ACTUS REUS vol act or omission w/legal duty that causes social harm

Voluntary Act: willed muscular reaction - reflexes arent voluntary. Time framing important.
*Martin - drunk man put in public invol so not guilty; Utter - father kills son as conditioned response guilty b/c
time framed (vol drunk)
Omission: duty by: statute; status; contractual; vol assumed & secluded; created of risk.
* Beardsly-faux spouse so no duty; Billingslea-ass who left mother-no status so no duty; Konz

MENS REA- any morally blameworthy state of mind

CL: (intent=purpose&knowledge) use culpability (guilty mind=implied intent) or elemental
general intent v. specific intent (intent to act w/mens rea beyond mens rea required for the bare
actus reus 1.intent to commit future act; 2.special motive/purpose 3.awareness of attendant
circumstances.);
- willful blindness(infers knowledge)= knew high probability & purposefully avoided
knowing truth or failed to investigate;
- statute interp - argue that MR usually applies to subsequent AC unless stated
Rule of Lenity if ambiguous to benefit of
MPC: MR terms: purposely conscious object // knowingly aware that result is practically certain to
occur // recklessly conscious disregard of a substantial & unjustifiable risk // negligently
didnt know but shouldve known taking substantial & unjustifiable risk)
- willful blindness=sufficient for knowledge if knows high probability
- Stat. interp.= if there is one MR, it should apply to all material elements unless contrary
stated. No Rule of Lenity
- STRICT LIAB: no MR term req cts infer some MR. AR alone sufficient to satisfy crime,
usually not morally wrong, punishment a fine or minor imprisonment; no social stigma
- MISTAKE OF FACT - CL: negates MR of the crime. specific intent/general intent? If specific
and mistake negated MR element (even if unreasonable mistake), excuse (no negate treat like
general); if general, was mistake reasonable? If yes, excuse unless MWD if act is morally
wrong mistake does not count (sex v. attacking mugger) LWD if legally wrong, can be
charged with greater offense. MPC: no specific/general; can use mistake of fact to mitigate the
charge to a lesser offense but not complete defense.
-MISTAKE OF LAW CL&MPC - MOL no defense unless relied on official statement. Under
MPC: could be defense if mistake when the statute defining the offense hasnt been published or
acted in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, later determined to be invalid
or erroneous. Ignorance of the law is no excuse
-TRANSFERRED INTENT- CL: person-to-person, not crime-to-crime, MPC: doesnt call it
transferred intent, but P or K if only person or property different from intended person or property
CAUSATION
ACTUAL (CL&MPC both but-for) but-for -- acceleration 2nd act speeds up // acting in
concert working together-doesnt matter which threw lethal blow-all guilty // aggravation nonlethal+non-lethal=lethal // substantial factor - 2 independent actors, simultaneous cannot tell
which caused (death by 2 blows) // Omission failed duty // Obstructed cause (shot to kill,
person chops head off)
PROXIMATE (only CL) LaFave-Scott/Perkins-Boyce
- coincidental intervening cause if foreseeableliable, unforeseeable not liable;
responsive intervening cause if foreseeableliable, abnormally unforeseeable not
liable // apparent safety doctrine: (defense) when victim has reached place of apparent
Intervening Causes
FORESEEABLE
UNFORESEEABLE
Coincidental/Independent
Responsive/Dependent

Liable
Liable

Not laible
Not (only if
abnormally unforsble)
safety // free, deliberate informed human intervention (defense) act by victim will breach
chain of causation // intended circumstances doctrine: (not defense) actors intended
consequence in manner intended is always prox cause; omission: can or cannot supersede s
act to break causal chain. If a person dies within a year and a day of the injury by , is
responsible for the death, superseding factors can break that chain of causation.
MPC: prox cause-no requirementBUT will apply one test: (1)MR purposely or knowingly-
must have purpose or knowledge result will happen; (2) MR recklessly or negligently-result
must be w/in risk of s recklessness or negligence; Was the result too remote or accidental
to be just bearing on the actors liability? if too remote, not liable
Concurrence of Elements (defense): the actus reus, mens rea, and actual cause must all occur at the
same time. If court cant decide which action caused death, no liability to .
INTENTIONAL KILLINGS
CL 1st degree murder intent to kill w/ premeditation (thinking about beforehand) twinkle of eye
& deliberation (coolly thinking @ consequences)
2nd degree murder intent to kill w/o premeditation & deliberation
Forrest Factors (determine btwn 1st & 2nd) (1) want of provocation on the part of the deceased,
(2) conduct/statement of the before and after, (3) threats and declarations of , (4) Ill-will or
previous problems btwn deceased and , (5) dealing of lethal blows after falls, (6) evidence
of brutal killing, (7) nature and number of wounds
voluntary manslaughter intent to kill while in HOP and upon adequate provocation.
HOP test:
(1) was in heat of passion? (subjective)
(2) would reasonable person in heat of passion? (objective)
(3) cooling off time?
Adeq. Prov. test:
(1) was really provoked? (subjective)
(2) would reasonable person by provoked? (objective)
(3) was provocation legally adequate?
*words alone not adequate for provocation (information words may
be enough).
*Girouard wife virbal abuse mitigate to 2nd degree but not adeq prov
for vol. ms.
RP test:
(1) GRAVITY of provocation personal traits allowed
(2) External Standards of SELF CONTROL - cant consider individuals
level of self-control (except gender and age). MUST HAVE CAUSAL
CONNECTION BTWN PROV. AND RESULT
MPC murder210.2 Killing committed purposely, knowingly (intentional);
manslaughter 210.3: EMED homicide committed under Extreme Mental or Emotional
Disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse (objective) which is
determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actors situation & under the circumstances as
the believes them to be. (subjective)
(1) Subjective - was really under influence of EMED?
(2) Objective - was suffering EMED reasonable? (Extreme grief, blindness)
*No cooling off period *words can be sufficient to put in EMED.

*Cassassa man obsessed with girl in bldg. and killed her when rejected having EMED in
the first place was not objectively adequate
UNINTENTIONAL KILLINGS
CL 1st M onlyFM - killing during a felony up to a higher degree of murder
2nd M intent to cause GBH / depraved heart / abandoned & malignant heart / extreme reck.
(conscious & unjustifiable risk creation w/ extreme indiff. to human life)
Invol MS Occurs when: (1) s gross neg results in accidental death or (2) death occurs
accidently during commission of a misdemeanor or unlawful act. - reckless OR grossly
negligent (grossly deviant from SoC)
Criminal Negligent MS What should have known? (1) What did know? (2) what didnt
know? (2a) what didnt know but reas should have? (2b) what didnt know and could not
reas have been expected to know?
*Williams didnt take baby to doctor b/c of cultural beliefs crim.neg = invol. ms
MPC Murder 210.2(b) reckless - conscious & unjustifiable risk - extreme indiff. human life
- FM equivreck or indiff presumed in enumerated felonies: arson, robbery, rape, burglary,
kidnapping, felonious escape
MS killing done with recklessness (consciously taking sub & unjust. risk)
Neg Hom a killing that was done negligently.
FELONY MURDER
CL - any killing committed during the course (from the attempt to the immediate flight) of a
felony can be moved up to a higher degree of murder.
- All elements of felony must be met
- Resulting death is strict liability (no MR for killing)
- LIMITS:
- Inherently Dang. (1)Abstract - if felony be committed w/o creating a subst. risk of
death - not inher. dang - FM does not apply; (2) Facts of the Case - look @ facts of
the case - was felony inherently dangerous in this case? Usually yes, b/c killing
wouldnt have occurred if the felony wasnt.
- Merger - felony murder rule wont apply unless underlying felony is independent of the
homicide. TEST: Is the predicate felony: (1) integral and included in the killing? (2)
did the felony have an independent felonious purpose?
*Smith - & BF beat 2yo died. Cant apply FM because integral in homicide.
- Res Gestae in the furtherance of the felony. Time distance and causal req.
*Kingv.Commonwealth airplane w/ drugs (felony) passenger died in crash b/c flying
too low. cant be charged with murder b/c crash wasnt in furtherance of felony.
Other than commits murder:
- Agency Doctrine: (majority rule) ID of Shooter - must have agency relationship with
person committing the killing to have liability for FM. Proximate Cause Rule - good
or bad dies during a felony, the felon is responsible for the death, regardless of who
shot them as long as the felony caused death. New Jersey Rule ID of Victim
innocent liable for FM (all consp); conspirator no FM.
* Sophophone - and others broke into house and chased by cop.
- Misdemeanor MS Rule: little sister to felony murder rule: if the death occurs in the
furtherance of a misdemeanor crime, you can be charged with manslaughter.
MPC: no felony murder rule, but allows felony murders only with certain felonies: (1) robbery (2)
rape (3) arson (4) burglary (5) kidnapping (6) felonious escape
DEFENSES
SELF DEFENSE (justification)
BOP - production & persuasion on state BRD & aff. def. prepond of evidence
CL ELEMENTS
(1) unlawful threat of force;
(2) imminent or immediate, (*Norman not imminent b/c asleep)
(3) actually believes in peril (subj)
(4) the belief is reasonable (Goetz let off because of subj standardbut
really?!);
(5) force used is necessary and proportional
RP - standard some subj characteristics of - relevant knowledge, experience of the
, physical traits.
LIMITS on use of self-defense: (1) aggressors: one who is not free from fault, who incited
the fatal attack/provokes, who commits unlawful act reas calculated to product injury or
fatality; however, aggressor can regain the right of self-defense if he first retreats from his
initial threat; (2) duty to retreat: majority rule-no duty to retreat from threat; minority-there
is a duty to retreat unless castle doctrine; (3) imperfect self-defensesome jurisdictions
allow this: allows a person to mitigate their criminal charge if they had genuine belief in
their need for self-defense but belief was wrong.
MPC subjective stand. ELEMENTS - a person is justified in using force when the actor believes
that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use of unlawful
force by the other person at that time.
LIMITS (1) aggressors: no defense one who with purpose of causing death or serious injury,
provoked use of force against herself in same encounter; (2) duty to retreat: there is a duty
to retreat from an aggressor if you can do so safely. castle doctrine-a person doesnt have
to retreat from aggressor if the fight occurs in home or workplace(unless coworker). (3) if
reckless in forming your belief that self-defense was necessary, actor cannot use self-defense
if crime has reckless or negligent mens rea, can for P or K. if negligent in forming your
belief that self-defense was necessary, actor cannot use self-defense if crime has negligent
MR, but can for R, K, or P.
Battered Womans Syndrome: expert testimony may be necessary to decide if threat of force
from husband was immediate or imminent. Eval according to what a reasonable person would
have done.
DEFENSE OF OTHERS (JUSTIFICATION)
CL (1) Apparent Belief Rule (majority): defense of others justified when a reasonable person in
the actors situation would believe the intervention was necessary for the 3rd person and
that a reasonable person would believe the 3rd person would be justified in using that
force themselves. (some cts limit to special relationship b/w and 3P)
(2) Alter Ego rule (minority): the actor can only raise the defense if the 3P could use the
defense. Even if a situation would appears dangerous to the RP, if the 3P is not actually
in harm the actor cannot use the defense.
(3) Imperfect Defense of Others: some jurisdictions will allow a person to mitigate his
criminal charge if he had a genuine belief in the need for defense of others but that
belief was wrong. Retreat only if both can be safely retreated and DEADLY force
MPC (1) Actor can use whatever force the actor would be justified in using if he were the one
being threatened. (subjective belief but subject to usual reck and neg)
Limitations: (1) retreat rule-person has to retreat if that would save the 3P; actor must help the
3P to retreat if he can do so safely; and the actor doesnt have to retreat if it is in the 3rd

persons house or work (Castle doctrine). (2) if reckless in forming your belief that selfdefense was necessary, actor cannot use if crime has reckless or negligent MR, can for P or
K. If negligent in forming your belief that self-defense was necessary, actor cannot use selfdefense if crime has negligent MR, but can for R, K, or P.
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY(justification)
CL deadly force never allowed
MPC: deadly force never allowed unless (subj) against total destruction or dispossession if: (1)
believes he was unlawfully dispossessed of it and (2a)the force was used immediately after
dispossession or (2b) even if not immediate believes other person has not claim to it.
DEFENSE OF HABITATION (JUSTIFICATION)
CL: Eatman Rule (old maj/now min) - deadly force allowed if the reasonably believes that the
intruder intends to unlawfully and imminently enter and deadly force is necessary to
prevent entry.
Falco Rule (min) Eatman + and that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the house
Ceballos Rule (new maj) Eatman + and that intruder intends to commit a forcible and
atrocious felony inside the house such as murder, rape, robbery (where substantial risk of
death/great bodily harm).
MPC - deadly force can be used when the actor believes the aggressor is attempting or committing
arson, burglary, robbery or another felonious threat where the aggressor has threatened
deadly force or the actor would be exposed to great bodily harm if he used something
other than deadly force.
LIMITS if reckless in forming belief that defense necessary, actor cannot use defense of
habitation if crime has reckless or negligent mens rea, can for P or K. if negligent in
forming your belief that defense of habitation was necessary, actor cannot use defense of
habitation if crime has negligent MR, but can for R, K, or P.
CL/MPC NO spring guns CL if justified for using deadly forcehard to prove, rarely okay)
NECESSITY (JUSTIFICATION) Lesser of 2 evils Defense
CL: ELEMENTS: (1) prevent greater harm (2) no adequate alternative (3) Harm caused not
disproportionate to harm avoided (4) clear/imminent harm (5) reas expectation that
actions will abate danger
Limitations: cant use if created the situation that causes the need to use necessity defense
and cannot use as defense for homicide. (usually applied to natural threats, not
people threats) *Dudley-Stevens shipwrecked and kill boy.
MPC: ELEMENTS (1) must actually believe his conduct is necessary to avoid evil; (2) evil or
harm which must be avoided is greater than the evil or harm caused by s actions(this is
up to the FACT FINDER); (3) cannot be used when something in legislature that suggest
they wanted to prevent this specific situation.
LIMITS (1) if the actor recklessly in forming belief that actions was necessary can use for
crimes with MR of P or K (2) if negligent in forming belief that actions necessary, then
can use for R, P, K MR crimes. May be able to use necessity as defense to murder.
MPC doesnt specifically say that this cant be used for murder.
DURESS (EXCUSE DEFENSE) (excuse-what you did was wrong but you have good excuse that
will make you not morally blameworthy)
CL: ELEMENTS: (1) immediate threat of death or GBH to or 3d person; (2) well-grounded fear
that the threat will be carried out; (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the harm;
LIMITS: (1) cannot be at fault for putting himself in situation; (2) must be unlawful threat
and human. Duress cannot be used as defense to murder.
MPC: Elements (1) actor coerced by threat of unlawful force against him or someone else; (2) a
person of reasonable firmness wouldve been unable to resist the need for the duress
defense.
LIMITS: (1) If actor reckless in putting themselves in the situation to be under duress,
cannot use duress at all (2) if actor negligent in putting themselves in the situation that
caused them to be under duress, can use duress for R, K, P. Duress can be used as a
defense to murder. (MPC doesnt require threat to mean immediate or imminent like CL)
INTOXICATION (EXCUSE DEFENSE)
CL: Voluntary - can be used as defense for specific intent crimes (negates MR) like assault
w/intent to rape, but not for general intent crimes. If at time of offense, lacked the
capacity to form specific intent mental state required b/c he was intoxicated and cant be
charged with specific intent crime, but can mitigate (1 to2nd M).
Involuntary can always be used as a defense.
MPC: voluntary - not a defense unless it negates an element of the offense. Does NOT negate
reckless MR if the wouldve been aware of the risk had he been sober.
Involuntary - always a defense.
INSANITY (EXCUSE DEFENSE)
CL: Insanity Tests: (1) MNaughton Rule-cognitive incapacity or moral incapacity (need expert
testimony). (2) Irresistible Impulse - MNaughton + must show that @ time of the act his
mind was so diseased that he couldnt control his actions. (3) Durham or Product Test- act is
product of mental disease/defect. Seldom used test.
MPC: (1) lacked the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or lacked the capacity
to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. (Used as majority until Reagans
assassination, now back to MNaughton rule).
CL/MPC: Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI)-jury decides that was sane at time of crime and
guilty of offense but mentally ill; GBMI verdict means may be treated while in prison.
INCHOATE (INCOMPLETE) OFFENSES specific intent (intent to act w/mens rea beyond
mens rea required for the bare actus reus)
ATTEMPT are failures at the target crime; a person cannot be charged with the target crime and
the attempted crime. 2 types of attempts: (1) incomplete - criminal attempt is thwarted
before you can commit every last step necessary to complete the target offense. (2)
complete - every step necessary for the target crime, but for some reason it doesnt work.
MENS REA CL: attempt is always specific intent; (1) intend AR of attempt and (2) perform acts
with intention of committing target crime, you cannot be charged w/attempt of reckless or
negligent crime since you cant intend the unintentional.
MPC: purposely or with the belief that the crime will occur b/c of your acts
ACTUS REUS: CL 7 tests: 1-6 what still needs to be done (1) physical proximity: the actor must
have the apparent ability to immediately complete // (2) dangerous proximity: the more
severe the harm of the target crime is going to be, the farther away the can be // (3)
unequivocality or res ipsa loquitur: looks at your actions alone (not thoughts or words),
attempts the crime if there is an act that unequivocally shows intent (silent movie ex.) // (4)
last act: attempts the crime when he takes the last act he believes is necessary to commit the
crime // (5) indispensable element: attempts the crime when he has in his control the last
thing needed to commit the crime (ex. has possession of the gun) // (6) probable desistance:
attempts crime if without the interruption, the crime would have been committed // (7)
abnormal step: attempts the crime when he does something beyond the point what the
ordinary law-abiding person would do.

MPC: focuses on what has been done (substantial step strongly corroborates criminal purposelying in wait, enticing victim to go to the place, unlawful entry at site of crime, poss. of
material a to commit crime, soliciting innocent person to help; complete attempt: every step
to complete crime, but plan doesnt work (ex. Planning murder and taking all steps, but didnt
have bullet in the gun); incomplete attempt: must take a substantial step that is strongly
corroborative of the actors criminal purpose.
IMPOSSIBILITY (DEFENSE TO ATTEMPT/INCHOATE OFFENSE):
(1)FACTUAL (CL-NO/MPC-NO) the actor was intending to commit a crime, but b/c of some
fact unknown to the the crime could not be committed. (2) LEGAL what the was
intending on doing was not a crime, even if he thought it was. (2a) Hybrid Legal - (CLYESish/MPC-NO) goal is illegal but mistake of some factor of crime. (2b) Pure Legal
(CL-Y/MPC-Y) conduct or result not actually a crime.
ABANDONMENT (DEFENSE TO ATTEMPT/INCHOATE OFFENSE):
Can only abandon if there was an attempt. CL: some Y, some N originally N; MPC: must
need a complete (no postponement) and voluntary (cant be prompted by someone else, but
by your own will) renunciation of your criminal purpose.
SOLICITATION (attempt to conspiracy can be a felony but only in 2nd degree)
MENS REA - CL: specific intent/duel (1) intend AR and (2) intend that the 3P to commit.
MPC: purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense;
ACTUS REUS - CL asks or requests, invites, commands, hires, or encourages 3P
uncommunicatedsolic; MPC: commands, encourages, or requests a 3rd party to commit,
attempt, or be an accomplice to the crime; uncommunicated=solic. MERGER: CL/MPC:
merges into attempt, completed crime, and solicitation.
ABANDONMENT (DEFENSE TO SOLICITATION/INCHOATE OFFENSE): CL:
abandonment is not a common law defense; MPC: abandonment is only a defense for
solicitation under the MPC; solicitor must abandon the criminal purpose and also convince
the 3rd party not to go through with the crime.
CONSPIRACY (an agreement btwn 2 + to commit a crime or a legal act by unlawful means
can be inferred from parties acts)
MENS REA: CL: specific/duel (1) intent to combine w/frands (2) Intent to complete target crime
Knowledge can infer intent from if: has intent to further criminal enterprise: (1) direct
evidence (2) has special interest in crime (stake in venture, no honest use for good/service,
disproportionate vol of sales) (3) crime of aggravated nature.
MPC: purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the crime // knowledge is
never enough to show purpose b/c under MPC, they are separate and distinct
ACTUS REUS: CL: act of agreement; bilateral (cant be unilateral)
MPC: agree to commit the crime, attempt the crime, solicit the crime, provide aid in
attempting the crime, and providing aid in soliciting for the crime; agreement can be
unilateral and bilateral. Need overt act if less than 2 degree crime.
MERGER: CL: NO merger MPC: YES merges with the completed crime, unless ongoing
conspiracy. ( cannot be charged for both). Pinkerton Doctrine hand of one, hand of all
(any crime in furtherance of the original crime that is foreseeable) Pinkerton brother
(one in jail still convicted b/c conspiracy and hand of one is hand of all) (A and B
conspire to kill C, in order to kill C, B must kill D (Cs husband) A liable for both b/c
foreseeable and in furtherance of killing C)
ATTEMPTED CONSPIRACY: CL: all solicitations are always attempted conspiracies, but not
all attempted conspiracies are solicitations; MPC: all attempted conspiracies are solicitations.
ABANDONMENT (DEFENSE TO CONSPIRACY/INCHOATE OFFENSE): CL: typicaly no
abandonment (sometimes Surprise) MPC: allowed - but the conspirator must completely
(no do it later) and voluntarily (no fear of getting caught) renounce his criminal purpose by
either advising the police or all other conspirators. & must thwart success of conspiracy
ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY no causation needed because not a crime
- not a crime in - a tool to derive liability from one person (principal) in the crime to another
- Accessory before the fact (aids before the commission, but not present at the commission)
Accessory after the fact (aids after the commission). Principal actually does the act,
principal of the second degree (with the principal at the crime)
MENS REA
CL: specific intent (1) Intend to assist and (2) have MS of crime committed by principal;
- accomplice liability can be inferred from knowledge if: (a) direct evidence( had a stake),
no other legitimate use, volume of sales disproportionate to need (b) has special interest in
the crime (c) crime of an aggravated nature.
- Unintended Result from the intended act:
Majority - yes if: (1) intent to assist AND (2) MR for result. i.e. Foster boyfriend gave
knife to X to have him guard V for raping his girlfriend, boyfriend intended to give X
knife to guard him, not kill, but was negligent in appreciating the risk, boyfriend can be
charged with negligent homicide.
Minority rule: as long as you intend the 1st crime - guilty of all subsequent crimes if
natural and foreseeable consequences. (Linscott)
MPC: must have purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the target offense;
- Knowledge not enough must have purpose.
- Unintended Result must be accom in conduct causing result & MR for result
ACTUS REUS
CL need actual assistance (aids, abets, encourages commission of crime), if his actions do not
assist not an accomplice. Prior agreement to assist enough to show actual assistance
even if the accomplices actions were not needed during the actual commission of the crime.
(ex. lookout didnt warn principle actor b/c no one came, but their agreement that he serves as
a lookout is enough).
MPC: actual assistance or attempt to assist, so if assistance doesnt help the commission of the
crime as long as the actor tried to help, he is an accomplice.
*Mere presence is not enough (VT kid in videotape but no reaction) - but encouragement +
presence=yes. (Wilcox v. Jeffery jazz player illegally in USA) Actor can also be accomplice
if solicits other person to commit, or fails legal duty to prevent commission of the offense
(omission), or if statute says conduct is enough.
ABANDONMENT (DEFENSE TO ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY): CL: some, but not all
allow must: communicate, neutralize, allow avoidance of subsequent criminal acts. MPC:
allowed if: terminate prior to commission & neutralize assistance OR timely warn/thwart crime..
Rule of lenity CL: any ambiguity, rule for the (must be an actual tie btwn two different
interpretations) MPC: ambiguity look to legislative intent (more or less determine what the
statute means and make that rule)