
1.
CL definition: carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will
2.
CL: the law did not recognize rape if man committed the acts on his wife.
a.
Modern: most states dont require if estranged or separated; some have abolished req.
3.
CL thought of this crime as one of violence
a.
Psychological element shifts idea to crime of loss of sexual autonomy
b.
Now thought of as sexual assault. Some jx require no more force than battery.
Actus Reus
1.
Force, Nonconsent, Resistance
a.
spectrum: (narrow) physical violence/threat -----------------------------nonconsent (broad)
b.
Force
i.
CL/Majority: Rape requires force or threat of force.
a)
Some jx only require force and do not require nonconsent.
b)
Traditionally interpreted as physical force or threat of serious bodily harm
1.
Physical resistance is evidence of physical force

c)

c.

d.

e.
f.

C.

Threat of force can be established if evidence of fear.

1.
Requires reasonable apprehension that prevents ability to
resist
2.
Non-physical threat insufficient (high school principal case)
ii.
PA approach: interprets force to include physical or psychological coercion, that
compels victim to submit
a)
Factors to consider: ages, mental/physical states, environment,
authority, duress
iii.
Minority view: force is not required but can be evidence of nonconsent.
iv.
How much force?
a)
CL/Majority: force above and beyond that inherent in the act of
nonconsensual intercourse. (Berkowitz case college kids in apt)
b)
Physical force is any act without consent (MTS case girl sleeping)
1.
eliminates force requirement
Nonconsent
i.
CL: Rape requires nonconsent (against her will)
a)
Usually turns to proof of resistance to show nonconsent
ii.
Possible definitions of nonconsent:
a)
Verbal resistance plus other behavior
b)
Verbal resistance alone
c)
Anything other than verbal permission (silence or passivity)
iii.
Inability to consent b/c unconscious, under drugs, mental condition is nonconsent
Resistance
i.
Most states do not expressly state resistance as a requirement in the statute
a)
Traditionally required physical resistance (utmost resistance) to prove
nonconsent.
b)
Modern shift: requires reasonable resistance to prove nonconsent.
c)
If no resistance, must be based on reasonable apprehension.
d)
But usually an implicit requirement to prove physical force or lack of
consent
ii.
A few states have expressly abolished this requirement: PA, CA
a)
But might be hard to show force w/o resistance
Statutory Rape
i.
Sexual relations with a child. Cut-off age as specified in staute.
ii.
Strict liability crime.
MPC 213.1
i.
Rape requires he compel her to submit by force or threat, prevents resistance by
drugs, she is unconscious, or under 10 years old.
ii.
Allows for crime of gross sexual imposition if he compels her to submit by threat
that would prevent resistance, or knows of mental defect, or deceit.

Mens Rea
1.
3 approaches:
a.
Majority: Requires negligence as to non-consent to be convicted of rape.
i.
Mistake of fact that is honest and reasonable is a defense
b.
Minority: Requires recklessness as to non-consent to be convicted of rape.
i.
Any mistake of fact is a defense.
c.
CL Rule and MA approach: strict liability
i.
No mistake of fact (of consent) is a defense

IV.

Homicide

st

1 Degree murder
2nd Degree murder

Voluntary manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter

No crime
A.

Intentional
1) torture, lying in wait
2) other willful, deliberate,
premeditated
1) specific intent to kill

1) heat of passion/adequate
provocation
2) MPC extreme mental or
emotional disturbance
----------------X------------------

Unintentional
1) felony murders
1) depraved heart, gross
recklessness, disregard to human
life
2) intent to cause g.b.h.
3) felony murders that arent first
degree
1) heat of passion/adequate
provocation is possible (not
common)
1) reckless
2) gross negligence
3) misdemeanor manslaughter
Ordinary negl.

Intentional Homicide
1.
CL murder: killing with malice aforethought. Did not break into degrees of offense.
2.
1st Degree Murder
a.
Killing by poison, lying in wait, or any willful, deliberate and premeditated killing
b.
Premeditation
i.
Some jx say premeditation can be instantaneous (Carroll case man shoots wife
while fighting in bed). Premeditated interpreted simply as intent to kill.
a)
Lessens distinction between 1st and 2nd Degree Murder
ii.
Some jx require some period of contemplation or reflection (Guthrie case boy
shoots co-workers for teasing about nose)
a)
Relevant factors that indicate premeditation:
1.
Relationship b/w accused and victim
2.
Plan or preparation
3.
Presence of reason or motive
4.
Planning activity
5.
Nature or manner of the killing
3.
2nd Degree Murder
a.
All other killings w/specific intent to kill.
4.
MPC 210.2
a.
Does not draw a line b/w 1st and 2nd Degree Murder
5.
Voluntary Manslaughter (Provocation)
a.
Person has the intent to murder, but charge is mitigated to manslaughter.
b.
Elements
i.
Heat of Passion
a)
Purely Subjective
ii.
Produced by Adequate or Reasonable Provocation
a)
Categorical Approach (Majority) - (Girourd case) adequate provocation
limited to specifically, defined categories in statute.
b)
Flexible Approach (Maher case) adequate if it has the natural tendency
to produce heat of passion state of mind in an ordinary person.
1.
Who is reasonable person? Jx might consider
a.
Age
b.
Gender
c.
And other characteristics as affect gravity of provocation
c)
Majority: Words are not enough provocation.
iii.
Within inadequate cooling time

a)
b)

B.

CL: Rigid definition of adequate cooling time as specified in statute.

Flexible Standard: jury determines what is adequate cooling time for
reasonable person.
1.
Tell jury that the law expects people to cool down; or
2.
Say nothing about what the law expects.
c)
Rekindling cases: when second, less provoking event rekindles a
previous provocation. Some jx allow, most dont.
c.
Rage must be directed at the provoker. Some states allow provocation when:
i.
Mistake as to provocation.
ii.
Mistake as to who is the provoker.
iii.
Misaim shoot at the provoker and kill someone nearby.
d.
Minority: Some states abolished voluntary manslaughter.
e.
MPC 210.3
i.
Rejects CL provocation formula. Doesnt label voluntary or involuntary, but
210.3(a) corresponds to involuntary (recklessly) and 210.3(b) corresponds to
voluntary (under extreme emotional disturbance)
ii.
210.3(b) extreme emotional disturbance requirement corresponds to heat of
passion element. Subjective component.
iii.
Reasonable explanation or excuse corresponds to adequate provocation
element. Objective component.
a)
Reasonable person standard is left ambiguous
b)
For the jury to decide standard.
iv.
No mention of cooling time.
f.
Difference b/w CL Standard and MPC:
i.
MPC has no cooling time element.
ii.
MPC taken from the actors situation as he believes them to be, whether
mistaken or not.
iii.
CL refers to passion as anger or rage. MPC refers to extreme emotional
disturbance, which could be any kind of mental reaction (depression).
iv.
MPC doesnt require provocation by a person. It could be provocation from lifes
events (e.g. bad weather).
v.
MPC is broader interpretation. Allows more crimes to be mitigated to VM
Unintentional Homicide
1.
Involuntary Manslaughter - Threshold for Criminal Liability
a.
Traditionally the lowest grade of homicide.
b.
Bottom line threshold. 3 possible positions:
i.
Recklessness
ii.
Majority view: gross negligence is the minimum for IM
a)
Gross negl requires lack of ordinary care plus such a deviation from
ordinary care as to constitute disregard for human life.
b)
How to determine gross negligence:
1.
The bigger the risk, the more deviant.
2.
Whether justified for taking the risk.
iii.
Ordinary negligence: No states allow IM based on negl.
c.
The law places great emphasis on causation. The act must cause death.
d.
Misdemeanor-Manslaughter (unlawful act doctrine)
i.
Killing during the act of a misdemeanor can constitute MM
ii.
MM is strict liability offense. Requires at least criminal negl or recklessness.
Some jx only require that the act caused the death.
iii.
Limitations on the unlawful-act doctrine:
a)
causation actual and proximate cause (foreseeability)
b)
limited to crimes that are malum en se (evil in and of itself), as opposed
to misdemeanors designed to protect human safety.
c)
limited to dangerous misdemeanors.
2.
The Line Between Murder and Manslaughter
a.
Categories of murder (Peas in a Pod):
i.
Intent (purpose or knowledge)
ii.
Gross recklessness (depraved heart, disregard to human life)
iii.
Intent to cause GBH
iv.
Felony-Murder
b.
CL called this the depraved heart murder.
c.
Killing with malice: Wanton disregard for human life or gross recklessness

d.

3.

4.

CL: intent to inflect GBH is enough to prove malice and enough for murder. Some jx say
not enough.
e.
Malice at minimum requires some awareness and willingness to take a big risk.
i.
Reason for creating the risk?
a)
Is relevant b/c the more justified, the less culpable.
f.
How great a risk?
i.
Disregard of a likely, serioussome magnitude of risk.
ii.
CA high probability of death
g.
MPC 210.2 - Murder requires purpose, knowledge, or gross recklessness plus extreme
indifference. All have common disregard for human life.
MPC 210(3)&(4)
a.
2 categories of unintentional homicides:
i.
Negligent Homicide (below IM) requires gross or criminal negl
ii.
Manslaughter requires recklessness
The Felony-Murder Rule 1st and 2nd Degree Murder
a.
Felony-Murder
i.
1st Degree Murder when the statute specifies certain felonies.
ii.
FM is a strict liability offense. FM suspends the mens rea requirement for murder
(awareness) and only have to prove high probability.
iii.
FM in the first degree for certain, defined offenses.
iv.
FM is not trying to deter the felon, but trying to make more careful felons.
v.
MPC
a)
Has not been influential in its interpretation of FM
b)
Recklessness is presumed if engaged in certain felonies, but MPC
makes it a rebuttable presumption. Not a strict liability crime under MPC.
vi.
Imputed malice is sometimes used to describe FM.
b.
Limitations
i.
Causation
a)
The act must have been the actual (but for) AND
b)
proximate cause (reasonably foreseeable) of death
1.
Exception if victim has condition (like eggshell skull)
ii.
The Inherently Dangerous-Felony Limitation
1.
What is meant by inherently dangerous?
a.
Substantial risk or high probability of death ambiguous
b.
Look to the courts to interpret.
2.
Two interpretations of the doctrine:
a.
In the abstract of the crime
i. Can look at the crime as a whole; OR
ii. Separating out just the specific section of crime
iii. Determine one approach over the other, or one
approach only for some crimes.
b.
In the circumstances of the case.
i. Judged as was committed by particular D
ii. Decided by the jury
iii.
The Merger Limitation (Independent Felony)
a)
If felony qualifies under the doctrine, cant use FM for conviction.
b)
Majority uses some version of doctrine.
c)
If your purpose is to assault, inflict injury/pain Merges
1.
integral part of the homicide
d)
If your purpose is independent of that Does not Merge
1.
independent felonious purpose
e)
ad hoc approach (CA) all inherently dangerous felonies qualify for
FM, as long as does not subvert legislative intent for degrees of punishm
f)
Concern of bootstrapping that these felonies would essentially allow
the malice requirement to be wiped out under FM rule. FM will not deter
people committing these crimes.
iv.
Identity of the Killer
a)
Agency Rule (Majority)
1.
FM only applies when one of the felons does the killing
b)
Proximate cause Rule
1.
FM applies as long as killing was a foreseeable risk of the
felony

v.

V.

VI.

Identity of the Victim

a)
No liability if felon is the victim.
b)
Shield cases you put the person in an extremely risky situation,
directly causing their death. You are liable.

Attempt
A.
Inchoate crime (also burglary or assault)
B.
Mens Rea
1.
re: Conduct
a.
CL and MPC = purposeful
b.
MPC (circumstances as he believes them to be)
2.
re: Results
a.
CL and MPC = specific intent or purpose
b.
MPC = OR belief that his conduct will (high probability) cause the result
c.
NO attempted FM or attempted involuntary manslaughter
3.
re: Attendant Circumstances
a.
CL is unclear
b.
MPC = whatever is required for the completed crime
C.
Actus Reus Preparation v Attempt
1.
Proximity Approach
a.
Conduct that tends to effect the commission of the crime
b.
Dangerous proximity to success = physical proximity and time to completing crime
c.
How far has D gone shows purpose and firmness of purpose
2.
Equivocality Approach
a.
An act in itself (not words) unequivocally proves criminal intent
b.
Requires certainty of intent from actions
c.
Very close to the everything end of spectrum
3.
Substantial Step Approach MPC and Majority
a.
Substantial step that is strongly corraborative of purpose
b.
Shifts focus on what has already been done, not what remains
c.
Permits apprehension at earlier stage
4.
Substantive Crimes of Preparation
a.
Allow intervention earlier to prevent people from committing an act
b.
Prominent at CL: burglary and assaul
5.
Abandonment
a.
CL once crossed the line to attempt, there is no defense (CA approach)
b.
MPC - Renunciation of Criminal Purpose
i.
Complete and voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose.
ii.
But NOT if new factors increased detection or if postponing
Accomplice Liability
A.
Mens Rea
1.
Conduct of the Principal
a.
Variations:
i.
MPC and Maj: Must have intent or purpose to further, encourage, promote the
principals conduct
ii.
Some jx require only knowledge
iii.
Knowledge IF providing substantial contribution, purpose if not
iv.
Knowledge for serious crime; Purpose if not
v.
Criminal facilitation (NY) separate crime for knowledge
b.
Reasonably foreseeable or natural and probable result doctrine
i.
First must satisfy mens rea.
ii.
Then, liable for other offenses if reasonably foreseeable from the one promoted
iii.
Different stds of probability to be natural consequence
iv.
MPC = still requires purpose to promote further conduct
2.
Attendant Circumstance Elements
a.
Always requires knowledge OR
b.
Whatever is required by the crime
3.
Result Elements
a.
Whatever is required for the crime
i.
Ex: Accomplice InV Mansl = only requires gross negl as to the RESULT (death)
ii.
Ex: Murder = only requires gross recklessness/depraved heart
B.
Causation/Principal Alternative:
1.
Holding person as principal, even though another person acted = must be a but for cause

2.

VII.

Direct causal connection free will of decedent breaks causal chain

a.
But look at whether act was fully, free-willed and how foreseeable.
3.
Proximate cause (foreseeability)
C.
Actus Reus
1.
Requires some furthering or contribution to crime. Do NOT have to be the but for cause.
2.
ANY encouragement or facilitation is enough.
3.
Very low standard of actus reus.
4.
MPC 2.06 = solicits, aids or agrees, or attempt to aid (but aid fails)
5.
MPC 5.01(3)
a.
Principal would not be convicted of crime or attempt, b/c fails. Aiding is liable for attempt
b.
CL RULE: only liable as accomplice for what principal is liable
6.
Omission can be basis for complicity if legal duty to prevent
D.
Relationship Between Liability of the Parties
1.
MUST have a guilty principal to have complicity
a.
No actus reus or mens rea by principle = no complicity
b.
CL: principal had to be found guilty in court to find complicity
c.
Modern: principal guilt must be established at trial of complicity
2.
Complicity if crime was committed by principle = could still be guilty of attempt.
3.
Might have different levels of crime for principle and accomplice
4.
Exception - Innocent Agent
a.
The accomplice is convicted as the principal
b.
Must cause (but for and proximate) innocent or irresponsible agent to commit crime
c.
Causation as principle runs through agent b/c free will is limited or impaired
d.
Innocent Agents
i.
Children
ii.
People w/mental deficiencies
iii.
Drunk people
iv.
Putting gun to their head
v.
People who were tricked (no mens rea)
e.
Limitation Special crimes
i.
Cant be tried as principal b/c crime can only be committed by certain classes of
people (like bank officer) or by the body of the principal (like drunk in public)
5.
Defenses
a.
Justification (right and not blameworthy) or Excuse (not right but not blameworthy)
i.
Excuses are personal to principal is usually not delegable (jx may hold opposite)
ii.
Justification MAY be delegable if also right for accomplice.
a)
Delegable if accomplice is furthering same purpose of principal
b)
Ex: handing knife for self-protection or for killing. Only justified if aiding
self-protection.
iii.
But accomplice can have own defense
iv.
Jx could say defenses of principal are always delegable
b.
Immunities
i.
NOT delegable.
ii.
Ex: diplomatic immunity.
c.
Victims
i.
Cant be convicted of accomplice, even if culpable.
ii.
Look at statute and determine who it was intended to protect = victim
d.
MPC 2.06(6) Withdrawal as an accomplice
i.
Terminate complicity prior to commission AND
a)
Wholly deprive that complicity of effectiveness OR
b)
Give timely warning to authorities
Exculpation
A.
Intoxication
1.
Involuntary Intoxication
a.
MPC 2.08
i.
Only a defense if it negatives mens rea = if didnt form the intent OR
ii.
Lacks substantial capacity to appreciate criminality or conform conduct (I didnt
know it was a crime or I couldnt control myself)
a)
Harder to meet std due to alcohol. More likely from mind-altering drugs
iii.
NOT a defense to say but for intoxication wouldnt have done it
b.
Involuntary:
i.
Someone else introduced substance into your body.

B.

ii.
Didnt know what substance would do or its power
iii.
Medically prescribed drug
iv.
Someone forces you (puts a gun to head)
2.
Voluntary Intoxication
a.
CL: only defense to specific intent crimes, not general intent
i.
Only a defense if didnt form the intent
ii.
General intent = intent to engage in conduct (to strike)
iii.
Specific intent = purpose to do something else or create some consequence (kill)
a)
Burglary breaking in w/purpose of committing felony
b)
Larceny = taking w/intent to deprive owner permanently
b.
MPC 2.08 Std: defense if it negatives an element
i.
Unaware because VI is not defense. Unaware even if sober IS defense.
ii.
Not a defense for recklessness or negligence (reasonable sober person)
iii.
MPC plus: allows defense for recklessness (not common view)
c.
NJ std: only a defense to premeditation for murder
d.
MT std: no defense
e.
Relative to mens rea, voluntary act, permanent condition (insanity)
f.
Voluntary
i.
MPC 2.08 Self induced is knowingly introducing substance person knows or
ought to know (negligence) would cause intoxication
Mental Disorder
1.
Insanity Defense
a.
Competing Formulations (from most restrictive to broadest)
i.
Abolition
a)
No defense, but can use evidence to disprove mens rea
b)
Hurts people who dont know act is wrong = still have intent but no def.
c)
Hurts society b/c acquitted and free instead of hospital
ii.
Federal Std:
a)
Severe mental disease makes him unable to appreciate wrongfulness
b)
Struck out irresistible impulse
1.
b/c pragmatic concern: inability to determine
2.
But leads to moral wrongs
iii.
MNaghten Std: Majority
a)
Mental disease or defect at the time of the crime AND either
1.
Did not know the nature and quality of the act OR
2.
Did not know it was wrong
3.
MNaghten Plus: irresistible impulse std.
iv.
MPC 4.01 Std:
a)
Lacks substantial capacity to either
1.
appreciate criminality (wrongfulness) of conduct OR
2.
to conform conduct to requirements of the law (irresistible
impulse)
b)
Compare MNaghten (narrower):
1.
MNaghten requires total inability to control. Substantial capacity
not that far off but requires more understanding/awareness.
2.
MPC adds irresistible impulse
3.
know (MNaghten) v. appreciate (MPC)
v.
Causation Std: wouldnt have done it but for the disease. Generally rejected.
vi.
All std protect those who dont know what theyre doing is wrong.
vii.
Does not cover psychopaths repeat crimes w/o guilt
viii.
Majority puts burden on D.
b.
The Meaning of Wrong
i.
Wrong means knowing its illegal.
ii.
CO - Wrong means immoral.
iii.
Exception deific decree
a)
Defense even if morally or legally wrong if told by a god.
c.
Automatism Sane and Insane
i.
Majority: Automatism can claim involuntary, insanity, or both.
a)
If second offense, had notice, so might be hard to claim involuntary.
ii.
Minority: Automatism from mental defect = ONLY insanity defense. Automatism
from other condition = ONLY involuntary act defense.
a)
Then Define Mental Disease

d.

1.
Disorder or condition naturally occurring, as opposed to induced
2.
Bratty any manifested in violence and prone to occur
3.
Quick something internal, or externally caused and permanent
4.
Type of defect that mental hospital would accept.
iii.
Involuntary act plea = easier (b/c burden on P) and no commitment in hospt
Diminished Capacity
i.
Definition: mental defect, short of insanity, that precludes mens rea
ii.
Treat as vol intox = admissible only for specific intent crimes
iii.
Never admissible
iv.
Always admissible (MPC)
a)
MPC = You can negate recklessness if not self-induced
b)
Some jx only allow when there is lesser crime