MPC Requirements:

Attempt requires(p.1219)
- same mens rea as actual crime
- purposely do something that is considered a substantial step towards
completing crime & corroborates to criminal act (jury will weigh in on this)
Defense:
- Abandonment (has to be voluntary; not because crime is too difficult so gives
up)

Murder requires (p.1232):

- must kill person with purpose, knowledge(practically certain) or extreme indifference
of human life (permissive presumption ---presumed if is in flight from enumerated
crime of: rape; robbery; deviate sexual intercourse) look at each mental state one by
one
Defenses: necessity (chose between lesser of 2 evilscant use if person was reckless
from start); mitigation to manslaughter b/c of EED; self defense
Manslaughter requires:
- need to kill recklessly or under EED

Felony Murder( no actual statute):

MPC takes restricted approachspecific enumerated felonies apply (rape; robbery;
deviate sexual intercourse)rebuttable presumption of extreme
indifference(recklessness default rule)
o attempted murder- not included in enumerated felonies so no FM
o an assault with a deadly weapon that leads to death will usually not be
considered felony murder
- MPC doesnt allow merger limitation b/c it only allows felony murder liablility in
restricted times- the enumerated felonies
Rape requires:
- male has actual sex with female (if no actual sex then it will be attempted rape)
- not the mans wife
- force or threat of force
o no mens rea so default is recklessness
o if male has sex with another malenot rape
Attempted rape requires (attempt pg.1219): same mens rea as rape but look at
elements of attempt!
Defense: impossibility (legal impossibility)if married then it cannot legally be rape
- mistake of fact defense of rape???

Accomplice liability:
- can have attempt accessory after the fact in MPC
-

MPC only attaches liability to accomplice if crime is actually foreseen (actually

contemplated by the perpetrator)not enough for it to be simple foreseeable

CAN YOU ANSWER THIS?

P (principle) commits a crime and A (accomplice) helps him in some way. If P completes the
crime, but P has a defense (lets say insanity), can A still be liable for the crime as an
accomplice?
--- This is what it said online but it doesn't really answer anything
It depends on the jurisdictions view of the source of accomplice liability.
Common Law: accomplice liability derives from the principals liability (extended to those who
assist);
Modern Law: accomplice liability is personal to the accomplice (doesnt depend on the
principals liability