Crlmlnal Law CuLllne

1able of ConLenLs

Word L|st 3
1he common |aw versus statutes 4
What |s a cr|me? 4
Iury nu|||f|cat|on 4
1heor|es of pun|shment 4
Ut|||tar|an|sm 4
ketr|but|v|sm 3
D|fferences between the theor|es 3
1he pr|nc|p|e of |ega||ty 6
8urden of proof 7
1he J doctr|ne 7
1he e|ements of a cr|me 7
Actus reus 7
Vo|untary act 8
Cm|ss|on 8
Soc|a| harm 9
Mens rea 9
1ransferred |ntent 9
Genera| versus spec|f|c |ntent 9
k|nds of cu|pab|||ty 10
M|stake of fact 10
1he "mora| wrong" doctr|ne 11
1he "|ega| wrong" doctr|ne 11
M|stake of |aw 11
Causat|on 13
Actua| cause 13
rox|mate cause 13
Cr|m|na| hom|c|de 14
"Ma||ce aforethought" 14
Mode| ena| Code on cr|m|na| hom|c|de 13
Adequate provocat|on 13
1he reasonab|e man 13
Depravedheart murder 16
1he fe|onymurder ru|e 17
1he "|nherent|y dangerous fe|ony" ||m|tat|on 17
1he "|ndependent fe|ony" or "merger" ||m|tat|on 18
kape 19
1he res|stance requ|rement 19
1he common |aw ru|e of res|stance 20
1he mens rea of rape and m|stake of fact 21
kape sh|e|d |aws 22
Defenses 23
Iust|f|cat|on 23
Se|fdefense 24
Common |aw pr|nc|p|es 24
1he "aggressor" |ssue 24
"keasonab|e be||ef" at common |aw 24
"Se|fprotect|on" and the Mode| ena| Code 23
Necess|ty 23
Lxcuse 26
Duress 26
Insan|ty 27
"kotten Soc|a| 8ackground" (kS8) Defense 28
Cu|tura| defenses 29
Inchoate offenses 29
Consp|racy and so||c|tat|on 29
Attempt 29
Actus reus of attempt 31
1ests for attempt 31
Defenses to attempt 32
Iactua| |mposs|b|||ty versus |ega| |mposs|b|||ty 32
Comp||c|ty 32
Mens rea of accomp||ce ||ab|||ty 33
Ioreseeab|e consequences doctr|ne 34
"Natura| and probab|e consequences" doctr|ne 33
resence 33
"Innocent |nstrumenta||ty" doctr|ne 37
Lxam adv|ce 38
What Dress|er |ooks for on tests 38
1he exam |nstruct|ons 39
1he exam |tse|f 39
Lxam tak|ng do's and don't's 40
Cut||n|ng on the exam 40
Wr|t|ng an essay quest|on 41
Mu|t|party cases 42
Mu|t|cr|me cases 43


Word L|st

9urposefully
knowlngly
8ecklessly
negllgenLly
necesslLy
!usLlflcaLlon
Selfdefense
Common law
Accompllce llablllLy
Murder
ManslaughLer
negllgenL homlclde
uuress
SLrlcL llablllLy
Ceneral lnLenL crlme
Speclflc lnLenL crlme
lnsanlLy
Lxcuse
ALLempL
9rlnclple of legallLy

8urglary
8obbery
Pomlclde
AcLus reus
volunLary acL
Soclal Parm
Mens rea
AcLual causaLlon
9roxlmaLe causaLlon
1ransferred lnLenL
SollclLaLlon
Consplracy
uepraved hearL
lelony murder
ALLendanL clrcumsLances
ueadly force
lallureofproof defense
Ceneral deLerrence
lnLenLlonal
Mallce aforeLhoughL

uLlllLarlanlsm
8eLrlbuLlon
Serlous bodlly harm
Speclflc deLerrence
MNoqbteo
lrreslsLlble lmpulse LesL
9roducL LesL
lnnocenL lnsLrumenLallLy
docLrlne
Aggressor sLaLus
MlsLake of facL
MlsLake of law
lacLual lmposslblllLy
9ure legal lmposslblllLy
Pybrld legal lmposslblllLy
8easonable person
8urden of proof



1he common |aw versus statutes

Common Law ls [udgemade law Lhe basls of whaL we learn t commoo low tbete wete elqbt
felooles Now vlttoolly ooytbloq ls o ctlme AlmosL all sLaLes have abollshed common law offenses 1he
Model 9enal Code says LhaL common law crlmes are ouL Lhe wlndow 1haL doesn'L mean LhaL Lhe
common law ls lrrelevanL

Common law crlmes tsoo ls JefloeJ os tbe loteotloool ot teckless botoloq of tbe Jwellloq boose of
oootbet 8otqloty ls JefloeJ os bteokloq ooJ eotetloq tbe Jwellloq boose of oootbet ot olqbt wltb tbe
loteot to commlt o felooy tbetelo MotJet ls tbe klllloq of o bomoo beloq by oootbet bomoo beloq wltb
mollce ofotetbooqbt t commoo low loteot potposefolly ot koowloqly

9reLLy much all crlmlnal law ls now sLaLuLory 1he common law has been grafLed onLo Lhe sLaLuLes

What |s a cr|me?

Say some LhaL whaL makes a crlme dlfferenL from a clvll maLLer ls Lhe cooJemootloo of tbe commoolty
whlch ls more lmporLanL Lhan Lhe poolsbmeot ?ou can have a heavler punlshmenL for a LorL Lhan for a
crlme so lL's noL Lhe punlshmenL LhaL really dlsLlngulshes crlmlnal from clvll lL's Lhe communlLy's
condemnaLlon of you LhaL makes Lhe dlfferenceyou're been foooJ qollty of a crlme

Wlll Lhls law be effectlve (excepL by colncldence)? (1) ?ou musL know of Lhe law's exlsLence (2) ?ou
need Lo know abouL Lhe clrcumsLances of facL whlch make Lhe absLracL Lerms of Lhe dlrecLlon
appllcable ln Lhe parLlcular lnsLance" ?ou have Lo know how Lhe law ls golng Lo apply Lo you (3) ?ou
musL be able Lo comply wlLh Lhe law (4) ?ou have Lo be wllllng Lo obey Lhe law 1hls doesn'L mean you
have Lo llke Lhe law

Iury nu|||f|cat|on

1he [ury ls LoLally secreL lL doesn'L have Lo explaln lLself An acqulLLal from a [ury ls absoluLely
poslLlvely flnal 1herefore Lhe [ury can always acqulL Lhe defendanL for any reason wlLhouL belng
sub[ecL Lo sancLlon or appeal Should [urles have Lhls power?

AdvocaLes say LhaL [ury nulllflcaLlon proLecLs agalnsL convlcLlons LhaL are legal buL noL moral CrlLlcs say
LhaL [urles oughL noL Lo use nulllflcaLlon because ln pracLlce lL has had more negaLlve effecLs Lhan
poslLlve effecLs and because lL resulLs ln Lhe [ury breaklng Lhelr oaLh

1he prosecuLlon could Lry Lo geL a [uror dlscharged lf Lhere's evldence Lhey wlll Lry Lo nulllfy 1he courL
musL glve Lhe [uror Lhe beneflL of Lhe doubL because lL musLn'L lnLrude upon Lhe dellberaLlve process

5tote v koqlooJ MusL a [ury be lnformed of lLs nulllflcaLlon power ln order for a verdlcL lL reLurns Lo be
valld? 1here ls no rule whlch ls why Lhe courL musL make lLs declslon on Lhe basls of pollcy

1heor|es of pun|shment

utllltotloolsm ooJ tettlbotloo ote tbe most lmpottoot tools we wlll ose to stoJy tbe ctlmlool jostlce
system We have a duLy Lo be able Lo explaln why we are punlshlng people 1here are Lwo quesLlons
lnvolved ln how we dlsLrlbuLe [usLlce (1) Whom do we punlsh? (2) Pow much punlshmenL ls
approprlaLe? ow Jo we Jlsttlbote jostlce oo o cosebycose bosls?

Ut|||tar|an|sm

uLlllLarlanlsm ls fotwotJlookloq and Lrles Lo deLer fuLure bad conducL whlle lncreaslng happlness and
reduclng paln uLlllLarlans belleve LhaL botb crlme ooJ punlshmenL are evlls Lo be avolded A uLlllLarlan
Joesot llke poolsbmeot Puman belngs musL be characLerlzed by seeklng pleasure and avoldlng paln
We musL be able Lo do Lhe calculaLlons we musL be totloool

lorms of uLlllLarlanlsm (1) Ceneral deLerrence when you punlsh one person for a crlme ln order Lo
send a message Lo socleLy (2) Speclflc deLerrence when you deLer person x by punlshlng person x (a)
8y lncapaclLaLlon you keep Lhe person off Lhe sLreeLs or (b) by lnLlmldaLlon you make Lhe person
scared Lo do lL agaln because Lhey remember how unpleasanL Lhe experlence was belng punlshed Lhe
flrsL Llme (3) 8ehablllLaLlon when you use Lhe penal sysLem Lo change Lhe person such LhaL Lhey
won'L wanL Lo do bad acLs ln Lhe fuLure you dlagnose Lhe problem and Lhen solve lL

AcLuLlllLarlan WhaL would be Lhe rlghL Lhlng Lo do ln Lhls parLlcular case?

8uleuLlllLarlan WhaL would be Lhe beLLer ouLcome lf we announced Lhls Lo Lhe enLlre world? WhaL
would be Lhe uLlllLarlan effecL?

ketr|but|v|sm

1he punlshmenL of a wrongdoer ls [usLlfled because lL ls a deserved response Lo Lhe wrongdolng" ?ou
can'L be angry aL someone unless you belleve Lhey have Lhe capaclLy Lo choose Lo elLher do rlghL or
wrong 8eLrlbuLlvlsLs focus on people havlng free cholce or free wlll 1he reLrlbuLlvlsL says LhaL lL ls
socleLy's duLy Lo punlsh and LhaL Lhls duLy ls lndependenL of Lhe consequences or cosLs or beneflLs

lorms of 8eLrlbuLlvlsm (1) negaLlve reLrlbuLlon (uLlllLarlanlsm*) uLlllLarlans excepL punlshlng an
lnnocenL person ls never [usLlfled (2) 9oslLlve reLrlbuLlon pote reLrlbuLlvlsm you most punlsh gullLy
people and you most never punlsh an lnnocenL person (3) AssulLlve anger and haLred are morally
rlghL when dlrecLed aL crlmlnals 1hls ls klnd of a dlsgulsed uLlllLarlanlsm lf people haLe a crlmlnal Lhey
wlll lnsLlLuLlon prlvaLe [usLlce So wlLh Lhe crlmlnal [usLlce sysLem we prevenL vlgllanLlsm 1hls vlews a
crlmlnal as a worLhless human belng who deserves whaL Lhey geL (4) 9roLecLlve Morrls and Lhe
classlc modern reLrlbuLlve Lheory 1he lmporLance of Lhe Lheory ls LhaL lL vlews Lhe crlmlnal as havlng
Lhe rlghL Lo be punlshed (3) vlcLlm vlndlcaLlon we vlndlcaLe Lhe vlcLlm's moral rlghLs by punlshlng Lhe
perpeLraLor

D|fferences between the theor|es

uLlllLarlans don'L see punlshmenL as lnherenLly good reLrlbuLlvlsLs vlew punlshmenL as lnherenLly good
and [usLlflable because Lhere ls a rlghL and a duLy Lo punlsh even lf lL doesn'L do any fuLure good
uLlllLarlans sound llke economlsLs Lrylng Lo come up wlLh an emplrlcal [usLlflcaLlon for punlshmenL and
Lalk abouL proflL 8eLrlbuLlvlsLs Lhlnk as morallsLs do and Lalk abouL [usL deserLs 8eLrlbuLlvlsm makes us
look Lo our moral rooLs AcLually some forms of reLrlbuLlvlsm Lurn ouL Lo be forms of uLlllLarlanlsm

lL ls plauslble Lo argue as a uLlllLarlan glven a parLlcular slLuaLlon LhaL punlshlng an lnnocenL person
would be Lhe rlghL Lhlng Lo do ls Lhls enough Lo abandon uLlllLarlanlsm? Could a reLrlbuLlvlsL punlsh an
lnnocenL person? CaLegorlcally no ?ou may only punlsh a person who ls gullLy

MosL uLlllLarlans are unhappy wlLh a Lhree sLrlkes law 1hey mlghL oppose lL from an efflclency
sLandpolnL 1hey mlghL also oppose lL from Lhe polnL of vlew LhaL punlshmenL ls a soclal cosL

@be Ooeeo v uoJley ooJ 5tepbeos We wlll use uudley and SLephens as an ob[ecL lesson for Lhe
purpose of general deLerrence Lven lf uudley and SLephens aren'L deLerrable ln Lhelr parLlcular case
Lhe uLlllLarlan musL sLlll flnd Lhey are a useful example Lo oLhers 1hls case would send a message Lo be
cerLaln you are prepared when you go ouL on a boaL because you're golng Lo be held llable for whaLever
goes on ouL Lhere

leople v 5opetlot coott (uo) 1he probaLlon offlcer sald Mrs uu was unllkely Lo commlL anoLher crlme
buL recommend she be senLenced Lo prlson Pow much punlshmenL ls lL [usL for uu Lo recelve? A [usL
punlshmenL should 1) proLecL socleLy 2) punlsh Lhe defendanL for wrongdolng 3) encourage Lhe
defendanL Lo be good ln Lhe fuLure 4) deLer oLher crlmes 3) lncapaclLaLe Lhe defendanL 6) make
resLlLuLlon for Lhe vlcLlm and 7) be comparable Lo punlshmenLs for slmllar crlmes

A reLrlbuLlvlsL would say Lwo crlmlnals should geL Lhe same punlshmenL for Lhe same crlme
8eLrlbuLlvlsLs say you musL look aL Lhe acLor as well as Lhe acL you musL look aL petsoool
blomewottbloess as well as Lhe soclol botm caused Cne conLroversy ls wheLher a person's personal
characLer maLLers or should be consldered

uolteJ 5totes v Iocksoo WhaL punlshmenL should !ackson recelve? 1he sLaLuLe does noL sLaLe a
maxlmum penalLy buL lL does forbld release on parole LasLerbrook says LhaL Lhe senLence lmposed by
Lhe Lrlal courL ls [usL on Lhe basls of general deLerrence and lncapaclLaLlon 9osner Lhlnks Lhere's no
chance under Lhe currenL law Lo creaLe general deLerrence Lherefore he focuses on speclflc deLerrence
Pe says lf you keep Lhe guy ln [all for 20 more years he probably won'L commlL any more crlmes when
released

1he pr|nc|p|e of |ega||ty

1he prlnclple of legallLy ls no crlme wlLhouL pteexlstloq law" 1hls ttomps any oLher rules lf Lhere ls a
confllcL CourLs don'L creaLe crlmes SLaLuLes musL be wrlLLen clearly and lnLerpreLed Lo Lhe beneflL of
Lhe accused lf you have Lo rely on a prosecuLor or [udge Lo lnLerpreL crlmlnal sLaLuLes you glve Lhem
enormous power 1he uue 9rocess Clause says LhaL poLenLlal crlmlnals musL have falr warnlng" of
whaL ls agalnsL Lhe law

commooweoltb v Mocboo 1he defendanL's conducL was noL forbldden by any parLlcular sLaLuLe buL a
general provlslon ln Lhe 9ennsylvanla 9enal Code grandfaLhered" ln common law crlmes 1he
defendanL was convlcLed and appealed on Lhe basls LhaL hls conducL dld noL consLlLuLe a common law
crlme 1he courL flnds LhaL any acL whlch ouLrages decency and ls ln[urlous Lo publlc morals" ls a
mlsdemeanor under common law

keelet v 5opetlot coott 1he 9enal Code furLher forblds Lhe courLs from convlcLlng or punlshlng anyone
for a crlme noL speclfled by sLaLuLe SLaLuLes are Lo be lnLerpreLed ln Lhe manner mosL favorable Lo Lhe
defendanL llnally no one can be convlcLed of an acL Lhey commlLLed before LhaL acL was a crlme ln
oLher words no one may be punlshed under ex post focto leglslaLlon 1he proLecLlon of due process ls
Lhe [udlclal analogue of Lhe prohlblLlon on ex post focto laws lL ls noL Lhe role of Lhe courL Lo make
crlmes raLher lL ls Lhe responslblllLy of Lhe leglslaLure

lo ke 8ooks ln order Lo be consLlLuLlonal a sLaLuLe musL clearly and wlLh a reasonable degree of
cerLalnLy" Lell persons who are sub[ecL Lo lL whaL conducL ls forbldden 8anks clalms LhaL Lhe 9eeplng
1om" sLaLuLe ls overly broad and Lhus lL ls unconsLlLuLlonal Pe says LhaL some of Lhe conducL
prohlblLed ls enLlrely lnnocenL

1he burden ls upon Lhe JefeoJoot Lo prove LhaL a sLaLuLe ls lovollJ 1he courL says LhaL sLaLuLes musL be
sttlctly coosttoeJ 1hls ls equlvalenL Lo Lhe docLrlne of leolty @be Jocttloe of leolty says lf Lhere are Lwo
ways Lo lnLerpreL a sLaLuLe where one way would favor Lhe SLaLe and one way would favor Lhe accused
Lhe courL musL slde wlLh Lhe accused lL only applles when you're rlghL on Lhe razor's edge ln oLher
words we glve Lhe beneflL of Lhe doubL Lo Lhe defendanL

1he courL says LhaL lf a sLaLuLe ls clear you [usL do whaL lL says lf lL's amblguous you look aL leglslaLlve
lnLenL 8ead Lhe sLaLuLe carefully 8ead Lhe preamble of Lhe sLaLuLe 8ead Lhe LlLle Look aL leglslaLlve
hlsLory Look aL common law Look aL precedenL cases lts botJ to come op wltb o stotote tbot wlll
wotk! lts botJ to ovolJ voqoeoess ooJ ovetbteoJtb!

8urden of proof

1here are Lwo klnds of burdens of proof (1) 8urden of golng forward or Lhe burden of produclng
evldence Who has Lhe responslblllLy of puLLlng on evldence ln a parLlcular case? 1he governmenL has
Lhe burden of produclng evldence regardlng any elemenL of a crlme AnyLhlng LhaL consLlLuLes an
elemenL of a crlme ls someLhlng Lhe governmenL musL puL on evldence for Cn Lhe oLher hand for
puLLlng on a cerLaln defense lL's Lhe burden of Lhe JefeoJoot Lo show evldence of eg selfdefense
(2) 8urden of persuaslon now LhaL Lhe lssue ls before Lhe facLflnder ([ury or [udge) who musL convlnce
Lhe facLflnder ln regard Lo Lhe lssue?

Why do we have such a hlgh burden on Lhe governmenL Lo prove Lhelr case? 1he Lheory ls LhaL Lhe cosL
Lo socleLy of [alllng an lnnocenL person ls much hlgher Lhan releaslng a number of gullLy people Also
proLecLlon agalnsL overzealous pollce force [udges prosecuLors lL has less Lo do wlLh Lhls parLlcular
crlmlnal Lrlal and more Lo do wlLh llmlLlng governmenL power ln general

Oweos v 5tote A convlcLlon on clrcumsLanLlal evldence olooe ls noL Lo be susLalned unless Lhe
clrcumsLances are lnconslsLenL wlLh any reasonable hypoLhesls of lnnocence" 1he only lssue on appeal
as dlsLlngulshed from Lhe Lrlal courL ls wheLher a reasonable [ury coolJ have convlcLed noL wheLher
Lhey woolJ have acqulLLed or sboolJ have acqulLLed 1he appellaLe courL wasn'L Lhere Lo see Lhe Lrlal
and should noL play Lhe role of Lhe 13
Lh
[uror" 1he [ury sees sLuff LhaL Lhe appellaLe [udge never sees
Cn appeal Lhe presumpLlon of lnnocence ls gone ?ou assume LhaL all of Lhe facLs LhaL are ln dlspuLe
favor Lhe prosecuLlon 1he appellaLe courL can overLurn Lhe convlcLlon lf Lhey Lhlnk Pow Lhe heck dld
Lhe [ury reach tbot verdlcL?"

1he J doctr|ne

Jlosblp Lells us LhaL Lhe ConsLlLuLlon requlres every prosecuLor Lo persuade Lhe facLflnder beyond a
reasonable doubL of every foct (elemenL) necessary Lo consLlLuLe Lhe crlme charged 1he cosLs Lo an
lndlvldual of convlcLlon are so hlgh LhaL Lhey should noL be convlcLed when Lhere ls reasonable doubL of
Lhelr gullL 1he beneflL of Lhe sLandard ls LhaL lL assures publlc confldence ln Lhe sysLem and ln
parLlcular Lhe sLandard lnsplres confldence LhaL lnnocenL people don'L geL convlcLed 1he governmenL
doesn'L [usL have Lo prove Lhe facLs Lhey acLually have Lo oeqote posslble defenses (excuses
[usLlflcaLlons) So for example Lhe obseoce of selfdefense musL be proved beyond a reasonable doubL

Lven Lhough you mlghL have Lhe botJeo of qoloq fotwotJ as Lhe defendanL ln presenLlng evldence LhaL
you acLed ln selfdefense Lhe qovetomeot has Lhe burden Lo prove beyond a reasonable doubL LhaL Lhe
defendanL JlJot acL ln selfdefense 8uL ln some [urlsdlcLlons Lhe defendanL has Lhe burden of proof

We puL Lhe rlghL Lo a [ury Lrlal ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon Lo prevenL [udges from oppresslng Lhe people 1he
framers of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon wanLed Lhe communlLy Lo [udge Lhe defendanL

1he e|ements of a cr|me

t exom tlme tbls ls tbe woy we sboolJ otqoolze oot ooswets (1) volunLary AcL (or omlsslon) (2) Soclal
Parm (3) Mens 8ea (4) AcLual CausaLlon Lhen (3) 9roxlmaLe CausaLlon

Actus reus

1he octos teos ls Lhe pbyslcol componenL of Lhe crlme lL happens oot tbete ln Lhe physlcal world 1he
mens rea (or gullLy mlnd) deals wlLh Lhe sLaLe of mlnd Lhe acLor had ln commlLLlng Lhe acLus reus AcLus
8eus volunLary AcL + Soclal Parm

AcLus reus requlres a volunLary acL (or sometlmes an omlsslon or fallure Lo acL) LhaL causes soclal harm
We say soclol botm because Lhls ls ctlmlool low noL tott low Soclal harm means someLhlng very
speclflc yeL lL has a very broad meanlng

Mottlo v 5tote MarLln ls convlcLed of belng drunk on a publlc hlghway" lL Lurns ouL LhaL he ls
arresLed aL home and Laken ouL onLo Lhe road Pe says LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe lmpllclLly requlres hlm Lo
voloototlly go Lo a publlc place whlle drunk

Vo|untary act

A volunLary acL ls a wllleJ acL or a wllled muscular conLracLlon" 1hls ls Lhe dlfference beLween
chooslng Lo pull a Lrlgger and klll someone and havlng a selzure and plugglng Lhe Lrlgger wltboot wlll
Jotoloq! voloototy has several dlfferenL meanlngs

CuesLlons Lo ask abouL Lhe volunLary acL or omlsslon (1) Was Lhere conducL? (2) lf yes does Lhe
conducL locloJe a volunLary acL? (3) lf no ls Lhls one of Lhose rare cases ln whlch Lhere ls a leqol Joty Lo
acL?

5tote v uttet 1he Model 9enal Code says LhaL a volunLary acL" ls a necessary elemenL ln any crlme
An lnvolunLary acL" removes oqeocy qeocy ls requlred Lo aLLach blome Lo a petsoo raLher Lhan
merely a bomoo boJy 201 says ln order Lo be found gullLy you musL elLher do someLhlng or noL do
someLhlng LhaL you were physlcally capable of dolng 1he only ways you can be found gullLy due Lo
omlsslon are lf Lhe law says LhaL your omlsslon makes Lhe crlme or lf you breach a duLy lmposed by
law 1he Model 9enal Code ellmlnaLes Lhe need Lo play wlLh words

leople v uecloo ueclna says he should be acqulLLed because he commlLLed no volunLary acL Pow can
he be found gullLy under Lhe Model 9enal Code? 1he cooJoct musL locloJe a volunLary acL 1haL
doesn'L mean LhaL oll Lhe conducL musL be volunLary @be bteoJtb ot oottowoess of tbe tlme ftome wlll
telote to tbe cooJoct tbot coostltotes tbe ctlme cbotqeJ

Cm|ss|on

1wo forms of omlsslon llablllLy (1) SLaLuLory duLy (eg Lax laws duLles of parenLs bad SamarlLan laws)
(2) Commlsslon by omlsslon When a sLaLuLe lmposes a duLy when you a have cerLaln sLaLus
relaLlonshlp Lo anoLher when you have assumed a conLracLual duLy Lo care for anoLher when you have
volunLarlly assumed Lhe care of anoLher and ln so dolng kepL oLhers from helplng when you creaLe a
rlsk of harm Lo anoLher

leople v 8eotJsley Should people be punlshed for omlsslons? Cmlsslon ls deflned as Lhe neglecL of a
leqol Joty raLher Lhan a merely motol duLy lf you have no legal duLy Lo acL buL you sLarL Lo acL buL
Lhen qulL you wlll have a duLy lf by havlng sLarLed Lhen qulLLlng you puL Lhe person ln a wotse poslLlon
Lhan lf you had done noLhlng aL all

8otbet v 5opetlot coott Llfe susLalnlng LreaLmenL musL be conLlnued when lL ls proporLlonaLe ln
oLher words Lhe LreaLmenL musL be conLlnued so long as Lhe beneflLs exceed Lhe cosLs 1he maln
quesLlon ls wheLher Lhe omlsslon (no longer provldlng llfe susLalnlng care) was lowfol 1he omlsslon was
lawful lf Lhere was no legal duLy Lo acL 1here ls no duLy Lo acL lf Lhe prescrlbed course of LreaLmenL has
been shown Lo be lneffecLlve ln Lhls case Lhe LreaLmenL ls lneffecLlve because Lhe paLlenL wlll never
recover subsLanLlal braln funcLlon 1he courL says Lhe physlclan has no duLy Lo acL once Lhe LreaLmenL ls
found Lo be dlsproporLlonaLe"

Soc|a| harm

Soclal harm means any harm Lo any soclally valuable lnLeresL and lL has Lhree componenLs (1) resulL
elemenLs (2) conducL elemenLs and (3) aLLendanL clrcumsLances

lL ls ofLen dlfflculL Lo draw a dlsLlncLlon beLween Lhe tesolt of an acL and Lhe cooJoct relaLed Lo an acL
buL lL usually doesn'L maLLer Powever you musL draw Lhe dlsLlncLlon beLween Lhese Lwo elemenLs and
otteoJooce cltcomstooce

Mens rea

1he lssue wlLh mens rea goes Lo soclol botm 1hlnk Mens rea LhoughL abouL harm nC1 LhoughL
abouL acL"

We can'L deLer pure accldenLs nor can we flnd faulL for pure accldenLs lf you don'L have a qollty mloJ
we won'L flnd faulL

Whenever you Lalk abouL meos teo Lhlnk abouL wheLher you mean Lhe culpablllLy" meanlng or Lhe
elemenLal" meanlng 1he culpablllLy meanlng ls Lhe btooJ meanlng LhaL [usL means evll mlnd" more
or less When a person ls dolng someLhlng he shouldn'L be dolng and causes a cerLaln soclal harm we
can say Lhey dld LhaL acL ln a morally culpable manner 1he elemenLal" meanlng ls Lhe parLlcular
menLal sLaLe requlred by Lhe deflnlLlon of a parLlcular offense" 1he elemenLal approach requlres a
more preclse analysls Lhan Lhe culpablllLy approach

keqloo v coooloqbom Mallce ls noL merely wlckedness buL raLher oo octool loteotloo to coose tbe
soclol botm of tbe ctlme ot to tecklessly coose tbe soclol botm of tbe ctlme

leople v cooley under llllnols law someone lnLends Lo do someLhlng when LhaL someLhlng ls Lhe
consclous ob[ecLlve of hls conducL Someone does someLhlng knowlngly when Lhey are consclously
aware LhaL someLhlng ls pracLlcally cerLaln Lo happen based on hls conducL

1ransferred |ntent

Common law Lalks abouL Lhe Lransferred lnLenL docLrlne whlch says LhaL lnLenL follows Lhe bulleL" lf
you had lnLenL buL hlL Lhe wrong person you sLlll have Lhe mens rea necessary Lo consLlLuLe Lhe crlme
Model 9enal Code 203(2)(a) your mens rea ls purposely or knowlngly lf you cause a resulL LhaL
dlffers from Lhe lnLended resulL only by who or whaL ls affecLed

Genera| versus spec|f|c |ntent

1here are aL leasL Lhree dlfferenL deflnlLlons of general and speclflc lnLenL Speclflc lnLenL can mean Lhe
requlremenL of (1) lnLenL Lo commlL a fuLure acL (2) proof of a speclal moLlve or (3) proof of Lhe acLor's
awareness of an aLLendanL clrcumsLance

1oday as a general maLLer we lnclude meos teo words ln mosL sLaLuLes

Ceneral lnLenL" may refer Lo an offense for whlch no parLlcular menLal sLaLe ls menLloned ln Lhe
sLaLuLe Speclflc lnLenL" on Lhe oLher hand could refer Lo an offense LhaL seLs ouL a parLlcular menLal
sLaLe as parL of Lhe crlme

Ceneral lnLenL" may mean any menLal sLaLe LhaL only relaLes Lo Lhe acLs LhaL consLlLuLe a crlme
whereas speclflc lnLenL" would mean ln Lhls case a speclal menLal elemenL above and beyond Lhe
general lnLenL" When you have a speclflc lnLenL crlme Lhere are Lyplcally Lhree Lypes (1) lnLenL Lo
commlL a fuLure acL (2) proof of a speclal moLlve and (3) proof of awareness of aLLendanL
clrcumsLances

lf an offense requlres a culpable menLal sLaLe buL lsn'L a speclflc lnLenL crlme Lhen lL's a general lnLenL
crlme

k|nds of cu|pab|||ty

202 ?ou musL acL purposely knowlngly recklessly or negllgenLly wlLh respecL Lo eocb motetlol
elemeot of Lhe offense Lo be gullLy

loteotlooolly AL common law Lhls ls baslcally Lhe equlvalenL of Model 9enal Code purposely" and
knowlngly" ln one
lotposely A person acLs purposely when lL's Lhelr consclous ob[ecL Lo do Lhe conducL or cause Lhe
resulL

uressler says LhaL 9 k 8 n" ls a cootlooom of culpablllLy 1here musL be elLher 9 k 8 or n wlLh
respecL Lo eocb maLerlal elemenL of an offense 1hls provlslon effecLlvely means LhaL Lhe Model 9enal
Code applles an elemeotol approach raLher Lhan a colpoblllty approach Lo meos teo ?ou musL show a
pottlcolot sLaLe of mlnd noL [usL any bad or lmmoral sLaLe of mlnd When Lhere ls no speclflc klnd of
culpablllLy glven you assume 9 k or 8" 1he Model 9enal Code drafLers don'L llke Lhe ldea of ever
punlshlng a person whose culpablllLy ls mere negllgence lf a leglslaLure wanLs Lo punlsh a negllgenL
person Lhey have Lo be LoLally expllclL abouL lL

5tote v Notloos ln Mlssourl Lhe Crlmlnal Code dlcLaLes LhaL ln order Lo prove LhaL someone dld
someLhlng wlLh knowledge you musL show LhaL Lhey were aware of Lhe aLLendanL clrcumsLances
necessary Lo consLlLuLe an offense naLlons clalms Lhe defense LhaL Lhe sLaLe musL prove LhaL she koew
Lhe glrl was underage ln Mlssourl knowledge means owoteoess of facLs here we're Lalklng abouL
knowledge of an aLLendanL clrcumsLance 1hls ls noL Lhe Model 9enal Code formulaLlon

WhaL argumenL can be puL forward agalnsL Lhls wllful bllndness" provlslon? lL blurs Lhe llne beLween
knowledge and recklessness WhaL ls Lhe menLal sLaLe of a person who ls aware of a hlgh probablllLy
LhaL for example a female dancer ls under Lhe age of 17? lsn'L LhaL very slmllar Lo Lhe deflnlLlon of
recklessness whlch Lalks abouL dlsregardlng a subsLanLlal and un[usLlflable rlsk? Many crlLlcs say Lhls
provlslon ls no good because lL defles undersLandlng whaL lL means Lo know" someLhlng when ln facL
you Joot know lL

lf on Lhe oLher hand you requlre octool knowledge as ln Mlssourl lL wlll be harder Lo geL convlcLlons ln
cases llke Lhls We could aLLack Lhls Lwo ways we could knock down Lhe sLandard of culpablllLy ln Lhe
sLaLuLe Lo recklessness or else you can by sLaLuLe raLcheL up Lhe menLal sLaLe of wllful bllndness" Lo
knowledge as Lhe Model 9enal Code does

uolteJ 5totes v Mottls Cne may be punlshed for damaglng federal compuLers unlnLenLlonally lf Lhe
damage resulLed from lnLenLlonal access Lo Lhe compuLers Morrls would have been found noL gullLy
under Lhe Model 9enal Code because he dld noL perform all Lhe elemeots of Lhe crlme knowlngly Pe
only accessed Lhe compuLers knowlngly Pe dld noL cause damage knowlngly 202(4) says LhaL ln Lhe
absence of clear language Lo Lhe conLrary all Lhe requlred elemenLs of Lhe offense musL be
accompanled by ln Lhls case knowledge ln order Lo flnd gullL

M|stake of fact

leople v Novotto A good falLh mlsLake ls a defense when lL negaLes a requlred meos teo of Lhe crlme
Speclflc lnLenL ls negaLed by mere good falLh mlsLake and reasonableness ls noL needed

lf Lhe bellef was unreasonable dld he acL ln a morally culpable manner? We would more or less be
saylng he was negllgenL 1here would be a meos teo and Lhus some level of culpablllLy Why dld Lhe
courL reverse Lhe verdlcL? Pe lacked Lhe speclflc lnLenL requlred for Lhe crlme Moral culpablllLy ls
general lnLenL
koowloqly A person acLs knowlngly when Lhey are aware LhaL Lhe resulL ls pracLlcally cerLaln" Lo
follow
kecklessly A person acLs recklessly when Lhey consclously dlsregard a subsLanLlal and un[usLlflable rlsk
Neqllqeotly 1he acLor should be aware of a subsLanLlal and un[usLlflable rlsk 1here ls no sub[ecLlve
faulL

WhaL would Model 9enal Code 204 say abouL Lhls case? lL says elLher Lhe mlsLake does or does noL
negaLe Lhe requlred meos teo for Lhe crlme lf Lhe meos teo ls Lhe lnLenL" or purpose" Lo sLeal and
Lhe mlsLake proves LhaL Lhe defendanL dld noL have such a purpose Lhen Lhe defendanL musL be
acqulLLed 1he Model 9enal Code rules!

MlsLake of facL" ls noL a Lrue afflrmaLlve defense lL ls really a challenge Lo proof beyond a reasonable
doubL of meos teo 1he flrsL Lhlng Lo do when you're ln a nonModel 9enal Code [urlsdlcLlon ls Lo ask ls
lL a general lnLenL speclflc lnLenL or sLrlcL llablllLy crlme? lf lL's sLrlcL llablllLy you're done lnLenL
doesn'L maLLer and Lhus mlsLake doesn'L maLLer lf you have a speclflc lnLenL crlme you ask lf Lhe
mlsLake relaLes Lo Lhe speclflc lnLenL porLlon of Lhe crlme lf you have a general lnLenL crlme Lhen aL
common law you musL apply a culpablllLy" analysls ?ou musL ask wheLher Lhe defendanL's sLaLe of
mlnd was blameworLhy and ln parLlcular you musL ask wheLher or noL Lhelr mlsLake and ln Lurn Lhelr
behavlor was reasonable ln Lhe Model 9enal Code you olwoys apply elemenLal" analysls

1he "mora| wrong" doctr|ne

When you use Lhe moral wrong" docLrlne you look aL Lhe world Lhrough Lhe eyes of Lhe defendanL and
assume Lhe facLs as Lhe defendanL hlmself undersLood Lhem 1hls docLrlne says LhaL lf Lhe defendanL
acLed lmmorally lL ls reasonable for hlm Lo assume Lhe rlsk LhaL Lhe clrcumsLances are dlfferenL from
whaL he Lhlnks Lhey are and Lhus be found gullLy of some crlme Pere we end up asklng are you a bad
guy? 1he answer Lurns ouL Lo be yes even Lhough Lhere ls a reasonable mlsLake of facL Many
[urlsdlcLlons do noL apply Lhls docLrlne anymore lL ls a poslLlon LhaL some [urlsdlcLlons sLlll do use

keqloo v ltloce A reasonable mlsLake means Lhere ls no culpablllLy Powever Lhls convlcLlon was
upheld Why? 1aklng an 18 year old away from her parenLs was consldered lmmotol even Lhough lL's
noL lllegal 1he oLher problem ls Lhe prlnclple of legallLy lf lL's so wrong Lo Lake an 18yearold away
from her parenLs make lL a crlme! 1here's a lack of noLlce and Lhe rlsk of Lhe courL creaLlng crlmes We
do noL llve ln a world where everyLhlng LhaL ls lmmoral ls lllegal 1here are loLs of Lhlngs LhaL people do
LhaL are lmmoral LhaL are noL a crlme lL ls up Lo Lhe leglslaLure Lo draw a llne beLween Lhe lllegal and
Lhe merely lmmoral

1he "|ega| wrong" doctr|ne

1he legal wrong" docLrlne ls baslcally Lhe moral wrong" docLrlne wlLh Lhe word legally" subsLlLuLed
for Lhe word morally" under common law docLrlne Lhe defendanL would assume Lhe rlsk LhaL Lhe
facLs were noL as he belleved Lhem Lo be and be found gullLy of a more serlous crlme lL can be argued
LhaL Lhls ls un[usL because he may be convlcLed of a crlme LhaL requlres a hlgher meos teo Lhan he has
under Lhe Model 9enal Code he wlll be convlcLed of Lhe lesser crlme

lL's cruclal aL common law Lo dlsLlngulsh beLween general lnLenL speclflc lnLenL and sLrlcL llablllLy
Powever someLlmes courLs wlll fall back on Lhe moral wrong" or legal wrong" docLrlnes when deallng
wlLh a general lnLenL crlme commlLLed under a reasonable mlsLake of facL

M|stake of |aw

Cenerally mlsLake of law wlll noL relleve an acLor of crlmlnal llablllLy Powever mlsLake of law may
negaLe Lhe mens rea necessary for a crlme

Look aL Model 9enal Code 202(9) Lhls codlfles more or less Lhe common law ldea LhaL qeoetolly
knowledge of a law's exlsLence and undersLandlng of lLs meanlng ls noL a requlred elemenL of an
offense ooless Lhe sLaLuLe lLself says Lo Lhe conLrary

leople v Motteto MlsLake Lo law may negaLe lnLenL buL lL ls noL a defense Lo a sLrlcL llablllLy crlme
1he common law says LhaL lgnorance of Lhe law ls no defense" 1he uLlllLarlan raLlonale for such a
harsh rule ls LhaL admlLLlng Lhe excuse of mlsLake of law encourages lgnorance of Lhe law 1hls ls a
classlc uLlllLarlan sLaLemenL We're wllllng Lo concede LhaL Lhls lndlvldual does noL deserve punlshmenL
yeL our lnLeresL ln persuadlng people Lo learn Lhe law ouLwelghs LhaL lndlvldual's lnLeresLs Cn Lhe
oLher hand lf lgnorance wlll never geL us off we have no lncenLlve Lo learn Lhe law Powever lf we
make a reasonable efforL Lo learn Lhe law and are Lhus glven a defense we have a good lncenLlve

8eLrlbuLlvlsLs say we musLn'L punlsh someone whose mlsLake of law ls reasonable because LhaL person
ls noL blameworLhy

8aslcally we Jo oot qlve people o Jefeose from a mlsLake of law except for very few speclal cases where
Lhey made a teosoooble mlsLake based on an offlclol sLaLemenL of Lhe law 1he Model 9enal Code
approach 202(9) does noL ordlnarlly requlre proof LhaL a defendanL knew LhaL a law exlsLed or
undersLood lL 204(1) creaLes Lhe excepLlon LhaL lf Lhe deflnlLlon of Lhe crlme lLself requlres
knowledge of Lhe law and you dldn'L know lL Lhen you lack one of Lhe necessary elemenLs for Lhe
offense 204(3) provldes a llmlLed seL of clrcumsLances ln whlch even Lhough knowledge of Lhe law
lsn'L an elemenL of Lhe crlme we allow a defense We don'L allow a defense based on a petsoool
mlsundersLandlng of Lhe law buL raLher a reasonable rellance on an offlclal sLaLemenL of Lhe law from a
publlc offlclal or some oLher source A casual or unofflclal lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe law from a publlc offlclal
ls no good

9uL Lhls LogeLher wlLh 202(1) Lhere musL be a meos teo for each elemenL of Lhe crlme ln a sense
202(9) makes an excepLlon Lo Lhls general rule

ln shorL yoo Joot bove to ptove tbot tbe JefeoJoot ooJetstooJ tbe low usually

WhaL are Lhe excepLlons? 204(1) says LhaL lf Lhe sLaLuLe expllclLly says you musL know Lhe law Lo be
sub[ecL Lo lL Lhen flne 204(3) furLher says LhaL you may have a llmlLed defense on Lhe basls of your
rellance on an offlclol sLaLemenL of Lhe law from an approprlaLe source 1hls ls a vety llmlLed excepLlon
Lhough owevet 204(3) Joes oot permlL a defense based on your petsoool mlsundersLandlng of Lhe
law 1he defendanL musL teosooobly rely on an offlclal sLaLemenL of Lhe law (from an approprlaLe
speclfled source) LhaL ls oftetwotJ deLermlned Lo be lnvalld noLe LhaL ln Lhese areas Lhe Model 9enal
Code ls more or less a resLaLemenL of common law

leople v Jelss Welss clalms LhaL he LhoughL he had ootbotlty of low Pow does Welss's mlsLake
dlffer ln cbotoctet from LhaL of Marrero? uuress mlghL be relevanL Lo Lhe quesLlon of wheLher Lhe
mlsLake was reasonable

cbeek v uolteJ 5totes Cheek was lndlcLed for falllng Lo flle and Lax evaslon ln hls defense he argued
LhaL he slncerely belleved he dldn'L have Lo pay hls Laxes and Lhus he acLed wlLhouL Lhe meos teo
requlred for Lhe crlmes uoes an honesL buL unreasonable bellef negaLe wlllfulness? A clalmed good
falLh bellef need noL be reasonable ln order Lo be consldered as a defense

Look aL 204(1) whlch Lells you LhaL Lhere's an excepLlon Lo Lhe lgnorance ls no excuse" rule when Lhe
sLaLuLe speclflcally says you musL have knowledge recklessness or negllgence ln regard Lo Lhe law

AL common law or ln oLher words lf we're noL ln a Model 9enal Code [urlsdlcLlon lL's amblguous
wheLher a culpablllLy or meos teo word modlfles everyLhlng LhaL comes afLer or only some blLs

Causat|on

Actua| cause

Pere's Lhe deflnlLlon 8uL for Lhe voloototy acL or omlsslon of Lhe defendanL would Lhe soclol botm of
Lhe offense have occurred when lL dld?" lf Lhe answer Lo Lhls quesLlon ls yes" LhaL means Lhe
defendanL ls oot Lhe acLual cause of Lhe harm lf Lhe answer Lo Lhls quesLlon ls no" LhaL means Lhe
defendanL ls acLually Lhe acLual cause of Lhe harm

velozpoez v 5tote CourLs usually use Lhe buL for" LesL of causaLlon whlch says LhaL a defendanL's acL
was Lhe causelnfacL of a resulL lf lL wouldn'L have happened lf lL weren'L for Lhelr acLlon SomeLlmes
courLs subsLlLuLe Lhe buL for" LesL wlLh Lhe subsLanLlal facLor" LesL when Lwo or more defendanLs dld
Lhe same Lhlng aL Lhe same Llme causlng Lhe lnLended resulL llnally some crlmes have a proxlmaLe
cause" elemenL LhaL ls wlder Lhan buL for" LesL 8aslcally courLs won'L flnd defendanLs gullLy lf Lhe
resulL of Lhelr conducL was unforeseeable or when lL [usL wouldn'L be falr Lo flnd Lhem gullLy

WlLh acLual causaLlon we creaLe a llneup" of all Lhe posslble people who could have caused Lhe harm
WlLh proxlmaLe causaLlon we plck and choose on grounds of [usLlce whlch posslbly blameworLhy person
we wlll hold accounLable

lf sometbloq ls o ptoxlmote coose tbeo lt ls oo octool coose 1herefore you musL dlscuss acLual cause
flrsL and Lhen dlscuss proxlmaLe cause

rox|mate cause

1here ls oo coteqotlcol tole LhaL answers Lhese quesLlons now we're ln Lhe area of decldlng whaL ls jost
and folt Whenever you Lhlnk abouL a proxlmaLe cause quesLlon Lhlnk abouL a llne golng from Lhe acL of
Lhe defendanL and Lhe soclal harm 1hen you look Lo see lf Lhere were any oLher buL for" causes LhaL
occurred beLween Lhe Llme of Lhe volunLary acL and Lhe Llme of Lhe soclal harm lf Lhere ls noLhlng LhaL
comes beLween Lhe acL and Lhe harm Lhen lL ls a case of dlrecL harm" 1haL's an easy case Lhe
defendanL ls ln Lhe acLual cause llneup" by hlmself CfLen however Lhere wlll be some lnLervenlng
cause" LhaL comes beLween Lhe acL and Lhe harm now we have a serlous proxlmaLe causaLlon lssue
because we musL declde who we wanL Lo hold responslble

klbbe v eoJetsoo 8y sLaLuLe Lhe sLaLe musL prove beyond a reasonable doubL LhaL Lhe defendanL
cooseJ Lhe vlcLlm's deaLh ln Lhls case we have a number of lnLervenlng causes We are forced Lo
declde wheLher or noL we should hold Lhe defendanL accounLable for Lhe deaLh even Lhough he dldn'L
wanL Lo klll Lhe vlcLlm lf we don'L blame Lhe defendanL for Lhe deaLh of Lhe vlcLlm who do we blame?

1he real lssue ls a pollcy lssue ls lL [usL Lo hold someone responslble for a harm glven Lhe way ln whlch
lL happened? ln oLher words Lhe Model 9enal Code ls geLLlng away from all Lhe compllcaLed LesLs from
common law and ls suggesLlng LhaL we glve Lhe [ury Lhe baslc quesLlon of wheLher Lhe resulL ls [usL

1haL's noL Lo say LhaL Lhe common law rules and docLrlnes are no longer relevanL As an aLLorney you
wlll wanL Lo use Lhem for Lhe purposes of argulng [usLlce Lo Lhe [ury

@bete ls oo block lettet tole fot joJqloq ptoxlmote coose Powever Lhere are a number of LesLs and
sLandards for proxlmaLe cause

coloclJeotol ooJ tespooslble lotetveoloq cooses An lnLervenlng acL ls a colncldence when Lhe
defendanL's acL [usL puL Lhe vlcLlm ln Lhe wrong place aL Lhe wrong Llme ln whlch case Lhe defendanL ls
noL Lhe proxlmaLe cause unless Lhe resulL was foreseeable Cn Lhe oLher hand an lnLervenlng acL ls a
response when Lhe acL ls a reacLlon Lo Lhe condlLlons made by Lhe defendanL for Lhe vlcLlm ln whlch
case Lhe defendanL ls Lhe proxlmaLe cause unless Lhe lnLervenlng cause ls unforeseeable and very hlghly
unllkely blzarre and abnormal

@be loteoJeJ coosepoeoces Jocttloe 8ased on Lhe lnLended consequences docLrlne we reach back Lo
Lhe person who lnLended Lo cause Lhe harm Lo flnd Lhe proxlmaLe cause of Lhe harm ln oLher words
Lhe moLher goL whaL she wanLed Lhough noL Lhe way she wanLed We wlll probably hold her Lo be Lhe
proxlmaLe cause of Lhe deaLh Powever we musL say probably" because Lhls ls [usL one way Lo look aL
proxlmaLe causaLlon

@be oppoteot sofety Jocttloe 1he apparenL safeLy" docLrlne says LhaL once Lhe danger from Lhe
defendanL ls no longer presenL we no longer conslder LhaL defendanL a proxlmaLe cause 1he quesLlon
ls dld Lhe vlcLlm reach apparenL safeLy"? Slnce she could have easlly goLLen lnLo Lhe house we would
asslgn proxlmaLe cause for her deaLh Lo her based on Lhls docLrlne

1here are a number of oLher LesLs ln Lhe book 1o geL famlllar wlLh Lhese LesLs uressler recommends
Lrylng problem 11C on page 208

@be MoJel leool coJe oo ptoxlmote coose 1he Model 9enal Code advocaLes a frank [usLlceorlenLed
analysls" lf a defendanL ls Lhe acLual cause of Lhe resulL lL permlLs convlcLlon so long as Lhe acLual
resulLls noL Loo remoLe or accldenLal ln lLs occurrence Lo have a [usL bearlng on Lhe acLor's llablllLy"
203(2)(b) and (3)(b)

Cr|m|na| hom|c|de

MotJet ls tbe klllloq of o bomoo beloq by oootbet bomoo beloq wltb mollce ofotetbooqbt

1he dlsLlncLlons LhaL exlsL aL common law and ln Lhe Model 9enal Code as well as Lhe varlous nonModel
9enal Code homlclde sLaLuLes beLween murder and manslaughLer as well as beLween degrees of Lhese
crlmes are all funcLlons of meos teo 1he acL ls always Lhe same kllllng somebody lL's [usL Lhe menLal
sLaLe LhaL changes LveryLhlng LhaL we'll be coverlng ln Lhe remalnder of Lhls chapLer wlll deal wlLh
mens rea

Jbots motJet ot commoo low? lL's Lhe unlawful kllllng of anoLher human belng wlLh 'mallce
aforeLhoughL'" @bete ote oo Jeqtees of motJet ot commoo low! koow tbls fot tbe exom! uegrees" of
murder are purely stotototy AL common law all felonles carrled Lhe deaLh penalLy SLaLes declded LhaL
noL all felonles deserve Lhe deaLh penalLy When we're Lalklng abouL Jeqtees of a felony we're Lalklng
abouL stototes

Jbots tbe commoo low Jefloltloo of mooslooqbtet? lL's Lhe unlawful kllllng of anoLher human belng
wltboot mallce aforeLhoughL" noLlce LhaL ln Lhls case Lhere are lowfol kllllngs of oLher human belngs
wltboot mallce aforeLhoughL such as kllllng ln selfdefense

AL metlcoo common law Lhere are really Lwo klnds of manslaughLer socalled voloototy and
lovoloototy manslaughLer 1hese dlsLlncLlons exlsLed ln Lngland by sLaLuLe buL here lL's a common law
concepL

"Ma||ce aforethought"

Jbot ls mollce ofotetbooqbt ot commoo low? lL ls elLher (1) Lhe lnLenL Lo klll (2) lnLenL Lo cause grave
bodlly harm (3) recklessness (depraved hearL) or (4) Lhe lnLenL Lo commlL a felony (felonymurder rule)
1here musL oot be a [usLlflcaLlon an excuse or any mlLlgaLlng facLor ow JlJ we Jefloe octloq wltb
mollce eotllet lo tbe semestet? lL means acLlng lnLenLlonally purposefully or knowlngly or
recklessly" AforeLhoughL" doesn'L really mean anyLhlng anymore

5tote v 5cbtoJet Cn appeal Lhe defendanL says LhaL for a kllllng Lo be premedlLaLed Lhere musL be
lnLenL Lo klll for some flnlLe perlod of Llme before Lhe acL occurs 1hls ls lncorrecL accordlng Lo Lhe
lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe sLaLuLe ln Lhe sLaLe aL Lhe Llme no Llme ls Loo shorL for someone Lo form Lhe lnLenL
Lo commlL murder

An loteotloool kllllng LhaL ls oot ptemeJltoteJ ooJ Jellbetote" would be second degree murder

Mode| ena| Code on cr|m|na| hom|c|de

ln Lhe Model 9enal Code Lhere are no Jeqtees of motJet buL Lhere are Jeqtees of felooles Murder ls a
felony of Lhe flrsL degree ln Lhe Model 9enal Code 1haL's noL Lhe same Lhlng as murder ln Lhe flrsL
degree Murder ls a felony of Lhe flrsL degree [usL llke rape and some oLher crlmes AL common law
murder ls murder and LhaL's how lL ls ln Lhe Model 9enal Code

1he Model 9enal Code doesn'L conLaln a requlremenL of mallce aforeLhoughL" or Lhe word unlawful"
We [usL have 9k8n 1he Model 9enal Code ls ln a sense a reLurn Lo Lhe common law

1he sLandard for deLermlnlng premedlLaLlon ls wheLher Lhe defendanL had Llme Lo Lake a second look"
before acLlng uellberaLlon lnvolves welghlng" Lhe lssue 9remedlLaLlon ls bow looq you Lhlnk abouL
your acL ?ou could premedlLaLe wlLhouL meeLlng Lhe dellberaLlon requlremenL

MlJqett ooJ lottest lf Lhese Lwo cases are rlghLly declded we flnd LhaL MldgeLL commlLLed second
degree murder whlle lorresL commlLLed flrsL degree murder Pave we come up wlLh a meanlngful way
Lo dlsLlngulsh flrsL and second degree murder? uoes Lhe wlllful dellberaLe and premedlLaLed"
dlsLlncLlon do Lhe work we wanL lL Lo do? ls Lhe Model 9enal Code rlghL LhaL we shouldn'L have degrees
of murder?

Adequate provocat|on

Pere are Lhe requlremenLs for mlLlgaLlon from murder Lo manslaughLer (1) AdequaLe provocaLlon (2)
heaL of passlon (3) lack of opporLunlLy for Lhe passlon Lo cool and (4) causal connecLlon beLween
provocaLlon passlon and acL AL common law words alone never consLlLuLe adequaLe provocaLlon

ltoootJ v 5tote Words can only consLlLuLe adequaLe provocaLlon Lo mlLlgaLe lf Lhey are accompanled
by Lhe LhreaL of bodlly harm 1he reason for Lhls rule ls LhaL as a maLLer of soclal pollcy we don'L wanL
domesLlc dlspuLes Lo end ln Lhe kllllng of a spouse SLrlcLly speaklng ln ltoootJ Lhe provocaLlon ls oot
words alone because Lhe vlcLlm [umped on Lhe defendanL and pulled hls halr 8uL aL common law
words alone are oevet adequaLe provocaLlon Lo parLlally [usLlfy or parLlally excuse homlclde

1he reasonab|e man

1o whaL exLenL should we sub[ecLlvlze" Lhe reasonable man" sLandard? lL ls argued LhaL lf you lnclude
some sub[ecLlve characLerlsLlcs you musL lnclude all characLerlsLlcs 1here are several ways we mlghL
wanL Lo brlng a defendanL's characLerlsLlcs lnLo Lhe reasonable man" sLandard (1) Was Lhe defendanL
really provoked Lo lose selfconLrol? (2) Was Lhe provocaLlon severe Lo a reasonable person? (3) Pow
much selfconLrol ls expecLed of Lhe reasonable person?

ultectot of lobllc ltosecotloos v compllo Should Lhe defendanL's reacLlon be [udged agalnsL a
reasonable grownup or a reasonable boy? 1he LexL of Lhe Pomlclde AcL refers Lo Lhe reasonable
man" Should we lnclude Lhe defendanL's age ln Lhe descrlpLlon of Lhe reasonable man" we wlll
compare hlm Lo? Why should gender counL? Should women be held Lo a reasonable woman"
sLandard? 1haL's a hlgher sLandard Lhan reasonable (male manly) man" or reasonable person)

leople v cososso ln a bench Lrlal Lhe defendanL argued Lhe parLlal excuse of exLreme emoLlonal
dlsLress 1he [udge found hlm gullLy of murder 1he defendanL appealed on Lhe basls LhaL he wasn'L
allowed Lhe exLreme emoLlonal dlsLurbance defense

1he Model 9enal Code sLandard for exLreme emoLlonal dlsLress ls mote sobjectlve Lhan Lhe common law
sLandard 1he Model 9enal Code does noL Lalk abouL adequaLe provocaLlon" lnsLead lL only Lalks
abouL exLreme menLal or emoLlonal dlsLurbance 1he Model 9enal Code has boLh an ob[ecLlve and a
sub[ecLlve LesL for Lhe reasonableness of Lhe exLreme emoLlonal dlsLurbance LhaL ls puL forward as a
parLlal excuse 1he word slLuaLlon" ln Lhe Model 9enal Code secLlon on manslaughLer ls amblguous by
deslgn lL's your role as an aLLorney Lo make Lhe argumenL why a [ury should come ouL a cerLaln way
1he Model 9enal Code clalms LhaL Lhe boLLom llne ls wheLher Lhe [ury can be sympaLheLlc Lo a
defendanL ln a parLlcular case

1he defendanL musL show LhaL he has a teosoooble reason for belng ln Lhe condlLlon he was ln lf Lhe
[udge flnds LhaL Lhere was exLreme emoLlonal dlsLurbance Lhen Lhe [ury would declde wheLher or noL
LhaL dlsLurbance was reasonable

Depravedheart murder

We wlll conslder cases where Lhe defendanL does noL loteoJ Lo klll buL may sLlll be found gullLy of
murder 1he defendanL Lakes an oojostlfleJ tlsk lf we have a conLlnuum of rlskLaklng Lhere wlll be
some rlskLaklng LhaL ls enLlrely lnnocenL aL one end lurLher down Lhe llne Lhere ls rlskLaklng LhaL
mlghL consLlLuLe negllgence aL a LorL level followed by rlskLaklng LhaL mlghL consLlLuLe negllgence ln
crlmlnal law llnally aL Lhe oLher end of Lhe specLrum we'll have recklessness and ln some [urlsdlcLlons
even extteme recklessness

1hese cases Lalk abouL exptess and lmplleJ mallce AL common law when Lhe courL Lalks abouL express
mallce lL ls Lalklng abouL loteot to klll lmplled mallce suggesLs any of Lhe oLher Lhree formulaLlons of
mallce

8etty v 5opetlot coott ln Callfornla Lhe defendanL musL be shown Lo have had a knowledge of Lhe
hlgh degree of rlsk" or ln oLher words Lhey musL be shown Lo be teckless ln order Lo be charged wlLh
murder as opposed Lo manslaughLer no one clalms LhaL Lhere was lnLenL Lo klll 8erry Look an
un[usLlflable rlsk 1he expecLed harm (pL) exceeded Lhe beneflL of keeplng Lhe dog ln Lhe nelghborhood
(8) A reasonable person would noL Lake such a rlsk lf Lhe reason for Laklng Lhe rlsk ls soclally useless or
unaccepLable Lhen ooy rlsk ls un[usLlflable

ln Lhe Model 9enal Code boLh Lhe deflnlLlons of boLh recklessness and negllgence lnclude a subsLanLlal
and un[usLlflable rlsk" lf you Lake Lhls llLerally Lhen you could geL lnLo a sLrange slLuaLlon lf a Llny rlsk ls
un[usLlflable buL noL subsLanLlal you mlghL noL be found culpable 8uL anoLher way Lo vlew Lhls ls Lo
look aL lL as a sobstootlolly un[usLlflable rlsk" LxLreme recklessness wlll be murder aL common law or
under Lhe Model 9enal Code

5tote v etoooJez Lvldence ls admlsslble so long as lL goes Lo show LhaL Lhe defendanL had Lhe mens
rea necessary for Lhe parLlcular offense charged 1he defendanL argues LhaL Lhe evldence ln dlspuLe
speaks only Lo hls characLer raLher Lhan hls awareness of rlsk Pls awareness of rlsk was noL aL lssue
because Lhe prosecuLlon charged hlm wlLh a crlme LhaL does noL requlre such awareness

AL common law when someone ls found Lo be reckless Lhey possess mallce and Lhus Lhey have
commlLLed murder lf Lhey are crlmlnally negllgenL Lhey have commlLLed lnvolunLary manslaughLer lf
Lhey don'L meeL crlmlnal negllgence Lhey wlll noL be crlmlnally llable Powever under Lhe Model 9enal
Code lf someone commlLs homlclde recklessly lL could be elLher murder or manslaughLer
ManslaughLer ls a reckless kllllng whlle murder can be a reckless plus" kllllng lf Lhe person kllled
negllgenLly Lhey can be charged wlLh oeqllqeot bomlclJe whlch lsn'L even ln common law

1he Model 9enal Code says LhaL when negllgence ls sufflclenL Lo esLabllsh an elemenL of an offense LhaL
elemenL ls olso saLlsfled by acLlng purposely knowlngly or recklessly 1he Model 9enal Code has a
cootlooom of colpoblllty 1he Model 9enal Code says LhaL lf a person ls charged wlLh negllgence and Lhe
prosecuLor ls able Lo prove purposefulness knowledge or recklessness lL does noL preclude Lhe
prosecuLor from convlcLlng for negllgence 1hls seems qulLe loglcal LeL's say a person ls charged wlLh
negllgenL homlclde 1he defendanL could go on Lhe wlLness sLand and make an argumenL LhaL he
loteoJeJ to klll 1hen absenL Lhls rule from Lhe Model 9enal Code we mlghL be led Lo belleve LhaL we
musL acqulL Lhe defendanL of negllgenL homlclde

5tote v Jlllloms ln WashlngLon manslaughLer ls any homlclde commlLLed wlLh slmple (as opposed Lo
qtoss) negllgence lurLhermore homlclde ls excusable lf lL ls commlLLed accldenLally whlle dolng any
lawful acL by lawful means wlLh ordlnary cauLlon" 1he sLandard of negllgence LhaL had Lo be proven ln
Lhls case was clvll negllgence or ln oLher words tottlevel negllgence noL qtoss negllgence

1he Model 9enal Code does noL look klndly upon punlshmenL of negllgence ls Lhere any basls for ever
punlshlng a person who ls locopoble of llvlng up Lo Lhe esLabllshed ob[ecLlve sLandard? lL's hard Lo
blame someone who ls noL capable of belng oLherwlse buL on Lhe oLher hand from a uLlllLarlan
perspecLlve we may wanL Lo keep Lhese people off Lhe sLreeL

1he fe|onymurder ru|e

lL can be argued LhaL felony murder ls a sLrlcL llablllLy crlme 99 of cases of real world felony murder
do noL requlre Lhe felonymurder rule Lo convlcL usually you can show a depraved hearL usually
when a prosecuLor uses Lhe felonymurder rule Lhey already have lnLenL Lo klll or depraved hearL

leople v lollet under Callfornla law all murder LhaL ls commlLLed whlle commlLLlng anoLher felony ls
consldered flrsL degree murder Conslder Lhe raLlonale LhaL Lhe felonymurder rule wlll help deLer Lhe
underlylng felony 1hls seems LoLally bogus because why don'L you [usL up Lhe penalLy for LhaL felony?
LeL's say on Lhe oLher hand we can'L deLer felons Maybe we can geL Lhe felon Lo aL leasL commlL Lhelr
felony ln a way LhaL reduces Lhe rlsk LhaL human llfe wlll be Laken ln Lhe process Maybe for example
Lhls wlll glve Lhe escapee an lncenLlve Lo escape safely uressler belleves LhaL Lhls ls Lhe best uLlllLarlan
argumenL for Lhe felonymurder rule Pe doesn'L necessarlly Lhlnk lL's correcL Pe says lL ls sub[ecL Lo
emplrlcal analysls

AL common law Lhe felonymurder rule ls a pote obsolote tole Any kllllng LhaL occurs durlng Lhe
aLLempLed commlsslon of a felony would Lrlgger Lhls rule Powever Lhls rule ls conLroverslal and so
courLs have Lrled Lo flnd ways Lo llmlL Lhe rule 1hese are joJqemoJe llmlts Some [urlsdlcLlons keep
Lhe common law rule CLher [urlsdlcLlons have lmposed cerLaln llmlLaLlons on Lhe rule Callfornla was a
leadlng sLaLe ln Lrylng Lo llmlL Lhe felonymurder rule aL Lhe Llme Lhese Lwo cases were declded

1he "|nherent|y dangerous fe|ony" ||m|tat|on

leople v 8ottooqbs 1o deLermlne wheLher Lhe felonymurder rule should apply ln Callfornla you musL
use a Lwo sLep process (1) uoes Lhe ptlmoty elemeot of Lhe offense oecessotlly lnvolve danger Lo
human llfe? (2) uo Lhe foctots elevotloq tbe offeose to o felooy render LhaL offense dangerous Lo human
llfe? 1here are Lwo alLernaLlve lnherenLly dangerous" sLandards a felony ls consldered lnherenLly
dangerous lf (1) lL ls dangerous ln Lhe absLracL" or (2) lL ls dangerous based on Lhe facLs of Lhe case

uoes tbls llmltotloo moke seose? We have prevlously dlscussed argumenLs ln favor of Lhe felonymurder
rule WhaL's Lhe besL uLlllLarlan raLlonale for Lhe felonymurder rule? We wanL Lo glve felons an
lncenLlve Lo commlL Lhelr felonles sofely LeL's say someone commlLs felony plckpockeLlng under Lhls
llmlLaLlon we wouldn'L apply Lhe felonymurder rule Lo plckpockeLlng uressler says lf we accepL Lhe
felonymurder rule and we accepL LhaL Lhe prevlously sLaLed [usLlflcaLlon for Lhls rule (safe felons safe
felonles) ls Lhe besL one Lhen lL makes sense Lo exempL Lhe plckpockeL from Lhe felonymurder rule

ls possesslon of a concealed flrearm lnherenLly dangerous? 1hls ls a very common sLaLuLe Cnce you've
been convlcLed of a felony you baslcally lose Lhe rlghL Lo possess a concealed flrearm WhaL Lhe
Callfornla Supreme CourL sald was LhaL whlLe collar felons carrylng concealed flrearms are no more
dangerous Lhan [usL regular folks carrylng concealed flrearms So Lhelr answer was no carrylng a
concealed flrearms ls oot lnherenLly dangerous because lL coolJ be done ln a maLLer no more dangerous
Lhan Lhe average schmoe carrylng around a flrearm

ow Joes tbe coott cot off tbe felooymotJet tbeoty? 1he courL flnds LhaL pracLlclng medlclne wlLhouL a
llcense ls noL lobeteotly Jooqetoos" (1) 1he courL looks aL Lhe sLaLuLe and decldes lo tbe obsttoct
wheLher Lhls ls an lnherenLly dangerous felony (2) 1he courL asks how dangerous musL a felony be ln
order Lo be lnherenLly dangerous?

Jbot ls tbe stooJotJ tbe coott oses? 1he courL conslders wheLher an offense may be commlLLed
wlLhouL a hlgh probablllLy" of loss of llfe 1he courL flnds LhaL you can vlolaLe Lhe sLaLuLe wlLhouL any
rlsk of causlng deaLh lor example you could make someone's menLal lllness worse wlLhouL kllllng
Lhem

s looq os yoo coo lmoqloe o woy tbot o ctlme coo be commltteJ wltboot cteotloq o sobstootlol tlsk of
Jeotb tbe ctlme lo poestloo ls oot lobeteotly Jooqetoos

leople v eoJetsoo lalse lmprlsonmenL ls deflned as lmprlsonmenL effecLed by vlolence menace
fraud or decelL" lL uses lLs Lerms ln Lhe dls[uncLlve (or") 1herefore Lhe crlme descrlbed coo loJeeJ be
commlLLed wlLhouL a hlgh rlsk of causlng deaLh So false lmprlsonmenL ls noL lobeteotly Jooqetoos

1he "|ndependent fe|ony" or "merger" ||m|tat|on

leople v 5mltb ln Callfornla Lhe felony murder rule ls lnappllcable Lo felonles LhaL are an lnLegral
parL ofLhe homlclde" ln such cases Lhe laLLer felony musL be merged" lnLo Lhe homlclde and murder
musL be proven by one of Lhe oLher Lhree Lypes of mallce"

lf a sLaLe uses boLh rules Lhere ls sorL of a celllng" and a floor" lelonles LhaL aren'L lnherenLly
dangerous can'L geL a felonymurder convlcLlon buL felonles LhaL are ln a sense too dangerous won'L
supporL a felonymurder convlcLlon elLher because Lhey wlll merge 1he only Lype of felony LhaL
remalns ls one where lL was someLhlng lnherenLly dangerous yeL lL wasn'L lnLegral Lo Lhe homlclde

1he Callfornla Supreme CourL adds a caveaL lf a felony has an lndependenL felonlous purpose" lL can
be used wlLh Lhe felonymurder rule noLe LhaL Lhls lndependenL purpose musL be felooloos ulsclpllne
of chlldren ls noL lnherenLly felooloos

lf a sLaLe applles boLh Lhe lnherenLly dangerous" llmlLaLlon and Lhe merger llmlLaLlon whaL's lefL? 1he
mosL dangerous felonles are excluded and Lhe leasL dangerous felonles are excluded 1hls would
lnclude felonles LhaL are lnherenLly dangerous buL noL assaulLlve 8obbery may fall ln Lhls gap

A courL LhaL doesn'L wanL Lo apply Lhe felonymurder rule can knock ouL preLLy much all Lhe felonles lL
wanLs by applylng Lhese Lwo llmlLaLlons

kape

lmost oll of whaL consLlLuLes rape ls Lhe acLus reus

5tote v lstoo lf an acL of sexual lnLercourse ls by boLh force and agalnsL Lhe vlcLlm's wlll lL consLlLuLes
rape even lf Lhe vlcLlm gave consenL Lo Lhe defendanL for prevlous acLs of sexual lnLercourse 1he courL
flnds Lhere ls sufflclenL evldence LhaL Lhe sex was agalnsL Lhe vlcLlm's wlll buL lL flnds lnsufflclenL
evldence LhaL Lhe sex was fotceJ 1he courL flnds LhaL Lhere were acLs of force and LhreaLs of force buL
Lhe courL conslders Lhem ooteloteJ Lo Lhe acL of sexual lnLercourse 1he courL seems Lo suggesL LhaL lL ls
necessary for Lhe vlcLlm Lo reslsL Lhe acL of sexual lnLercourse ln order for lL Lo be rape

1hls case accordlng Lo uressler represenLs Lhe mosL ttoJltloool case of rape We'll go from here and
see how Lhere has been movemenL over Llme

ln norLh Carollna second degree rape lnvolved vaglnal lnLercourse wlLh force agalnsL Lhe vlcLlm's wlll
wlLhouL Lhe vlcLlm's consenL

Pere are some lssues Lo keep ln mlnd keep ln mlnd Lhe poLenLlal dlsLlncLlon beLween force and Lhe
tbteot of force ln some sLaLuLes force ls requlred whlle ln oLhers only Lhe tbteot of force ls requlred
1hls courL says LhaL Lhere may be ooocooseosool sex tbot ls oot tope

Jos tbe coott tlqbt lo soyloq tbot tbete wos losofflcleot evlJeoce to sbow fotce ot tbe tbteot of fotce?
WhaL facLs mlghL Lhe prosecuLor polnL Lo LhaL would prove LhaL Lhe defendanL forced Lhe vlcLlm Lo have
sex?

5tote v kosk Was Lhe CourL of Speclal Appeals correcL ln reverslng 8usk's convlcLlon? ln parLlcular
was Lhe reasonableness of Lhe vlcLlm's apprehenslon of fear a quesLlon of facL or a quesLlon of law? ls
Lhe evldence ln Lhe record of Lhe case sufflclenL for a flnder of facL Lo conclude LhaL Lhe acL of
lnLercourse ln Lhls case was accompanled by force or LhreaLs of force" and Lo Lhus flnd 8usk gullLy
beyond a reasonable doubL of second degree rape? under Lhe Maryland sLaLuLe aL Lhe Llme Lhe
offense of second degree rape ls deflned as vaglnal lnLercourse accompllshed by force or LhreaL of force
agalnsL Lhe wlll and wlLhouL Lhe consenL of Lhe oLher person

1he res|stance requ|rement

lf Lhere ls a reslsLance requlremenL Lhen we are ln some sense Lrylng Lhe woman and asklng lf she
reslsLed adequaLely ln Lhe LradlLlonal law you can have force wltb consenL

Some courLs argue LhaL reslsLance ls parL of force CLher courLs lnLerpreL Lhe agalnsL Lhe wlll" parL Lo
suggesL Lhere musL be some klnd of physlcal baLLle golng on 8equlrlng" Lhe woman Lo reslsL for Lhere
Lo be a successful rape prosecuLlon may acLually lncrease Lhe rlsk of physlcal harm Lo Lhe woman
Maybe we need Lo provlde noLlce Lo Lhe man LhaL Lhe woman ls noL consenLlng 8eslsLance could be
concelved of as a form of noLlce Also we'll need Lo prove a mens rea of rape Lhough lL ls a general
lnLenL crlme A reasonable mlsLake of facL would be a defense Lo rape lf Lhe woman reslsLs and Lhe
man proceeds anyway lL vlLlaLes hls posslble defense of reasonable mlsLake of facL

AnoLher argumenL ouL of Lhe common law ls LhaL lf a woman ls whaL a woman ls supposed Lo be" LhaL
Lhe only naLural Lhlng for Lhe woman Lo do ls Lo proLecL her vlrLue" 1herefore Lhe argumenL goes lf
she doesn'L care enough abouL her vlrLue" Lo proLecL lL Lhen why should we? 1hls probably sLlnks Lo
us now

Coughlln Lrled Lo explaln Lhe law of rape ln Lerms of Lhe vlcLorlan perlod and Lhe use of rape as a
defense Lo adulLery All forms of fornlcaLlon (sex ouLslde of marrlage) were consldered lmmoral So lf
Lhe woman reslsLs lL shows LhaL she was an unwllllng parLlclpanL ln someLhlng LhaL was consldered a
crlme on Lhe parL of boLh parLles

1he common |aw ru|e of res|stance

lf tbe moo oseJ fotce llkely to coose Jeotb ot setloos boJlly lojoty tbe low ot commoo low JlJ oot
tepolte tbe womoo to teslst lf tbe moo oseJ less fotce tbeo tbe womoo wos tepolteJ to teslst AL
common law Lhe woman had Lo reslsL Lo Lhe uLmosL Lo flghL Lhe man off 8uL lf Lhe woman has Lo
reslsL one of Lwo Lhlngs happens (1) Lhe man sLops or (2) Lhe man overcomes her reslsLance whlch
consLlLuLes Lhe force necessary Lo Lhe offense aL common law

lf we Lake away Lhe reslsLance requlremenL how much force ls needed? ls Lhe sexual acL lLself Lhe
force? lf Lhere ls a genulne reslsLance requlremenL ln Lhe law lL ls much easler Lo deLermlne by law lf a
rape has occurred lf we remove Lhe reslsLance requlremenL lL wlll be a loL harder Lo Lell wheLher rape
has occurred

MaxlmallsL anyLhlng LhaL ls lmmoral should be crlmlnal MlnlmallsL noL everyLhlng LhaL ls lmmoral
should be crlmlnal only Lhe worsL acLs should be crlmlnal Lvery year Lhe 9enal Code geLs Lhlcker We
seem Lo be movlng away from a mlnlmallsL approach 8uL no one would suggesL LhaL we're approachlng
a maxlmallsL approach uressler proposes LhaL mosL people aren'L golng Lo be upseL by Lhls We all
someLlmes do Lhlngs LhaL are lmmoral ln Lhls counLry we do noL LreaL morallLy and crlmlnal law as
exacLly Lhe same ln cerLaln LheocraLlc counLrles lL mlghL be dlfferenL ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes we don'L
punlsh people for belng less Lhan perfecLly vlrLuous

commooweoltb v 8etkowltz under Lhe 9ennsylvanla sLaLuLe aL Lhe Llme does Lhe vlcLlm saylng no"
allow us Lo consLrue force on Lhe parL of Lhe defendanL? under Lhe rule of kboJes Lhe [udgmenL of
wheLher forclble compulslon or Lhe LhreaL of forclble compulslon occurred ls Lo be [udged on Lhe
LoLallLy of Lhe clrcumsLances" no maLLer whaL Lhe vlcLlm may have meanL by no" Lhere ls Lhe mens
rea quesLlon of whaL Lhe defendanL undersLood by her saylng no" A reasonable mlsLake of facL ls
normally a defense Lo a general lnLenL crlme 8ape ls a general lnLenL crlme

1he Model 9enal Code provldes for a lesser offense relaLed Lo rape called gross sexual lmposlLlon"
MlghL LhaL apply ln 8etkowltz? 1he Lhlng ls LhaL Lhls offense requlres a LhreaL raLher Lhan acLual force

5tote of New Ietsey lo tbe lotetest of M@5 ls any force requlred besldes Lhe force of sexual
lnLercourse lLself Lo flnd Lhe defendanL dellnquenL for seconddegree sexual assaulL? nLW 8uLL!
Any acL of sexual peneLraLlon engaged lnwlLhouL Lhe offltmotlve and fteelyqlveo petmlssloo of Lhe
vlcLlmconsLlLuLes Lhe offense of sexual assaulL 1herefore physlcal force ln excess of LhaL lnherenL ln
Lhe acL of sexual peneLraLlon ls oot tepolteJ for such peneLraLlon Lo be unlawful" 1he courL focuses on
Lhe defendanL's conducL and re[ecLs any [udgmenL passed upon Lhe vlcLlm excepL as lL perLalns Lo Lhe
acLlons of Lhe defendanL lf yoo Joot qet petmlssloo lts sexool ossoolt

lf Lhe evldence shows beyond a reasonable doubL LhaL Lhe defendanL koew LhaL Lhe sexual peneLraLlon
was accompllshed wlLhouL freely glven afflrmaLlve permlsslon Lhen Lhe defendanL should be found
gullLy lf Lhe evldence shows beyond a reasonable doubL LhaL Lhe defendanL belleveJ LhaL Lhe sexual
peneLraLlon was accompllshed wltb freely glven permlsslon Lhen Lhe facLflnder musL conslder wheLher
glven Lhe LoLallLy of Lhe evldence LhaL bellef was teosoooble

5o wbot ls tbe oew tole of sexool ossoolt lo New Ietsey? ln oLher words lf lm qoloq to bove sex bow
coo l moke sote l woot be ptosecoteJ? 1he courL says LhaL you musL geL freely glven afflrmaLlve
permlsslon" Lo engage ln Lhe sexual peneLraLlon unless a parLy geLs such permlsslon Lhe mere acL of
sexual peneLraLlon consLlLuLes Lhe force requlred under Lhe deflnlLlon of Lhe crlme

uoes wlLhouL consenL" necessarlly mean agalnsL one's wlll"? When we ask wheLher someLhlng was
done wlLhouL consenL aren'L we lnqulrlng lnLo an lnLernal sLaLe of mlnd of Lhe alleged vlcLlm? uressler
says LhaL permlsslon ls an exLernallzed" form of consenL ln new !ersey permlsslon can only be glven
by octs or stotemeots 9ermlsslon cannoL be glven by omlssloo 9ermlsslon musL be extetoollzeJ

ls tbls o qooJ woy to Jefloe ctlmlool sexool ossoolt? Pow could Lhe defendanL prove LhaL Lhe alleged
vlcLlm gave permlsslon? lmaglne how humlllaLlng Lhe Lrlal has [usL become! 8uL how else can Lhe
defendanL defend hlmself? 1hls sends a message Lo women abouL wheLher Lhey wanL Lo brlng charges
1he kobe 8ryanL case shows [usL how embarrasslng a rape prosecuLlon can be Lo a woman M@5
sLands alone We don'L know whaL lL means and we don'L know whaL oLher sLaLes mlghL argue lL

1he mens rea of rape and m|stake of fact

1he lssue of mens rea ln Lhe area of rape ls almosL always wheLher Lhe man belleved LhaL Lhe female
was consenLlng Lo sexual lnLercourse 1hls ls mlsLake of facL whlch we've already covered

8ape ls a general lnLenL offense 1hus we apply a culpablllLy analysls and ask wheLher Lhe defendanL's
mlsLake of facL was reasonable lf Lhe defendanL's mlsLake of facL was unreasonable we are clear Lo
convlcL

Macklnnon Lhlnks Lhe mlsLake of facL defense ls stoooooplJ! Why ls Lhls sLaLemenL noL as sllly as lL
sounds? We polnL Lo Lhe law and say LhaL a rape has noL occurred wlLhouL an acLus reus and mens rea
lL's dlfferenL Lo say LhaL someone was raped" ln Lhe acLus reus sense Lhan Lo say LhaL someone
commlLLed Lhe ctlme of rape 1here's a problem of vocabulary When we Lalk abouL murder lL woolJ
make sense Lo say LhaL someone was kllleJ buL noL by a motJetet" 1here lsn'L qulLe equlvalenL
language for rape unless maybe we use forclble nonconsensual sexual lnLercourse" for Lhe acLus reus
of rape

commooweoltb v 5betty 1he defense of mlsLake of facL requlres such a mlsLake Lo be reasonable and
ln good falLh

WhaL would be Lhe level of mens rea requlred Lo be gullLy of rape aL common law? lL would appear LhaL
lL's negllgence lf Lhe man sboolJ bove koowo LhaL Lhe woman was noL consenLlng LhaL's negllgence
1haL doesn'L mean LhaL unreasonable mlsLake of facL olwoys lmplles negllgence raLher Lhan say
recklessness 8ape Lurns ouL Lo be a crlme of negllgence uressler's problem ls LhaL once you say a
mlsLake ls unreasonable no maLLer whaL LhaL's sLrlcL llablllLy Cnce you hear Lhe words you assume
Lhe rlsk" lL's sLrlcL llablllLy 1haL would converL rape Lo a general lnLenL crlme Lo a sLrlcL llablllLy crlme
?ou're golng Lo baslcally geL ln Lrouble for wanLlng Lo have sex wlLh someone

AL common law Lhere ls always an lssue of lnLerpreLlng lnsLrucLlons as Lo wheLher a cerLaln mens rea
Lerm modlfles one or several subsequenL acLlons

1hlnk serlously abouL Lhe quesLlon of whaL Lhe mens rea of rape ooqbt Lo be As Lhe deflnlLlon of Lhe
acLus reus of rape ls expanded Lo lnclude more and more poLenLlally amblguous evenLs Lhe clalm by Lhe
defendanL LhaL l LhoughL she was consenLlng" becomes more plauslble 1hls was noL prevlously an
lssue under Lhe more narrow rape laws of Lhe pasL

Cne vlew ls LhaL as soon as a woman says no" Lhe defendanL proceeds aL hls own rlsk Any bellef LhaL
Lhe no" dldn'L mean no" would be deemed unreasonable mlsLake of facL as a maLLer of law ls Lhere a
Llmeframlng lssue?

1here ls a movemenL golng Lo Lry Lo make rape lnLo sorL of" a sLrlcL llablllLy crlme lL's geLLlng
lncreaslngly dlfflculL for a defendanL Lo geL a mlsLake of facL clalm Lo a [ury 1here's also a Lrend ln Lhe
opposlLe dlrecLlon

keqloo v Motqoo 1hls ls Lhe socalled klnky wlfe" case 1he husband of Lhe vlcLlm Lold Lhe oLher men
LhaL hls wlfe wlll reslsL buL LhaL's [usL a game for her and Lhey need noL mlnd lL 1hls was false she was
really reslsLlng 1he perpeLraLors argued LhaL she was consenLlng because Lhe husband Lold Lhem she
was consenLlng

lL ls argued LhaL Lhe defendanL lnLended Lo have sex wlLh Lhe vlcLlm wltb her consenL ln Lord
Pallsham's mlnd rape ls a speclflc lnLenL crlme because lnLenL" modlfles Lhe aLLendanL clrcumsLance of
wlLhouL her consenL" lf we have a speclflc lnLenL crlme we use elemenLal analysls and ask wheLher
Lhe mens rea of Lhe crlme was proven or noL ln oLher words does Lhe mlsLake of facL negaLe Lhe
requlred mens rea of Lhe crlme?

under Lhls vlew Lord Pallsham makes sense lf we use an elemenLal analysls Lhen Lhe prosecuLlon
musL prove beyond a reasonable doubL LhaL Lhe defendanL lnLended Lo (1) have sex and (2) do wlLh
wlLhouL Lhe woman's lnLenL

uue Lo Lhls declslon rape becomes a speclflc lnLenL crlme ln Lngland for a shorL Llme When Lhe publlc
found ouL abouL Lhls Lhey goL mad a demanded a new sLaLuLe 9arllamenL backed away from Motqoo
So Lngland ls movlng somewhaL ln Lhe opposlLe dlrecLlon from Lhe unlLed SLaLes

under Lhe Model 9enal Code slnce no mens rea Lerm was menLloned ln Lhe rape sLaLuLe Lhe level of
mens rea requlred would be 9 k or 8 [usL llke ln Lhe Lngllsh law

kape sh|e|d |aws

1he baslcs Pere's Lhe problem Lhese laws are deslgned Lo flghL Lhe defense wlll Lry Lo geL a bunch of
evldence ouL Lo Lry Lo make Lhe alleged vlcLlm look llke a sluL" lL can be argued LhaL Lhls evldence ls
relevanL because lL would go Lo show LhaL Lhe alleged vlcLlm has consensual sex a loL and Lherefore
could reasonably be seen Lo have had consensual sex ln Lhls parLlcular case 8uL even when you can
make LhaL argumenL Lhe characLer of Lhe alleged vlcLlm ls damaged and Lhe [ury becomes pre[udlced

1hls wlll be awful for Lhe woman Also why would a woman ever reporL Lhe crlme?

We mlghL admlL evldence LhaL Lhe woman ln Lhe kobe 8ryanL case had consensual sex on oLher
occaslons buL under rape shleld laws we won'L admlL evldence LhaL she had consensual sex wlLh
oLhers

1he flrsL quesLlon ln any crlmlnal or clvll case ls wheLher or noL Lhe evldence ls relevanL lf lL's noL
relevanL lL doesn'L belong ln Lhe Lrlal ls lL relevanL LhaL Lhe vlcLlm had blond halr? ls lL relevanL LhaL
Lhe defendanL wore a beard? ?ou can lmaglne slLuaLlons where boLh are relevanL Lhough ln many cases
Lhese facLs would noL be relevanL

All LhaL relevanL means ls LhaL Lhere's someLhlng abouL Lhose facLs LhaL would move Lhe raLlonal
facLflnder Lowards Lhe slde of Lhe prosecuLlon or defense Some facLs are hugely lmporLanL and some
are [usL barely relevanL

1he second quesLlon ls wheLher Lhe ptobotlve voloe of evldence ouLwelghed by oLher facLors? lor
example ln Lhe C! Slmpson case Lhe prosecuLlon wanLed Lo lnLroduce evldence LhaL Slmpson beaL hls
wlfe ls LhaL evldence relevanL Lo wheLher he kllled her? Maybe lL ls relevanL 8uL ls lLs relevance
ouLwelghed by oLher facLors? ln Crlmlnal 9rocedure you learn LhaL prlor bad acLs are noL admlsslble as
evldence Lo Lhe [ury because Lhey may be pre[udlclal lf Lhe evldence has a small amounL of facLual
slgnlflcance versus a blq amounL of pre[udlce Lhen LhaL evldence doesn'L geL admlLLed

1here may also be a facLor of Llme consumpLlon Pow long wlll lL Lake Lo puL on Lhe evldence? lf lL wlll
Lake slx hours Lo puL on Lhls evldence buL Lhe probaLlve value ls low we mlghL booL lL ouL

LxcepL for rape shleld laws Lhe admlsslblllLy of evldence ls deLermlned prlmarlly by Lhe [udge on a case
bycase basls WhaL ls unusual abouL rape shleld laws ls LhaL Lhe leglslaLure has found LhaL cerLaln klnds
of evldence are elLher olwoys lrrelevanL or olwoys lnadmlsslble based on publlc pollcy conslderaLlons

1he SlxLh AmendmenL provldes Lhe defendanL a consLlLuLlonal rlghL Lo crossexamlne hls accuser and
call wlLnesses on hls own behalf 1o some degree rape shleld laws undermlne Lhe SlxLh AmendmenL
AlmosL all rape shleld laws have some excepLlons LhaL bow Lo Lhe SlxLh AmendmenL 1hese excepLlons
allow Lhe [udge Lo declde LhaL ln a parLlcular case Lhe defendanLs' need Lo have cerLaln evldence
lnLroduced Lrumps Lhe vlcLlms' lnLeresLs proLecLed by Lhe rape shleld laws

1he Supreme CourL has held LhaL SlxLh AmendmenL rlghLs are noL absoluLe lL has never been LhoughL
LhaL you can crossexamlne your accuser wlLhouL any bounds noL [usL any crossexamlnaLlon ls
allowed

Defenses

1 lallureofproof defenses"
2 Cffense modlflcaLlons
3 !usLlflcaLlons
4 Lxcuses
3 nonexculpaLory publlc pollcy defenses

8e vety seosltlve to tbe Jlffeteoce betweeo excose ooJ jostlflcotloo

1ake for example mlsLake of facL Whlch of Lhe flve caLegorles above conLalns mlsLake of facL? lL's a
fallureofproof defense MlsLake of facL ln a rape case negaLes an elemenL of Lhe alleged offense Lhe
mens rea

ln Lhe klnky wlfe" case Lord Pallsham says Lhere ls no room for mlsLake of facL as a defense" Pe puL
defense ln quoLes because he Lhlnks LhaL fallureofproof lsn'L a defense ln Lhe ordlnary sense lL's sorL
of more llke a lack of offense 1he defense Lrles Lo break down an essenLlal elemenL of Lhe crlme
showlng LhaL lL hasn'L been proven beyond a reasonable doubL

1he resL of Lhe defenses LhaL we'll Lalk abouL ln Lhls chapLer wlll fall lnLo Lhe caLegorles of [usLlflcaLlon
and excuse

lf conducL ls [usLlfled lL doesn'L need Lo be excused A [usLlflcaLlon defense says LhaL whaL Lhe
defendanL dld wosot wtooq ?ou don'L need an excuse for an acL LhaL's noL bad An excuse on Lhe
oLher hand focuses on Lhe octot raLher Lhan Lhe oct

Iust|f|cat|on

When you're [usLlfled lL means LhaL whaL you dld was aL leasL noL wrongful lf noL acLually good lour
Lheorles of [usLlflcaLlon (1) 9ubllc beneflL (2) moral forfelLure (3) moral rlghLs and (4) lesser harm

Se|fdefense

Common |aw pr|nc|p|es

ueadly force used ln selfdefense ls [usLlfled aL common law when 1he defendanL ls a nonaggressor
and Lhe defendanL reasonably belleves LhaL deadly force ls necessary Lo repel an lmmlnenL unlawful
and deadly aLLack by Lhe oLher person 1hls seL of elemenLs also flL Lhe sLrucLure of a [usLlflcaLlon
defense namely (1) 9roporLlonallLy Lhe force used ls proporLlonal and reasonable ln relaLlon Lo Lhe
harm LhreaLened (2) necesslLy Lhe force used ls necessary Lo proLecL Lhe lnLeresL aL sLake ueoJly
fotce generally means elLher force llkely Lo cause Jeotb or setloos boJlly botm ln order Lo [usLlfy Lhe
use of selfdefense on Lhe basls of deadly force you musL be Lrylng Lo repel deadly force ln response
?ou can use deadly force Lo defend agalnsL poLenLlal crlmes oLher Lhan murder

AL common law lf you acL ln [usLlflable selfdefense you're noL gullLy of any crlme Lven lf you prove all
Lhe elemenLs of Lhe crlme of murder lf you have a [usLlflcaLlon Lhen you're noL gullLy Lven lf you have
Lhe lnLenL Lo klll LhaL usually consLlLuLes mallce you may noL be gullLy of Lhe offense

1he "aggressor" |ssue

?ou can'L use deadly force ln selfdefense lf you're Lhe aggressor aL Lhe Llme of Lhe confllcL ln order Lo
flnd Lhe aggressor we are looklng for an afflrmaLlve unlawful acL reasonably calculaLed Lo produce" a
poLenLlally faLal flghL Selfdefense cannoL be clalmed by someone who dellberaLely puLs hlmself ln
danger

"keasonab|e be||ef" at common |aw

Say a defendanL shooLs someone bellevlng Lhey have a real gun when Lhe gun ls acLually fake under
Lhe reasonable bellef requlremenL even Lhough Lhe person couldn'L or wouldn'L have kllled Lhe
defendanL Lhe defendanL sLlll ls acqulLLed even Lhough whaL he dld was ob[ecLlvely wrong Powever lf
on Lhe oLher hand Lhe gun was obvlously a Loy Lhen Lhe defendanL loses Lhe selfdefense clalm because
Lhe bellef abouL Lhe LhreaL wasn'L objectlvely reasonable

leople v oetz 1he reasonable person sLandard for selfdefense as [usLlflcaLlon ls an ob[ecLlve
sLandard CoeLz felL LhaL Lhe prosecuLlon gave an ob[ecLlve sLandard whereas Lhe sLandard should have
been sub[ecLlve based on Lhe sLaLuLe 1he lnLermedlaLe appellaLe courL argued LhaL Lhe emphasls ln Lhe
phrase he reasonably belleves" ls on be" 1haL becomes a sub[ecLlve sLandard because we're noL
lnLeresLed ln whaL a reasonable person would do buL raLher wheLher Lhe defendanL LhoughL he was
dolng a reasonable Lhlng

1he Lhlng ls LhaL Lhe defendanL wlll obvlously Lhlnk LhaL whaL he's dolng ls reasonable 8uL Lhe
defendanL may be an ooteosoooble petsoo

1he CourL of Appeals of new ?ork rules LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe was meanL Lo creaLe an ob[ecLlve sLandard 8uL
how ob[ecLlve dld Lhe leglslaLure lnLend lL Lo be? Who ls LhaL reasonable person?


Pow can lL be [usLlflable Lo klll an ob[ecLlvely lnnocenL person? We mlghL excuse someone for lL buL
maybe lL wouldn'L be [usLlfled 1he common law says on Lhe oLher hand LhaL such an acL would noL be
[usLlfled buL raLher excused uressler argues LhaL Lhls could creaLe a slLuaLlon where Lwo people could
[usLlflably klll each oLher

5tote v Jootow 1he [ury may sLand ln Lhe shoes" of Lhe defendanL ln assesslng wheLher hls or her
conducL was [usLlfled 1he baslc lssue ln Lhls case ls brlnglng gender lnLo Lhe dlscusslon of Lhe
reasonable person WhaL does Lhls case sLand for? uoes Lhls mean LhaL a woman who uses selfdefense
musL be [udged by Lhe sLandard of a reasonable woman or musL she be [udged by Lhe ob[ecLlve
sLandard of a reasonable petsoo? 1he rullng says LhaL Lhe defendanL's acLlons musL be [udged
sub[ecLlvely noL ob[ecLlvely AfLer Lhls case case law has clarlfled Lhls resulL Lo mean LhaL Lhey use a
reasonable woman" sLandard 1he Model 9enal Code chooses deslgnedly amblguous" language Lo
descrlbe Lhe sLandard of behavlor a reasonable person ln Lhe acLor's slLuaLlon"

5tote v Notmoo lf norLh Carollna applles Lhe common law why lsn'L norman enLlLled Lo a selfdefense
clalm? lL resLs on Lhe meanlng of Lhe word lmmlnenL" AL common law Lhls Lerm means [usL abouL
tlqbt oow" We're Lalklng seconds noL mlnuLes or hours or days or weeks Slnce LhaL's noL whaL we
have ln Notmoo Lhe Supreme CourL of norLh Carollna represenLs Lhe LradlLlonal vlew under Lhe rullng
of Lhls case and ln mosL common law [urlsdlcLlons norman would noL even be enLlLled Lo an losttoctloo
on Lhe [usLlflcaLlon of selfdefense

uoes syndrome evldence arguably Lurn a [usLlflcaLlon defense lnLo an excuse?

"Se|fprotect|on" and the Mode| ena| Code

304(2)(b)(l) deals wlLh one llmlLaLlon on Lhe use of deadly force Lhe defendanL musLn'L provoke Lhe
use of force wltb tbe potpose of coosloq Jeotb ot setloos boJlly lojoty 1he Model 9enal Code says LhaL
304(2)(b)(ll) says LhaL you can'L use selfdefense lf you can reLreaL excepL lf you're ln your own home
or you're a publlc offlcer 1he Model 9enal Code as well as common law LreaLs human llfe very very
hlghly 1he sancLlLy of human llfe ls valued so hlghly LhaL Lhe law doesn'L even wanL bad guys" kllled
unless lL's absoluLely necessary 1hus lL's very dlfflculL under Lhe Model 9enal Code and aL common law
Lo wln on a selfdefense clalm

1he Model 9enal Code doesn'L focus on Lhe amounL of Llme before Lhe acLor wlll be kllled raLher lL
focuses on Lhe acLor Lo flgure ouL lf lL ls necessary oow Lo use deadly force agalnsL Lhe vlcLlm

304 1hls sLaLuLe uses Lhe word lmmedlaLely necessary" raLher Lhan lmmlnenL" 1he provlslon ls
general 1he deadly force provlslon ls 304(2)(b) Lven lf you meeL 304(1) Lhere are addlLlonal
condlLlons ln order for a valld [usLlflcaLlon Lo be consLrucLed

lf an acLor's bellef ls slncere buL reckless or negllgenL Lhe acLor lsn'L [usLlfled as far as reckless or
negllgenL offenses lf Lhe defendanL was oeqllqeot ln bellevlng LhaL a Loy gun was acLually real Lhen
under Lhe Model 9enal Code Lhe defendanL wouldn'L be gullLy of murder 1he defendanL would be
gullLy of negllgenL homlclde lf Lhe defendanL was negllgenL and Lhe defendanL would be gullLy of
manslaughLer lf Lhe defendanL was reckless

WhaL Lhe Model 9enal Code does LhaL ls dramaLlcally dlfferenL from common law ls LhaL lL doesn'L llke
Lhe allornoLhlng" proposlLlon ln Lhe Lhree slLuaLlons above Lhe defendanL ls noL gullLy ln Lhe flrsL
case noL gullLy ln Lhe second case buL fully gullLy ln Lhe Lhlrd case Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhe Model 9enal
Code allows convlcLlon for a lesser crlme ln Lhe Lhlrd case

Necess|ty

1hree elemenLs are requlred ln order Lo show necesslLy (1) 1he acL charged musL have been done Lo
prevenL a slgnlflcanL evll (2) 1here musL have been no adequaLe alLernaLlve (3) 1he harm caused musL
noL have been dlsproporLlonaLe Lo Lhe harm avolded

Nelsoo v 5tote 1here's a balanclng LesL here beLween Lhe harm acLually caused and Lhe harm averLed
by Lhe acL 1haL's Lhe very deflnlLlon of necesslLy

1he drafLers of Lhe Model 9enal Code 302 LhoughL Lhe necesslLy defense was esseotlol because we
wanL Lo encourage sorL of efflclenL breach" of Lhe law lf obeylng Lhe law lnvolves greaLer harm Lo
socleLy Lhan breaklng Lhe law we wanL people Lo break lL 1hls ls klnd of a belL Lo keep Lhe leglslaLure's
panLs from falllng down ln excepLlonal slLuaLlons lf Lhe leglslaLure would have sald ?es break Lhe law
ln Lhls case" Lhen we wanL Lo leL Lhe offender off Lhe hook lL would be lrraLlonal Lo wanL people Lo
obey Lhe law lf we belleved LhaL Lhe leglslaLure ln a cerLaln slLuaLlon would say do break Lhe law"
because LhaL would resulL ln a beLLer ouLcome for socleLy Lhan obeylng Lhe law

AlLhough necesslLy (or Lhe cholce of evlls" [usLlflcaLlon defense) ls Lyplcally LhoughL of as a uLlllLarlan
[usLlflcaLlon because of lLs balanclng aspecL lL can also be vlewed ln nonuLlllLarlan Lerms by comparlng
Lhe motol value of one cholce of acLlon agalnsL anoLher

A defendanL musL acLually belleve LhaL hls conducL ls necessary Lo averL a greaLer evll (and noL an equal
or lesser evll) 1he necesslLy defense doesn'L help you lf you recklessly or negllgenLly creaLed Lhe
necesslLy

@be Ooeeo v uoJley ooJ 5tepbeos 1hls ls Lhe slngle mosL lmporLanL case ln AngloAmerlcan
[urlsprudence Lo deal wlLh Lhe followlng quesLlon ls lL ever [usLlflable Lo klll an lnnocenL person ln order
Lo save a greaLer number of lnnocenL persons? 1he courL suggesLs LhaL someLlmes Lhe law has Lo seL up
sLandards LhaL we can'L really llve up Lo Can we punlsh someone when we all would have done Lhe
same Lhlng?

lf you're a reLrlbuLlvlsL Lhen lL ls never rlghL Lo klll an lnnocenL person ln order Lo save a greaLer number
of lnnocenL llves lf you're a kanLlan you belleve LhaL you musL never use a person as a means Lo an
end raLher Lhan as an end ln lLself 1haL's whaL uudley and SLephens dld wlLh 9arker Lhey used hlm as a
means Lo an end vlolaLlng whaL kanL would say ls a caLegorlcal lmperaLlve

Lxcuse

Lxcuse focuses on Lhe octot noL Lhe oct Lxcuse concedes LhaL Lhe acL was boJ buL Lhere was
someLhlng abouL Lhe octot such LhaL we're wllllng Lo leL Lhem go wlLhouL punlshmenL When we use an
excuse defense Lhe burden of proof ls placed on Lhe JefeoJoot

8enLham says LhaL an excuse ls a defense when Lhelr conducL was nondeLerrable 1he only use for
punlshmenL ln a uLlllLarlan vlew ls deLerrence 1herefore lf Lhere ls no value Lo punlshmenL and only a
neL soclal cosL we shouldn'L punlsh

Powever say Lhere are some people who are genulnely undeLerrable 1here may sLlll be some
uLlllLarlan value ln punlshlng an undeLerrable person due Lo speclflc deLerrence or lncapaclLaLlon WhaL
abouL Lhe general deLerrence value ln punlshlng an undeLerrable person? lf we excuse an undeLerrable
person someone else mlghL geL Lhe wrong message Someone else mlghL belleve LhaL Lhey can
convlnce a [ury LhaL tbey are undeLerrable Cenerally speaklng Lhey may be less llkely Lo obey Lhe law
because Lhey wlll percelve lL as full of holes

8eLrlbuLlvlsLs say LhaL we have excuses because we don'L wanL Lo blome Lhose who were noL tespooslble
for Lhelr acLlons 1o blame someone who ls noL responslble for hls acLlons ls a folsebooJ lL ls a maLLer
of [usLlce Lo excuse cerLaln people even Lhough Lhey have caused some soclal harm

Lxcuse law ls now explalned almosL excluslvely by some sorL of reLrlbuLlve Lheory raLher Lhan uLlllLarlan
Lheory Lven Lhe uLlllLarlan argumenL has a reLrlbuLlvlsL aspecL Lo lL

Cur Lheorles of excuse are (1) uLlllLarlan Lheorles (2) causaLlon (3) characLer and (4) cholce
(personhood)

Duress

uuress ls an excose and noL a jostlflcotloo MosL [urlsdlcLlons LreaL lL ln Lhls way AL common law
duress ls no excuse for murder ln Lhe Model 9enal Code however Lhere ls no murder excepLlon

uolteJ 5totes v cooteotolocboo 1here are Lhree elemenLs of Lhe duress defense accordlng Lo Lhe
courL (1) lmmedlacy of Lhe LhreaL (2) wellgrounded fear of Lhe LhreaL and (3) lack of escapablllLy from
Lhe LhreaL

AnoLher way of descrlblng duress as an excuse ls LhaL a person wlll be acqulLLed of any crlme oLher Lhan
murder lf (1) Lhe coercer lssues an unlawful LhreaL Lo lmmloeotly klll or grlevously ln[ure Lhe defendanL
or anoLher person and (2) Lhe defendanL was noL aL faulL ln exposlng hlmself Lo Lhe LhreaL

1he courL also says LhaL a necesslLy defense suggesLs LhaL Lhere was no soclal harm on balance Cn Lhe
oLher hand Lhe courL says LhaL duress suggesLs Lhere was no culpablllLy 1he courL Lherefore lmplles
LhaL necesslLy ls a [usLlflcaLlon raLher Lhan an excuse

1he Model 9enal Code deflnlLlon of duress ls tevolotloooty compared Lo Lhe common law lL's dlfferenL
from Lhe common law deflnlLlon ln many dlfferenL ways 1here ls a llmlL Lo duress under Model 9enal
Code 302 Lhe LhreaL llsLed ls unlawful force" Cnly humans can do unlawful Lhlngs 1he Model
9enal Code ls llke Lhe common law ln Lhe facL LhaL lL llmlLs Lhe defense of duress Lo human LhreaLs
Powever under Lhe caLegory of necesslLy Lhe Model 9enal Code would allow elLher naLural ot human
LhreaLs 1he Model 9enal Code ls well aware of Lhls lL says LhaL even lf 302 applles 209 may sLlll
apply lf you're deallng wlLh a human LhreaL

WhaL's dlfferenL abouL Lhe Model 9enal Code provlslon on duress Lhan Lhe common law? ln Lhe Model
9enal Code Lhere need noL be an lmmlnenL LhreaL Also under Lhe Model 9enal Code a klll or be
kllled" LhreaL could work as an excuse Lhere ls no murder excluslon llnally lL ls a petsoo of teosoooble
fltmoess" sLandard lL's an ob[ecLlve raLher Lhan a sub[ecLlve sLandard

leople v oJetsoo AL common law duress was noL a defense Lo murder Some lnLenLlonal kllllngs lf
Lhey are Lhe resulL of provocaLlon reduce murder Lo manslaughLer 8uL Lhls lsn'L a heaL of passlon case
AdequaLe provocaLlon makes someone angry whlch makes Lhem lnLenLlonally klll lL's a loL harder Lo
conLrol yourself when you're very angry When we've very angry our selfconLrol ls undermlned 8uL
we don'L Lhlnk one's selfconLrol ls folly undermlned by anger When you're angry you could do a loL of
Lhlngs oLher Lhan klll ?ou could venL your anger ln some oLher way

Why couldn'L you have fear ln place of anger ln heaL of passlon"? lear ls an emoLlon LhaL ls llke anger
ln LhaL lL makes selfconLrol more dlfflculL We may be able Lo empaLhlze more wlLh fear Lhan wlLh
anger

Anderson's polnL ls LhaL lf you glve a defense for kllllngs caused by adequaLe provocaLlon leadlng Lo
anger leadlng Lo Lhe lnLenL Lo klll Lhen lL follows LhaL you should glve a slmllar defense wlLh fear ln Lhe
place of anger uressler seems Lo argue for [usL such a parLlal defense

1he Model 9enal Code would acLually agree wlLh Anderson alLhough Lhey wouldn'L use duress Lo geL
Lhere and Lhey wouldn'L use Lhe heaL of passlon" excuse ?ou would go sLralghL Lo manslaughLer based
on Lhe facL LhaL Lhe homlclde was commlLLed under exLreme emoLlonal dlsLress" 1he Model 9enal
Code necesslLy defense allows Lhe lnLenLlonal kllllng of an lnnocenL person Lo save a greaLer number of
llves ln a Model 9enal Code [urlsdlcLlon you could have a compleLe defense

Insan|ty

1here musL be some klnd of menLal lllness ln order for Lhe lnsanlLy defense Lo klck ln A person can be
menLally lll wlLhouL belng lnsane 8uL you can'L be lnsane wlLhouL a menLal lllness

@be MNoqbteo test ?ou're lnsane lf you dldn'L know Lhe naLure and quallLy of your acLlons ot lf you
dldn'L know rlghL from wrong when you dld whaL you dld 1he LradlLlonal hypo for Lhe flrsL prong of
MNoqbteo ls LhaL you're lnsane lf you Lhlnk you're squeezlng an orange when you're really squeezlng
someone's neck 1o Lhe exLenL LhaL a MNoqbteo [urlsdlcLlon uses Lhe moral rlghL from wrong LesL Lhe
defendanL's bellef abouL wheLher he dld rlghL or wrong ls oot Lhe sLandard 1he quesLlon for Lhe
psychlaLrlsLs and Lhe [ury ls uld 8undy know LhaL soclety LhoughL whaL he dld was morally wrong? lf
Lhe answer ls yes Lhen 8undy ls noL lnsane under LhaL prong of Lhe LesL

MNoqbteo + lrreslsLlble lmpulse" or conLrol LesL

MoJel leool coJe test ?ou are noL responslble for your conducL lf your menLal dlsease causes you Lo
lack Lhe subsLanLlal capaclLy (1) Lo appreclaLe Lhe crlmlnallLy or wrongfulness of your conducL ot (2) Lo
conform your conducL Lo Lhe dlcLaLes of Lhe law 401

uotbom (producL LesL) A person shall be excused lf Lhelr unlawful acL was Lhe ptoJoct of a menLal
dlsease ln oLher words Lhey'll be leL off lf Lhey wouldn'L have done Lhe acL bot fot Lhelr menLal dlsease

1here are Lwo models of dlmlnlshed capaclLy (1) Lhe mens rea model and (2) Lhe parLlal responslblllLy
model

Model 9enal Code 402 remlnds us LhaL medlcal or psychlaLrlc evldence can be used noL only Lo prove
lnsanlLy buL Lo proof Lhe lack of a cerLaln mens rea necessary for Lo prove a crlme Cn Lhe oLher hand
when all of Lhe elemenLs of Lhe crlme bove been proven some courLs wlll reduce Lhe offense from
murder Lo manslaughLer on Lhe grounds LhaL a person should be found Lo be pottlolly tespooslble for
Lhe homlclde lL's a case of pottlol dlmlnlshed capaclLy raLher Lhan totol loss of capaclLy CourLs
recognlze LhaL Lhere are some people who are noL lnsane buL also are noL folly responslble for Lhelr
acLlons

very few sLaLes recognlze dlmlnlshed capaclLy 1he Model 9enal Code however Joes recognlze Lhls
concepL ManslaughLer under Lhe Model 9enal Code covers exLreme meotol dlsLurbance noL [usL
exLreme emotloool dlsLurbance Any sLaLe LhaL recognlzes LMLu" lmpllclLly recognlzes Lhe dlmlnlshed
capaclLy docLrlne 8uL mosL sLaLes have abollshed Lhe parLlal responslblllLy" verslon of Lhe dlmlnlshed
capaclLy docLrlne

"kotten Soc|a| 8ackground" (kS8) Defense

Some Lhlnk LhaL Lhese Lhree Lhlngs musL be Lrue ln order Lo convlcL (1) 1he defendanL commlLLed an acL
LhaL ls condemnable (2) 1he defendanL can be condemned personally lnsofar as Lhe defendanL could
have behaved ln conformlLy Lo law (3) SocleLy sLands ln relaLlon Lo Lhe defendanL such LhaL lL ls enLlLled
Lo condemn hlm

Some say LhaL people wlLh a bad upbrlnglng may be undeservlng of condemnaLlon because Lhey don'L
saLlsfy elLher #2 or #3 above 1hls ls also known as Lhe soclal envlronmenLal" defense

WhaL abouL 8S8 as a pottlol excuse? lf you sLeal someLhlng Lhough you can afford Lo buy lL maybe Lhe
soclal harm ls greaLer Lhan lf you couldn'L afford Lo buy lL

ow woolJ we explolo tbls excose lo tetms of tbe excose tbeotles we bove ptevloosly JlscosseJ?
uelgado would say 8S8 ls a coosotloo excuse uelgado would say LhaL belng poor cooseJ people Lo
commlL a crlme 1he causaLlon Lheory ls Lhe broadesL of all Lhe excuse Lheorles ln facL causaLlon
Lheory can excuse oll crlmlnal conducL LveryLhlng LhaL you're responslble for ls caused by someLhlng
else so we would have resulLs LhaL don'L seem Lo conform Lo our noLlons of falrness

Cn Lhe oLher hand uressler would argue LhaL Lhe free cholce" Lheory of excuse ls Lhe narrowesL of Lhe
Lhree nonuLlllLarlan Lheorles uld Lhe person have boLh Lhe capaclLy and falr opporLunlLy (Lo apply Lhe
Lhree prongs of Lhe sLandard)?" lf noL Lhen Lhe person may be excused WlLh causaLlon you keep
looklng backwards more and more 1he free cholce" Lheory narrows Lhe focus Lo Lhe parLlcular
momenL when Lhe offense was done

Jbot ote tbe ptoblems wltb tbe totteo soclol bockqtoooJ Jefeose? lL ls suggesLed LhaL Lhe defense ls
lnflnlLely expandable" 1here's one vlew of reLrlbuLlvlsm LhaL says LhaL people have a rlghL Lo be
punlshed" lf you Lake away LhaL rlghL you dehumanlze" people lf we allow an excuse for Lhe
defendanL based on 8S8 whaL wlll Lhe effecL be on socleLy? We musL say LhaL Lhe dangerous person
goes back on Lhe sLreeL lL also creaLes Lhe lncenLlve for oLher slmllarly slLuaLed Lo argue LhaL Lhey are
slmllarly slLuaLed and make a clalm for a roLLen soclal background defense ln Lhe long run lf we're
uLlllLarlan we acLually wanL Lo reduce Lhe roLLen soclal background LhaL causes Lhe crlme raLher Lhan
merely ellmlnaLe Lhe crlme 1hen you would geL a uLlllLarlan argumenL for Lhe defense lf we excuse
people wlLh roLLen soclal backgrounds Lhen we may glve socleLy an lncenLlve Lo ellmlnaLe Lhe
condlLlons LhaL lead Lo such backgrounds

Cu|tura| defenses

1o whaL exLenL should a person's culLure such LhaL lL's dlfferenL from Amerlcan culLure be relevanL ln
deLermlnlng a person's culpablllLy for a crlme?

5tote v kotqot lf Lhe admlLLedly crlmlnal conducL was noL envlsloned by Lhe leglslaLure when lL
deflned Lhe crlme lL mlghL noL be punlshable under Lhe Je mlolmls sLaLuLe

Inchoate offenses

Conslder Lhe range of conducL (1) Someone tbloks abouL commlLLlng a crlme (we don'L punlsh Lhls) (2)
Someone sollclts a crlme (3) Someone coospltes Lo commlL a crlme (4) Someone ottempts a crlme (3)
Someone completes a crlme

Consp|racy and so||c|tat|on

AL common law consplracy ls oqteemeot betweeo two ot mote petsoos to commlt oo oolowfol oct lL's
noL an acL! 8efore you've done ooytbloq Lowards commlLLlng Lhe acLual crlme you could be found
gullLy of consplracy lt tokes two to tooqo ooJ to coosplte

SollclLaLlon ls Lhe acL of oskloq someooe else to commlt o ctlme lL's a oneperson crlme! lL comes even
earller Lhan consplracy! lf Lhe oLher person says no when you ask Lhem Lo help you commlL a crlme lL's
sollclLaLlon lf Lhey say yes lL's consplracy! 1he llne beLween LhoughL sollclLaLlon and consplracy can
be very Lhln ALLempL on Lhe oLher hand wlll Lake somewhaL more Llme Lo maLerlallze Also noLe LhaL
aL common law asklng someone Lo belp yoo commlL a crlme ls oot sollclLaLlon Cnly asklng someone Lo
do lL hlmself ls sollclLaLlon!

uooble and ttlple lnchoaLe offenses brlng us closer and closer Lo punlshlng LhoughL ?ou can ask
someone Lo help you klll someone and lf Lhey never geL Lhe message LhaL's a case of falled (ottempteJ)
sollclLaLlon

Attempt

1hls ls a Lool LhaL law enforcemenL can use Lo prevenL crlme We don'L wanL people murdered robbed
or raped So lf we have someone sLalklng an lndlvldual or polnLlng a gun aL someone we wanL Lo glve
law enforcemenL a way Lo sLop poLenLlal crlmlnals ln Lhe acL

ln a complete ottempt Lhe offender does everyLhlng necessary Lo compleLe Lhe crlme buL Lhey fall (eg
you shooL someone buL Lhey don'L dle) ln an locomplete ottempt Lhe offender geLs sLopped shorL from
compleLlng Lhe aLLempL

Powever pteveotlve low eofotcemeot can'L explaln why we have lnchoaLe offenses for complete
aLLempL We mlghL say LhaL Lhey are as culpable as Lhe acLual offender buL Lhey [usL goL lucky (or
unlucky) Also Lhe person who falled Lhls Llme mlghL succeed nexL Llme 1haL person mlghL be
dangerous llnally compleLe aLLempLs may be sub[ecL Lo general deLerrence uressler says general
deLerrence ls oot an argumenL for lnchoaLe offenses

McOolttet v 5tote McCulrLer was arresLed for aLLempL Lo commlL an assaulL wlLh lnLenL Lo rape"
AssaulL aL common law was an aLLempLed baLLery So we can parse Lhls crlme as aLLempL Lo aLLempL
a baLLery wlLh lnLenL Lo rape" 1hls ls a Lrlple lnchoaLe crlme!

WhaL abouL Lhe soclal harm? lf Lhere was less harm shouldn'L Lhere be less of a penalLy? 1haL's almosL
excluslvely a uLlllLarlan argumenL uLlllLarlans are concerned wlLh whaL wlll happen ln Lhe fuLure
8eLrlbuLlvlsLs are concerned wlLh havlng you pay your debL Lo socleLy" 8uL Lhere are Lwo klnds of
reLrlbuLlvlsLs harm" reLrlbuLlvlsLs and culpablllLy" reLrlbuLlvlsLs CulpablllLy" reLrlbuLlvlsLs would say
LhaL we should punlsh aLLempL and compleLed offense equally

1o a reLrlbuLlvlsL lnchoaLe laws Lhemselves creaLe a problem where's Lhe harm? lf l Lry Lo klll Mr x buL
l fall where's Lhe harm? lf Lhere's no harm maybe Lhere should be no punlshmenL

8ecall one deflnlLlon of soclal harm negaLlon endangerlng or desLrucLlon of an lndlvldual group or
sLaLe lnLeresL whlch ls deemed soclally valuable"

1here's also a uLlllLarlan argumenL for punlshlng aLLempL less Lhan a compleLed offense marglnal
deLerrence lf you're sLarLlng Lo aLLempL a crlme buL you sLlll have an lncenLlve Lo sLop early you may
sLlll be deLerred

Cb[ect|v|sm versus sub[ect|v|sm

An ob[ecLlvlsL doesn'L look lnslde Lhe head of Lhe offender and doesn'L punlsh unless and unLll you can
flnd objectlvely LhaL Lhere's harm A sub[ecLlvlsL ls focused on whaL Lhe person has ln mlnd expressed
Lhrough Lhelr sLaLemenLs or Lhelr conducL An ob[ecLlvlsL who focuses on harm wlll llkely say less
punlshmenL for less harm" A sub[ecLlvlsL wlll say equal punlshmenL for equal culpablllLy"

Model 9enal Code ls sub[ecLlvlsL and generally LreaLs aLLempLed crlmes as severely as compleLed crlmes
1he excepLlon ls murder or flrsLdegree felonles lor Lhe mosL serlous crlmes Lhey glve a beneflL Lo Lhe
aLLempLer by reduclng Lhe grade of Lhe crlme

AL common law Lhe mens rea of aLLempL ls Lhe lnLenL Lo do Lhe acL LhaL consLlLuLes Lhe aLLempL ooJ Lhe
lnLenL LhaL Lhe underlylng offense be commlLLed So lf you flre a gun aL someone lnLendlng Lo scare
Lhem buL noL Lo klll Lhem and you mlss you wlll noL be gullLy of aLLempLed murder or aLLempLed
manslaughLer

ttempt ls o speclflc loteot ctlme lL requlres Lhe speclflc loteot Lo have some fuLure acL happen
ALLempL always requlres lnLenL Lven lf Lhe underlylng crlme doesn'L requlre lnLenL (llke exLreme
reckless murder) Lhe aLLempL Joes requlre lnLenL

leople v eotty 1hls looks a loL llke a baLLered wlfe case lL seems hlghly unllkely LhaL Lhe evenLs
unfolded Lhe way Lhey dld 1he wlfe probably per[ured herself aL Lrlal

lf you're deallng wlLh a compleLed aLLempL use 301(1)(a) or (b) lf you're deallng wlLh an lncompleLe
aLLempL use 301(1)(c) ooJ 301(2) lf you're deallng wlLh a conducL offense use 301(1)(a) lf
you're deallng wlLh a tesolt crlme use 301(1)(b)

Many [urlsdlcLlons say LhaL when you use Lhe common law deflnlLlon of aLLempL whaL we really mean ls
purpose noL knowledge Some [urlsdlcLlons say LhaL lnLenL means purpose ot knowledge 1hey say he
baslcally acLed purposely We have a spllL 1he Model 9enal Code glves us an answer by havlng Lhe
word bellef" ln Lhere

Actus reus of attempt

Pow far do you have Lo do from LhoughL Lo compleLlon ln order Lo have an aLLempL? ln general Lhere's
an aLLempL when someone Lakes a subsLanLlal sLep Lowards Lhe commlsslon of an offense wlLh Lhe
lnLenL Lo commlL LhaL offense AL common law Lhls was a mlsdemeanor no maLLer whaL Lhe LargeL"
offense was 1oday aLLempL Lo commlL a felony ls a felony

1ests for attempt

ost oct test A crlmlnal aLLempL only occurs when Lhe acLor has performed all Lhe acLs Lhey belleve are
necessary Lo commlL Lhe LargeL offense lbyslcol ptoxlmlty test 1o be gullLy of aLLempL Lhe acLor's
conducL musL be so near Lo Lhe compleLed offense LhaL lL would resulL ln LhaL offense acLually
happenlng lf Lhe acLor wasn'L hlndered by ouLslde clrcumsLances uooqetoos ptoxlmlty test 1hls ls
Polmes's LesL Lhere's no aLLempL unless Lhe danger of success" ls vety qteot loJlspeosoble elemeot
test 1here ls no aLLempL lf Lhe acLor has noL obLalned some lndlspensable feaLure of Lhe crlmlnal plan
ltoboble Jeslsteoce test 1he acLor has commlLLed an aLLempL lf Lhey reached a polnL where lL's
unllkely LhaL Lhey would have volunLarlly deslsLed from hls efforL Lo commlL Lhe crlme" uoepolvocollty
(tes lpso lopoltot) test An acL lsn'L an aLLempL unLll lL ceases Lo be equlvocal 1hls ls an ob[ecLlvlsL LesL

WlLh only a few excepLlons mosL [urlsdlcLlons LhaL follow Lhe common law don'L follow one parLlcular
LesL usually a [urlsdlcLlon wlll use mulLlple verslons of Lhese LesLs lor Lhe purposes of Lhe exam and
for purposes of belng a lawyer ln a nonModel 9enal Code [urlsdlcLlon you musL be famlllar wlLh oll Lhe
LesLs 1he Model 9enal Code has lLs own LesL so you would use LhaL LesL ln a Model 9enal Code
[urlsdlcLlon

1here are a few sLaLes LhaL really acLually apply a parLlcular common law LesL llke new ?ork ln mosL
sLaLes all of Lhese LesLs and more are ouL Lhere and may be consldered

ln a Model 9enal Code [urlsdlcLlon Lhere ls a defense of renunclaLlon" ?ou musL freely and compleLely
glve up your plan lf you're an ob[ecLlvlsL whaL ls your poslLlon? Should we recognlze a defense of
genulne abandonmenL of Lhe crlmlnal plan? 1he ob[ecLlvlsL would re[ecL Lhe defense whlle a
sub[ecLlvlsL would accepL Lhe defense lf you have Lruly renounced your dangerous lnLenLlons you are
no longer dangerous or culpable

1he common law Lends Lo be ob[ecLlvlsL whlle Lhe Model 9enal Code Lends Lo be sub[ecLlvlsL

We don'L wanL Lo flnd aLLempL Loo close Lo Lhe mere Lhlnklng" sLage because LhaL would be un[usL buL
we don'L wanL Lo flnd aLLempL Lo close Lo Lhe compleLlon" sLage because we wanL a shoL aL prevenLlng
Lhe crlmlnal conducL

5tote v keeves Look aL 301(1)(c) because Lhls was an lncompleLe aLLempL ?ou wlll be gullLy lf you
do a subsLanLlal sLep" Lowards Lhe commlsslon of Lhe crlme ln 301(2) Lhere are a bunch of Lhlngs
LhaL are examples of Lhlngs LhaL moy be sufflclenL Lo corroboraLe Lhe acLor's crlmlnal purpose We don'L
wanL Lo punlsh lnnocenL people 1he polson ln Lhe purse ls presumably sLrongly corroboraLlve

8uL lf any of Lhe caLegorles 301(2)(a) Lhrough (g) are presenL lL [usL means LhaL lL's noL legally
permlsslble for a [udge Lo hold LhaL lL's noL legally sufflclenL 1o puL lL anoLher way lf any of Lhese
facLors are presenL Lhe case should go Lo a [ury and lL would be wrong Lo dlrecL a verdlcL of acqulLLal for
a defendanL lf Lhey meeL one of Lhose caLegorles and lL's sLrongly corroboraLlve of crlmlnal conducL
1he caLegorles (a) Lhrough (g) are only for Lhe [udge 1hey are noL read Lo Lhe [ury 1he [ury only hears
Lhe subsLanLlal sLep" language

1he Model 9enal Code ls sLrongly dlsLlngulshed from Lhe common law ln LhaL mosL of Lhe common law
LesLs look bock Lo see how close Lhe defendanL has come Lo compleLlon 1he Model 9enal Code LesL
asks how far Lhe defendanL has gone from Lhe LhoughL process lf Lhe defendanL has Laken a subsLanLlal
sLep Lowards commlLLlng Lhe crlme even lf tbete ls o lot mote to be Jooe you can convlcL 1herefore
lL's much easler Lo convlcL under Lhe Model 9enal Code Lhan aL common law

Defenses to attempt

leople v @boosooJ 1he defendanL ls charged wlLh aLLempLlng Lo send pornography Lo an underage
female when ln facL he senL pornography Lo an overage male 1he charge ls aLLempLed dlsLrlbuLlon of
obscene maLerlal Lo a mlnor lrom Lhe defendanL's perspecLlve Lhe lndlvldual was noL really a mlnor
so lL's lmposslble for Lhe defendanL Lo have commlLLed Lhe crlme 1housand clalms legal lmposslblllLy
1he courL punLs on Lhls dlsLlncLlon because Lhey clalm LhaL nelLher lmposslblllLy defense exlsLs anymore
ln Mlchlgan due Lo sLaLuLe

Iactua| |mposs|b|||ty versus |ega| |mposs|b|||ty

ln LradlLlonal common law here ls a good deflnlLlon of legal versus facLual lmposslblllLy eqol
lmposslblllty occurs when Lhe acLlons whlch Lhe defendanL performs or seLs ln moLlon even lf fully
carrled ouL as he deslres would noL consLlLuLe a crlme loctool lmposslblllty occurs when Lhe ob[ecLlve
of Lhe defendanL ls proscrlbed by Lhe crlmlnal law buL a clrcumsLance unknown Lo Lhe acLor prevenLs
hlm from brlnglng abouL LhaL ob[ecLlve AL common law facLual lmposslblllLy ls no defense whlle legal
lmposslblllLy ls a defense

9ure legal lmposslblllLy means pure mlsLake of law" LveryLhlng ls exacLly facLually Lhe way you Lhlnk lL
ls buL you [usL don'L undersLand Lhe law !usL as lgnorance of Lhe law ls no excuse lgnorance of Lhe law
doesn'L make a crlme 1he pure verslon of legal lmposslblllLy remalns a defense ln Lhe Model 9enal
Code buL even lf lL weren'L Lhe legallLy prlnclple would requlre us Lo reach Lhe same resulL

Powever mosL of Lhe cases of socalled legal lmposslblllLy lnvolve Lhls klnd of hybrld" slLuaLlon
8ecause Lhey are hybrld and because you can make a plauslble legal argumenL Lo suggesL LhaL lL's
facLual lmposslblllLy whlch ls noL a defense aL common law and you can also make an argumenL LhaL
lL's legal lmposslblllLy whlch ls a defense aL common law Lhere musL be a problem wlLh Lhe law

Ioffe 1he Ioffe courL sald LhaL !affe's acL wouldn'L have been a crlme lf lL had been compleLed 1haL ls
we wouldn'L oLherwlse punlsh someone for recelvlng nonsLolen properLy 1he Ioffe explanaLlon ls a
LradlLlonal way Lo explaln legal lmposslblllLy

uLlllLarlans would say we should abollsh Lhls defense because we wanL Lo Lake dangerous morally
culpable people off Lhe sLreeLs Cn Lhe oLher hand an ob[ecLlvlsL mlghL say LhaL you're punlshlng
LhoughLs 1he Model 9enal Code clearly does away wlLh one aspecL of Lhe lmposslblllLy defense 8uL
even ln some nonModel 9enal Code sLaLes Lhelr law may be lnLerpreLed Lo ellmlnaLe Lhls defense

Comp||c|ty

1here are Lwo klnds of compllclLy (1) Accompllce llablllLy and (2) consplraLorlal llablllLy

Accompllce llablllLy and consplraLorlal llablllLy overlap 99 MosL of Lhe Llme lf you could be held llable
under accompllce llablllLy Lhen you could also be held llable under consplraLorlal llablllLy and vlce versa
8uL noL always 1here are a few cases where someone ls one buL noL Lhe oLher

1he common law Lerms were makeorbreak dlsLlncLlons for prosecuLors aL common law vlrLually no
sLaLe Loday follows Lhe odd Lechnlcal common law rules LhaL exlsLed way back when 8uL even Lhough
LhaL's Lrue and some of Lhe dlsLlncLlons beLween Lhe Lerms have dlsappeared you wlll flnd LhaL courLs
even Loday wlll Lalk abouL defendanLs uslng Lhose Lerms 1o undersLand whaL Lhey're Lalklng abouL you
need Lo refer Lo Lhe orlglnal common law deflnlLlons

lor a very long Llme an accessory afLer Lhe facL ls no longer parL of Lhls analysls 1haL sorL of person
who ls descrlbed as an accessory afLer Lhe facL Loday ls noL deemed Lo be gullLy of Lhe crlme for whlch
Lhey were accessory afLer Lhe facL We'll hold Lhem gullLy of obsLrucLlon of [usLlce" or mlsprlslon of a
felony"

5tote v oseltoo 1he only evldence LhaL showed LhaL Lhe defendanL was an accompllce was hls
sLaLemenL durlng quesLlonlng LhaL you could say LhaL" he was a lookouL" ls Lhere enough evldence Lo
convlcL Lhe defendanL of enLerlng wlLh lnLenL Lo commlL larceny? lf Lhe SLaLe can show LhaL Lhe
defendanL was a lookouL Lhe defendanL may be convlcLed as a prlnclpal ln Lhe second degree (someone
who helped ouL aL Lhe acLual Llme of Lhe crlme)

?ou'll be llable as an accompllce lf (1) 1he person gave helped ouL ln Lhe crlme or (2) Lhe person had
Lhe lnLenL Lo promoLe or faclllLaLe Lhe commlsslon of Lhe crlme So Lhe acLus reus ls you've acLed
you've encouraged or you've made an omlsslon when you should have done someLhlng 1he mens rea
ls lnLenL Lo ald and lnLenL LhaL your asslsLance resulL ln Lhe commlsslon of Lhe offense Whenever you
Lhlnk abouL accompllce llablllLy Lhlnk abouL acLus reus flrsL how dld Lhe defendanL ald? 1hen go Lo Lhe
mens rea uld Lhe defendanL lnLend Lo do LhaL acL? uld Lhe defendanL also lnLend LhaL Lhe acL resulL ln
Lhe commlsslon of an offense?

?ou can be found gullLy lf you dld lL or lf you're leqolly occoootoble for Lhe person who dld do lL 8uL
when are you legally accounLable? 1here are Lhree clrcumsLances buL we only need Lo worry abouL Lwo
of Lhem M9C 206(2)(c) lnvolves accompllce llablllLy

WhaL makes someone an accompllce? ?ou need Lhe mens rea of potpose and Lhe acLus reus of
sollclLaLlon aldlng or falllng Lo carry ouL a legal duLy lL's klnd of llke Lhe common law so far

lf you've glven your frlends a psychologlcal boosL by promlslng Lo help LhemLhaL's encouragemenL lf
Lhe asslsLance lsn'L prearranged Lhey don'L geL Lhe beneflL of Lhe encouragemenL lf Lhere's no
prearrangemenL and Lhus no encouragemenL and Lhe ottempt Lo ald folls Lhen aL common law Lhe
defendanL lsn'L an accompllce under Lhe Model 9enal Code Lhe ottempt makes hlm gullLy as an
accompllce Mere prearrangemenL can glve you boLh Lhe mens rea and Lhe acLus reus aL common law
1he agreemenL Lo ald ls a mens rea of accompllce llablllLy ln Lhe Model 9enal Code

Mens rea of accomp||ce ||ab|||ty

leople v ootlo 1o esLabllsh Lhe mens rea necessary Lo convlcL a suppller of consplracy you need
elLher dlrecL evldence LhaL he plans Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe crlmlnal acLlvlLy of anoLher or you need Lo be
able Lo draw an lnference LhaL he has a speclal lnLeresL ln Lhe acLlvlLy or show LhaL Lhe crlme ls of an
aggravaLed naLure

1hls case Leaches us Lwo lmporLanL Lhlngs (1) SomeLlmes you can lnfer purpose from knowledge lor
example Lhey mlghL have a sLake ln Lhe venLure lf Lhe SacramenLo 8ee charges prosLlLuLes more Lo
adverLlse Lhan oLhers Lhen you can lnfer LhaL Lhe 8ee wanLs Lhem Lo succeed ln prosLlLuLlon (2) 1hls ls
dlcLa buL Lhe posslblllLy ls suggesLed LhaL for teolly setloos ctlmes maybe we should be able Lo punlsh
people slmply on Lhe basls of knowledge and noL purpose SomeLlmes you can lnfer purpose from
knowledge buL you usually need someLhlng exLra ln order Lo draw Lhe lnference

1he common law ls deeply dlvlded Many [urlsdlcLlons say only purpose wlll do Some [urlsdlcLlons are
wllllng Lo punlsh on Lhe basls of mere knowledge aL leasL for serlous crlmes 1he Model 9enal Code
requlres purpose

5tote v lostet Accessorlal llablllLy for crlmlnally negllgenL homlclde requlres Lhe same level of
culpablllLy as Lhe underlylng offense LhaL ls negllgence Lven Lhough you can'L ottempt or coosplte Lo
commlL an offense LhaL doesn'L requlre loteot you can be an occessoty Lo such an offense

ln Lhls case we sLlll need Lo prove Lhe flrsL lnLenL buL whaL ls teolly requlred for Lhe crlme ls slmply LhaL
Lhe person have Lhe mens rea requlred for Lhe commlsslon of Lhe offense lf Lhe crlme has a mens rea
of lnLenL Lhen Lhe second lnLenL" would be loteot 8uL lf Lhe crlme ls a crlme of recklessness Lhe mens
rea requlred would be recklessness 1he second lnLenL" ls a mlsnomer excepL for crlmes of lnLenL

WhaL's Lhe pollcy argumenL for sLaLlng accompllce llablllLy ln Lhls way? 1he courL asks why we would
requlre a hlgher mens rea for Lhe accompllce Lhan we do for Lhe prlnclpal lf we're wllllng Lo convlcL
Cannon on Lhe basls of crlmlnal negllgence why should we requlre a hlgher mens rea for losLer? 1hls
seems llke a senslble pollcy argumenL lf Lhe leglslaLure has declded LhaL people should be punlshed for
crlmlnally negllgenLly kllllng people Lhen people who help Lhem should be [udged and punlshed [usL Lhe
same

WhaL makes a rlsk un[usLlflable? lL's producL of Lhe gravlLy and Lhe rlsk of Lhe harm 1hls ls Lhe Learned
Pand formula more or less WhaL goes on Lhe oLher slde of Lhe balance? lL's her purpose ln
encouraglng Lhe cab drlver Lo speed

206(4) deals wlLh resulL crlmes (4) When causlng a parLlcular resulL ls an elemenL of an offense an
accompllce ln Lhe conducL causlng such resulL ls an accompllce ln Lhe commlsslon of LhaL offense lf he
acLs wlLh Lhe klnd of culpablllLy lf any wlLh respecL Lo LhaL resulL LhaL ls sufflclenL for Lhe commlsslon of
Lhe offense

lf we wanL Lo flnd ouL wheLher someone ls an accompllce ln Lhe commlsslon of an offense we go back
Lo 206(3) So an accompllce ln Lhe conducL becomes an accompllce ln Lhe offenslve lf Lhey acL wlLh
Lhe klnd of culpablllLy wltb tespect to tbot tesolt LhaL ls sufflclenL for LhaL offense lf Lhe defendanL
doesn'L have LhaL klnd of culpablllLy Lhey should be acqulLLed of LhaL offense

Look aL 206 as a tbteestep poestloo (1) WhaL cooJoct caused Lhe resulL? (2) Was Lhe defendanL an
occompllce ln Lhe cooJoct LhaL caused Lhe resulL? (3) lf yes dld Lhe defendanL have Lhe level of
culpablllLy teqotJloq tbe tesolt as sLaLed ln Lhe deflnlLlon of Lhe offense?

lf you don'L sollclL Lhe Lhlng LhaL caused Lhe resulL you can argue LhaL you weren'L an accompllce

Ioreseeab|e consequences doctr|ne

5tote v loscott 1o convlcL under Lhe foreseeable consequence" rule you musL flnd (a) 1he prlmary
person dld Lhe prlmary crlme (b) 1he secondary person helped Lhe prlmary person commlL LhaL crlme
(c) 1he prlmary person commlLLed oootbet crlme (d) 1haL oLher crlme was a foreseeable
consequence" of Lhe prlmary crlme

WhaL ls LlnscoLL's consLlLuLlonal argumenL? Pe says LhaL lf you convlcL hlm wlLh lnLenLlonal murder
wlLhouL showlng LhaL he possessed Lhe mens rea of lnLenL you're convlcLlng hlm wlLhouL provlng each
elemenL of Lhe crlme beyond a reasonable doubL

1he dlfference beLween lnLenL murder and negllgenL homlclde ls Lhe defendanL's culpablllLy and lL
resulLs ln a blg dlfference ln Lhe poLenLlal penalLy Why don'L we follow Lhls prlnclple ln Lhls case?

lL appears LhaL LlnscoLL was only negllgenL as Lo Lhe vlcLlm's deaLh lf Lhe perpeLraLor of a negllgenL
homlclde would geL say 3 years ln prlson why should an accompllce Lo murder geL llfe ln prlson? ln Lhe
lasL case Lhe courL sald LhaL commeosotoblllty ls tbe key Why should we be wllllng Lo punlsh an
accompllce based on a lesser mens rea Lhan LhaL of Lhe prlmary offender?

"Natura| and probab|e consequences" doctr|ne

A ma[orlLy of [urlsdlcLlons follow Lhe naLural and probable consequences" docLrlne 1hls baslcally
means Lhe same Lhlng as foreseeable consequences" whlch more or less means Lhe same Lhlng as
negllgence

noLe LhaL Lhe Model 9enal Code tejects Lhe naLural and probable consequences" docLrlne

1o undersLand how Lhls docLrlne works you flrsL ask Lhe quesLlon baslcally was Lhe defendanL an
accompllce of Lhls oLher person as Lo Crlme #1? ln Lhls case LlnscoLL was unarguably an accompllce ln
Lhe robbery Pe meeLs all Lhe normal crlLerla of belng an accompllce Lo Lhe robbery Pe asslsLed Lhe
robbery he had Lhe proper lnLenL he should be convlcLed of robbery Cnce you do LhaL lf Crlme #2 was
also commlLLed a person who was an accompllce ln Crlme #1 wlll also be deemed an accompllce of
Crlme #2 lf Crlme #2 was a oototol ooJ ptoboble coosepoeoce of Crlme #1

resence

5tote v vollloocoott WhaL's Lhe argumenL by Lhe prosecuLor for lndlcLlng Lhe defendanL? WhaL exlsLs
ln Lhe case LhaL [usLlfles LreaLlng hlm as an accompllce? valllancourL was Lalklng Lo Lhe prlmary
offender Also Lhe defendanL came Lo Lhe house wlLh Lhe prlmary defendanL 1haL suggesLs LhaL Lhey
dldn'L [usL boppeo to be tbete ot tbe some tlme buL acLually come tbete toqetbet 1haL makes a
somewhaL sLronger argumenL LhaL Lhey are more Lhan [usL physlcally proxlmaLe Lo each oLher

Mete pbyslcol pteseoce ot tbe sceoe of tbe ctlme coooot by tbot mete foct olooe moke someooe oo
occompllce ?ou have Lo asslsL and you have Lo have a mens rea Powever presence can frequenLly
geL us closer Lo Lhe polnL where we can say LhaL someone has asslsLed So whaL's Lhe exLra sometbloq
you have Lo have ln order Lo be an accompllce?

Jllcox v Ieffety 8egardlng Lhe rapeswhaL ls Lhe llablllLy lf any of Lhe cheerlng cusLomers non
cheerlng cusLomers and Lhe barLender? uoes Lhe barLender have a legal duLy Lo acL Lo prevenL Lhe
rape? 1he barLender would seem Lo be responslble Lo proLecL hls cusLomers Slnce Lhls ls a buslness
and Lhe vlcLlm was a cusLomer he owes a legal duLy Lo her

Can we geL Lhe noncheerlng cusLomers for rape? 8ased on whaL we've learned Lhey don'L have a duLy
Lo prevenL Lhe crlme lf Lhey have a duLy Lo sLop a crlme all of us have a duLy Lo sLop any crlme LhaL
occurs ln our presence 1haL may be a moral duLy buL lL's noL a legal duLy under Lhe crlmlnal law 1hlnk
of !effrey SLrohmeyer Pe dldn'L have a legal duLy Lo sLop hls frlend from raplng a glrl

WhaL abouL Lhe cheerlng cusLomers? Could you geL Lhem for encouragemenL? WhaL lf Lhe raplsLs were
deaf? Would LhaL make a dlfference? uoes Lhls make any sense?

Pow do we explaln Jllcox? Pow can Wllcox be deemed an accompllce whlle none of Lhe oLher
Lhousands of people aL Lhe audlLorlum are found Lo be accompllces? lf Wllcox had booed apparenLly he
would have been off Lhe hook

1here's anoLher problem here LeL's assume LhaL Wllcox ls Lhe only person who encouraged Pawklns
and speclflcally encouraged hlm Lo break Lhe law 8uL hadn'L Lhe crlme already happened? 1he crlme
sLarLed when Pawklns enLered Lhe counLry wlLhouL Lhe approprlaLe documenLaLlon Wllcox dldn'L asslsL
ln geLLlng hlm lnLo Lhe counLry lllegally 8uL by Lhe Llme of Lhe concerL lL would seem LhaL Lhe crlme has
already occurred uressler assumes LhaL Lhls lsn'L belng dlscussed because Lhls crlme ls vlewed as a
conLlnulng crlme 1haL ls every second Pawklns ls ln Lhe counLry lllegally a crlme conLlnues and
Lherefore anyone who helps aL any Llme ls an accompllce

5tote v elmeostelo ?ou can'L convlcL ln norLh uakoLa on Lhe LesLlmony of an accompllce unless LhaL
LesLlmony ls corroboraLed by a nonaccompllce 1he accompllce has an ulLerlor reason Lo LesLlfy agalnsL
hls fellow accompllces ln mulLlparLy crlmes Lhe prosecuLlon wlll go afLer Lhe llLLle guy and Lry Lo geL
Lhem Lo cheese Lhem ouL 1hen Lhe accompllce has Lhe lncenLlve Lo say !usL Lell me whaL Lo say and
l'll say lL" Accompllces have Lhelr own reasons Lo lle or make lL look llke Lhe oLher guy dld more Lhan
hlm Many [urlsdlcLlons say Lhere musL be sometbloq Lo conflrm Lhe LesLlmony of an accompllce

9rosecuLors love accompllce llablllLy

leople v eooo WhaL was Cenoa prosecuLed for and why dld Lhe courL Lhrow ouL Lhe convlcLlon? A
Mlchlgan pollce offlcer Lrled Lo geL Cenoa lnvolved ln a purporLed scheme Lo buy cocalne 1he cop says
Clve me $10000 l'll buy and sell Lhe cocalne and glve you a proflL" Cenoa goL Lhe money and gave lL
Lo Lhe cop Pe geLs arresLed and charged wlLh aLLempLed possesslon wlLh lnLenL Lo dellver cocalne"
8uL Cenoa never wanLed Lo possess cocalne WhaL's up? 1he prosecuLor's Lheory ls LhaL Cenoa was an
accompllce Lo Lhe crlme of possesslon wlLh lnLenL Lo dellver or more properly he was an accompllce Lo
Lhe crlme of ottempteJ possesslon wlLh lnLenL Lo dellver

LeL's avold Lhe lmposslblllLy docLrlne! Why does Cenoa geL off Lhe hook? 1he crlme never really Look
place and ot commoo low you need Lo derlve your llablllLy from some underlylng crlme LhaL's whaL
accompllce llablllLy ls all abouL Slnce Lhe cop commlLLed no crlme Lhere ls no crlme Lo be an
accompllce Lo lf Lhe soclal harm of Lhe crlme or of Lhe aLLempL hasn'L happened Lhere's noLhlng Lo geL
Lhe accompllce for 1here musL be someLhlng ovet tbete we can connecL our accompllce Lo

WhaL would be Lhe resulL ln eooo under Lhe Model 9enal Code? l Lhlnk Cenoa would be gullLy
301(3) shows Lhls clearly (3) ConducL ueslgned Lo Ald AnoLher ln Commlsslon of a Crlme A person
who engages ln conducL deslgned Lo ald anoLher Lo commlL a crlme LhaL would esLabllsh hls compllclLy
under SecLlon 206 lf Lhe crlme were commlLLed by such oLher person ls gullLy of an aLLempL Lo commlL
Lhe crlme alLhough Lhe crlme ls noL commlLLed or aLLempLed by such oLher person

Pas Lhe Model 9enal Code re[ecLed Lhe derlvaLlve llablllLy concepL? Pow can Cenoa be gullLy of a crlme
LhaL was never occurred or aLLempLed? Pow can we explaln Lhe resulL wlLhouL geLLlng rld of derlvaLlve
llablllLy? ln common law Lermlnology Cenoa ls an accessory before Lhe facL whlch would suggesL we're
geLLlng rld of derlvaLlve llablllLy

8uL maybe Cenoa ls Lhe prlnclple ln Lhe flrsL degree Pe's gullLy of Lhe crlme of ottemptloq to olJ lo tbe
possessloo wltb loteot to Jellvet cocoloe 1he Model 9enal Code says LhaL Cenoa would be gullLy as Lhe
perpeLraLor lrom Lhe Model 9enal Code's sub[ecLlvlsL polnL of vlew Cenoa ls [usL as culpable and
dangerous as someone who compleLed a crlme lrom Lhe ob[ecLlvlsL way of looklng aL lL Lhere ls no
soclal harm and Cenoa should be leL off

under Lhe Model 9enal Code we ask woolJ tbls petsoo bove beeo oo occompllce ooJet 206 boJ o
ctlme beeo commltteJ? lf Lhe answer ls yes Lhen you can be gullLy oot os oo occompllce buL as Lhe
petpettotot of tbe ottempt Cenoa becomes Lhe prlnclpal ln Lhe flrsL degree of Lhe ottempt

Can we do 301(3) wlLh sollclLaLlon and noL [usL ald? ln 206 sollclLaLlon ls ln a dlfferenL subcaLegory
from aldlng 301(3) seems Lo deal only wlLh olJ and noL sollcltotloo ls Lhls a gllLch? ls Lhls
lnconslsLenL? Well you could sLlll be gullLy of sollcltotloo Lo commlL a crlme whlch ls usually as serlous
as Lhe compleLed crlme anyway So no problem really uoesn'L really maLLer

"Innocent |nstrumenta||ty" doctr|ne

8olley v commooweoltb MusL 8alley have shared a goal wlLh Lhe pollce offlcers ln order Lo be a
prlnclpal ln Lhe flrsL degree? Cne who effecLs a crlmlnal acL Lhrough an lnnocenL or unwlLLlng agenL ls
a prlnclpal ln Lhe flrsL degree" 8alley ls noL a prlnclpal ln Lhe second degree because he wasn'L aL Lhe
scene of Lhe crlme Pe wasn'L an accessory before Lhe facL because he dldn'L do any preplannlng wlLh
Lhe offlcers 8alley ls a prlnclpal ln Lhe flrsL degree by Lhe lnnocenL lnsLrumenLallLy" docLrlne

Pow would Lhls case be declded under Lhe Model 9enal Code? 206(2)(a) geLs us Lhere 1here are Lwo
ways we've looked aL where you can be held responslble for Lhe conducL of anoLher you can be an
accompllce or you can cause an lnnocenL person Lo carry ouL your evll deeds for you lnnocenL means
someone who would lack Lhe mens rea for Lhe crlme or would be excused from Lhe crlme lrresponslble
more or less means lnsane 206(1) says LhaL you can be held responslble for a crlme based on yoot
owo cooJoct

5tote v oyes Why ls lL LhaL Plll ls noL gullLy of Lhe burglary and larceny charges for whlch Lhe
governmenL has charged Payes? Plll has no mens rea Pe had no lnLenL Lo commlL elLher crlme Pe
was [usL Lrylng Lo Lrap Payes Payes geLs off because Lhere's no llablllLy Lo derlve from slnce Plll dldn'L
commlL a crlme We can'L geL Payes on Lhe lnnocenL lnsLrumenLallLy docLrlne because Plll manlpulaLed
Payes raLher Lhan vlce versa

WhaL could we geL Payes for under Lhe Model 9enal Code glven Lhese evenLs? We could geL hlm for
sollclLaLlon 8uL Lhere's also someLhlng LhaL we can geL hlm for We could convlcL hlm of ottempteJ
botqlotyreally ottemptloq to olJ ooJ obet o botqloty

We can also geL hlm for larceny aL common law or under Lhe Model 9enal Code 1hese days wlLh penal
codes LhaL geL Lhlcker and Lhlcker and Lhlcker Lhere's usually a way Lo convlcL a person of a crlme lf you
are creaLlve enough

uolteJ 5totes v opez lnLolerable prlson condlLlon" clalms a person escapes prlson and Lrles Lo avold
convlcLlon for Lhe break based on Lhe condlLlons ln Lhe prlson lL makes sense lf Lhe prlson ls on flre Lo
Lry Lo escape because lL's necesslLy uuress ls an excuse necesslLy ls a [usLlflcaLlon 1hls has some
relevance Lo Lopez necesslLy ls balanclng evlls from a socleLal perspecLlve 8uL we're noL lnLeresLed ln
her we're lnLeresLed ln MclnLosh lL deflnlLely maLLers Lo hlm wheLher Lopez's defense ls characLerlzed
by [usLlflcaLlon or excuse !usLlflcaLlons are unlversal" and excuses are personal" lf we belleve LhaL
Lopez's leavlng Lhe prlson was [usLlfled Lhen MclnLosh becomes Lhe accompllce ln a jostlfleJ acL LhaL ls
someLhlng we Lhlnk ls qooJ noL boJ

lf whaL Lopez dld was excusable Lhen we won'L excuse hlm because bls llfe wasn'L aL rlsk We wlll say
LhaL someLhlng bad has happened LhaL someone musL pay for Cr suppose Lopez escapes buL ls noL
llable because she's lnsane MclnLosh shouldn'L be able Lo beneflL from her lnsanlLy

ln Lhe Lopez case MclnLosh would be convlcLed as an accompllce of a crlme LhaL occurred buL ls
lnvlslble" Lo us because we're leLLlng her off on Lhe grounds of duress She lnLended Lo escape We're
[usL leLLlng her off because of her excuse MclnLosh ls noL uslng Lopez as an lnsLrumenLallLy

Lxam adv|ce

Always wrlLe ouL Lhe name of Lhe case aL Lhe Lop of Lhe exam 1alk abouL dlfferenL vlcLlms separaLely
and ldenLlfy Lhem

State v Irank (Death of Mar|e)

Murder ls deflned aL common law as Lhe unlawful kllllng of a human belng by anoLher human belng
wlLh mallce aforeLhoughL"

1 volunLary acL AL common law all crlmes requlre proof LhaL Lhe conducL lncluded a volunLary
acL A volunLary acL ls deflned as a wllled muscular conLracLlon" 1he LexL sLaLes LhaL lrank
sLarLed Lo acL [usL as a man who falls lnLo Lhe flre beglns Lo acL" and Lhe gun sprang Lo hls
shoulder" lrank may argue LhaL Lhls Lends Lo show LhaL he dld noL acL volunLarlly
2 Soclal Parm 1he soclal harm ls Lhe kllllng of anoLher person
3 Mens rea Mallce ls deflned as1he four Lypes of mallce arelL could be argued LhaL aL Lhe
Llme of Lhe kllllng lrank lnLended Lo klll becauseCn Lhe oLher hand oLher evldence Lends Lo
show LhaL lrank has no such lnLenLlL may be argued LhaL Lhe acL of shooLlng a gun aL people
could fall lnLo Lhe depraved hearL" caLegory of mallce
4 AcLual CausaLlon lrank ls Lhe buL for" cause of Lhe deaLh of Marle
3 9roxlmaLe CausaLlon 1here are no lnLervenlng causes beLween Lhe flrlng of Lhe gun and Lhe
deaLh of Marle

SeparaLe vlcLlms should be LreaLed separaLely ulfferenL crlmes should be LreaLed dlfferenLly ?ou deal
wlLh each crlme sepototely"

Make sure Lo ask quesLlons abouL Lhe exam oow uon'L walL unLll oftet so everyone can hear lL and geL
Lhe same answer ?ou could also ask on 1WLn vlrLual Cfflce Pours

1he Lheory ls LhaL Lhe more you know abouL an exam Lhe beLLer off you are

What Dress|er |ooks for on tests

1 uepLh and breadLh of knowledge of Lhe law afLer Lhe exam we should say Lo ourselves LhaL
Lhls exam seems Lo be reasonably relaLed Lo whaL we sLudled" 1herefore lf you have
knowledge across Lhe whole fleld wlll do beLLer Lhan someone who has gaps uressler Lrles Lo
LesL Lhe whole semesLer ln some proporLlon Lo whaL we've been coverlng Pe also wanLs Lo LesL
our Jeptb of knowledge We should be able Lo do more Lhan [usL reclLe back Lhe rules of law
2 1he ablllLy Lo Lhlnk and analyze llke a lawyer spoLLlng Lhe real lssues and developlng Lhe
argumenLs (pro and con) Lo deal wlLh Lhe lssues ?ou need Lo separaLe Lhe wheaL from Lhe chaff
ln Lerms of relevanL versus lrrelevanL lssues Cnce you've spoLLed Lhe lssues you need Lo make
argumenLs regardlng Lhose lssues lL's noL [usL flgurlng ouL whaL your argumenLs are buL also
whaL Lhe oLher slde would say ln response Lo you and Lhen how you would respond Lo LhaL
response uressler Lrles Lo wrlLe hls exams Lo be realworldlsh" uressler wanLs Lo know LhaL
we know whaL teol lawyers would teolly argue
3 CrganlzaLlon of LhoughLs Lwo sLudenLs can have an equal amounL of knowledge of law buL one
ls more organlzed Lhan Lhe oLher lmaglne you're wrlLlng a brlef for a [udge ?ou musL puL Lhe
pleces LogeLher for Lhe [udge ln an organlzed way usually when you have a dlsorganlzed
answer your mlnd ls also dlsorganlzed
4 Lngllsh language skllls lf you wrlLe well lL wlll make a dlfference ln your grade Lawyers are all
abouL language

Nevet pot oo otqomeot loto tbe mootb of o lowyet tbot woolJ be looqbeJ oot of coott SomeLlmes
Lhere's only one good argumenL on a parLlcular lssue noL everyLhlng ls debaLable uon'L make sLupld
argumenLs ?ou don'L olwoys do Lhe pro and con when Lhere's no real coo Lo Lhe pto

An essay exam only LesLs cerLaln skllls you'll need as a lawyer Also you can'L do lL all uon'L Lry Lo geL
everyLhlng on Lhe exam 9arL of lL ls sLraLeglzlng how do l besL use Lhe 3 hours l have? 1haL's parL of
whaL lawyers do

1he expecLaLlons aren'L Lhe same on an essay exam as Lhey are lf we were wrlLlng a brlef LhaL we had
weeks Lo work on

1he exam |nstruct|ons

1he exam ls eotltely opeo book ?ou [usL can'L use Lhe compuLer as your ouLslde maLerlal 8uL stoJy fot
tbe exom os lf lt wete closeJ book uon'L brlng ln Loo much sLuff [usL brlng ln whaL you need

8rlng your own #2 pencll!

1he exam |tse|f

1here are 30 mulLlple cholce quesLlons and you have an hour Some sLudenLs flnlsh Lhese ln less Lhan 60
mlnuLes AnyLhlng LhaL was ln our readlng asslgnmenL even lf lL wasn'L dlscussed ln class or anyLhlng
LhaL we dlscussed ln class (lncludlng on 1WLn) ls falr game

1he mulLlple cholce porLlon wlll be much more heavlly common law Lhan Lhe essays lL wlll also be
general prlnclples abouL legallLy reLrlbuLlon all LhaL sLuff lf we've learned any consLlLuLlonal law LhaL's
falr game We'll also be LesLed on sLaLuLory work readlng lnLerpreLlng and worklng wlLh a sLaLuLe
1here wlll be Lwo Lypes of quesLlons some quesLlons wlll have a shorL seL of facLs and Lhen four posslble
answers based on Lhe facLs ?ou have a llLLle mlnl facLual paLLern" and Lhen a couple of answer Some
quesLlons wlll be toleotleoteJ lor example Whlch of Lhe followlng sLaLemenLs abouL lnsanlLy ls
lncorrecL?" Cr Whlch of Lhe followlng crlmes ls a general lnLenL crlme aL common law?" 1hese klnds
of quesLlons you can usually do ln 30 secondsyou elLher know Lhe answer or you don'L ?ou'll spend
longer on Lhe mlnl facL paLLerns"

AL leasL Lwlce on Lhe mulLlple cholce you'll have lacLs for CuesLlons x?" SomeLlmes you'll also have
Lo apply a sLaLue from Lhe casebook 8uL you won'L acL llke you're ln sLaLe x you'll acL llke you're ln an
lmaglnary sLaLe LhaL jost boppeos Lo have Lhe same sLaLuLe as sLaLe x So ln Lhese quesLlons use Lhe
facLs of Lhe case and Lhe sLaLuLe lL won'L be Lhe same sLaLe each Llme

9arL 1wo ls enLlrely a Model 9enal Code quesLlon lL's a homlclde quesLlon ln 9arL A Lhere wlll be
cerLaln facLs buL Lhen ln 9arL 8 cerLaln facLs wlll be added 1hls quesLlon wlll cover accompllce llablllLy
Loo lL wlll apply baslc 206 compllclLy law

1here ls a fooLnoLe LhaL says you won'L geL any polnLs saylng whaL Lhe Model 9enal Code says verbaLlm
1haL doesn'L prove anyLhlng! Powever you need Lo clLe Lo Lhe Model 9enal Code all Lhe Llme
SomeLlmes you wlll wanL Lo quoLe from Lhe Model 9enal Code when lL's aL Lhe core of Lhe dlscusslon
CuLLlng and pasLlng from Lhe casebook doesn'L geL you any polnLs Lhough uslng cruclal language wlll
geL you polnLs

?ou don'L have Lo Lell uressler whaL you dldn'L use [usL Lell hlm whaL you're uslng

9arL 1hree ls only 30 mlnuLes ?ou'll geL a rape/sexual assaulL sLaLuLe ?ou have Lo glve your oplnlon on
lL ln Lerms of pollcy 1hls sLaLuLe ls one LhaL has acLually been ouL Lhere ln Lhe real world 1hls ls our
chance Lo demonsLraLe LhaL we've LhoughL abouL rape law and Lherefore glven Lhe chance Lo see a
sLaLuLe LhaL could become Lhe law we can spoL Lhe sLrengLhs and weaknesses of lL We won'L compare
Lhls sLaLuLe Lo whaL Lhe real sLaLuLe ls buL we preLLy much know where Lhe law ls and where lL's golng

uressler urges us Lo sklp pages ln 8luebooks lf we wrlLe lf you don'L do LhaL and you reallze Lhere's
someLhlng you should have sald closer Lo Lhe fronL Lhen you can use Lhe blank pages

Lxam tak|ng do's and don't's

1 Crganlzlng your exam ls very lmporLanL lL has a loL Lo do wlLh your grade
2 8udgeL your Llme properly ?ou have Lhree hours ?ou'll never have Llme Lo say everyLhlng you
wanL Lo say so you have Lo llve wlLh LhaL reallLy lL's a zero sum game lL won'L do you good Lo
use more Llme on one exam and geL more polnLs Lhere as opposed Lo uslng less Llme on anoLher
blL and loslng polnLs Lhere
3 CuLllne before you sLarL wrlLlng your acLual answer Lo an essay quesLlon 8efore you wrlLe word
#1 prepare a llLLle ouLllne (really llLLle) of whaL you Lhlnk you're golng Lo be dolng uressler
won'L see lL lL's my own work producL
4 Work wlLh Lhe facLs don'L [usL spouL lawavold Lhe uressler C!S syndrome" AL uCLA Lhere
were no mldLerms All of your exams were ln !une ?ou wenL Lhe whole year wlLhouL any sense
of how you were dolng Cne of Lhe professors gave a pracLlce exam ln Clvll 9rocedure Pe goL a
u" and Lhe professor wroLe Lhe commenL lf l wanLed cotpos Iotls 5ecooJom l would have
sald so" uon'L [usL wrlLe sLuff LhaL you could have wrlLLen even lf you hadn'L seen Lhe exam
use Lhe facLs!
3 uon'L creaLe lssues where Lhere aren'L lssues! SomeLlmes Lhere really oteot Lwo sldes Lo an
argumenL SomeLlmes you're wasLlng Llme by saylng on Lhe oLher hand" when Lhere ls no
oLher hand" lor example ln crlmlnal law 97 of Lhe Llme Lhere lsn'L a volunLary acL lssue
9eople don'L usually klll as Lhe resulL of a reflex acLlon or whlle sleepwalklng or whlle hypnoLlzed
or any of LhaL sLuff So don'L creaLe problems LhaL aren'L really Lhere lor example volunLary
acL AL common law a person ls noL convlcLed of a crlme unless hls conducL lncludes a volunLary
acL AL common law a volunLary acL ls deflned as a 'wllled muscular conLracLlon' ln Lhls case A
pulled Lhe Lrlgger of Lhe gun and Lhere ls no evldence LhaL Lhls ls anyLhlng oLher Lhan a wllled
muscular conLracLlon" uon'L wrlLe Lhls lf Lhe vlcLlm had been a feLus" 8ad bad bad! ?ou
geL zero polnLs for addresslng someLhlng LhaL lsn'L an lssue
6 Avold conclusory answers always ask yourself why?" never say lL ls clear LhaL" Lven lf
someLhlng ls clear make lL clear Lo uressler! 9olnL Lo Lhe facLs LhaL allow you Lo reach LhaL
concluslon! lL's falr Lo say LhaL on a law school exam quesLlon 90 of Lhe exam has oo tlqbt
ooswet lor mosL of Lhe exam Lhere are debaLable lssues ?our concluslon lsn'L so lmporLanL as
how you goL Lo lL 5bow yoot wotk SomeLlmes Lhe concluslon ls 1hls ls a [ury quesLlon" ln
some cases Lhere doesn'L have Lo be a concluslon
7 lollow Lhe call of Lhe quesLlon buL also dlscuss compeLlng argumenLs Cn Lhls exam Lhe call of
Lhe quesLlon says ulscoss A's crlmlnal llablllLy for 8's deaLh" Lven lf you're on one slde or Lhe
oLher a lawyer lnevlLably noL only puLs forward Lhelr own vlew buL also anLlclpaLes Lhe
argumenLs of Lhe oLher slde

Cut||n|ng on the exam

WhaL uressler used Lo do ls read Lhrough Lhe quesLlon qulckly focus on Lhe call of Lhe quesLlon" Lhen
go back and read Lhe facLs over a second Llme wlLh much more care knowlng whaL he was looklng for
8e careful abouL Lhe call of Lhe quesLlon" someLlmes lL wlll be narrower Lhan whaL Lhe facLs suggesL lf
you wrlLe an answer based on whaL you tblok you were belng asked LhaL's palnful because you can'L
score polnLs answerlng a quesLlon your professor dldn'L ask 1hen you sLarL ouLllnlng

volunLary acL
Soclal harm
Mens rea


AcLual cause
9roxlmaLe cause
Selfdefense



1he dashes sLand for cerLaln words lf you've flgured ouL Lhe case correcLly you mlghL Lhlnk LhaL mens
rea and selfdefense are Lhe really blg lssues lf you're rlghL abouL LhaL we can assume LhaL uressler has
allocaLed more polnLs Lo mens rea and selfdefense Lhan some of Lhe oLher lssues 1he [lgsaw approach
would say LhaL you should Lackle Lhe meaLlesL lssues flrsL 8uL LhaL's noL Lhe organlzed way Lo do lL lL
would be perfecL lf Lhe blg lssues happened Lo be Lhe Lhlngs rlghL on Lop 8uL by organlzlng ln
preparaLlon you say Lo yourself l've goL Lo geL Lo mens rea buL l also have Lo geL Lo selfdefense" lL
forces you Lo Lhlnk abouL and sLraLeglze abouL whaL you're golng Lo do when keep ln mlnd LhaL you
can'L say everyLhlng you wanL Lo say 9eople are able Lo dlsLlngulsh Lhemselves by whaL Lhey Jo say

WhaL lf you're runnlng ouL of Llme? ?ou mlghL wanL Lo sklp down Lo Lhe heavler lssues Cr maybe you
should go over Lhe less welghLy lssues fasLer

Pow much Llme should you spend ouLllnlng before you sLarL wrlLlng? Maybe lL depends on how fasL you
Lype When uressler was a sLudenL Lhere was enormous pressure Lo keep up wlLh Lhe !oneses A
lengLh answer may also be a dlsorganlzed answer

uon'L Lalk abouL Lhe exam afLer Lhe exam!!! Cnce you Lurn lL ln forgeL abouL lL!

Wr|t|ng an essay quest|on

When someone grades your answer Lhey're noL golng Lo spend nearly as much Llme readlng lL as you do
wrlLlng lL 8uL here's a plece of advlce maklng lL easler for Lhe grader Lo keep hls eyes on whaL you
wanL hlm Lo see wlll help So underllne Lhe key words LhaL you wanL Lhe grader Lo see lL helps
psychologlcally Lo underllne or bo|d key words Also consLrucL your essay answer a llLLle blL llke an
ouLllne

lor example

SLaLe v !ones (crlmecrlmlnal homlclde)

1 volunLary acL
2 Soclal harm
3 Mens rea
4 AcLual causaLlon
3 9roxlmaLe causaLlon

1hls noL only makes lL easler on Lhe grader buL lL makes lL easler on yoo lf you're ln Lhe volunLary acL"
secLlon and you sLarL Lalklng abouL mens rea lL helps you geL back ln Lhe swlng of Lhlngs 1hls
organlzaLlonal sLrucLure helps Lhe grader know where l am and helps me know where l am

1hls ls Lhe organlzaLlon LhaL we should use 1he organlzaLlon ls selfevldenL

Some of Lhe above lssues may be blg and oLhers may be small

LeL's go back Lo soclal harm for a mlnuLe ln Lhls conLexL uressler ls oot asklng us Lo glve us Lhe
deflnlLlon of soclal harm WhaL he's asklng us Lo do ls Lo Lalk abouL Lhe acLus reus elemenLs of whaLever
crlme we're Lalklng abouL LhaL's Lhe soclol botm of LhaL parLlcular crlme lor example aL common law
Lhe soclal harm of burglary ls breaklng and enLerlng Lhe dwelllng house of anoLher aL nlghL" ln facL
you may break lL lnLo breaklng" enLerlng" dwelllng house" and so on use Lhe deflnlLlon of Lhe
crlme LhaL you're worklng wlLh 1hls lsn'L meanL Lo be excesslvely phllosophlcal

We already know LhaL Lhls exam deals wlLh crlmlnal homlclde under Lhe Model 9enal Code We already
know Lhe soclal harm of crlmlnal homlclde lL's Lhe kllllng of a human belng by anoLher human belng

AfLer we've covered Lhe baslc flve elemenLs you go Lo

6 uefenses
a !usLlflcaLlon defenses
b Lxcuse defenses

8ecall LhaL you have noLhlng Lo excose lf your conducL was jostlfloble

unllke Lhe elemenLs of a crlme you should only brlng up Lhose defenses LhaL would reallsLlcally be
ralsed by Lhe aLLorneys ln LhaL case ln Lhe real world ?ou don'L need Lo Lake a laundry llsL of all Lhe
[usLlflcaLlon defenses and show why none of Lhem apply 8alse Lhe defenses LhaL you Lhlnk a real lawyer
would ralse and dlscuss Lhem

WhaL abouL murder versus manslaughLer (versus negllgenL homlclde)? 1he quesLlon ls a Model 9enal
Code [urlsdlcLlon quesLlon where we're supposed Lo dlscuss Lhe crlmlnal llablllLy of A for kllllng 8 We
know by now LhaL Lhe only Lhlng LhaL separaLes dlfferenL homlcldes ls mens rea 1he volunLary acL wlll
be Lhe same no maLLer whaL Lhe crlme 1he soclal harm wlll be Lhe dead person WhaL maLLers wlll be
ln Lhe mens rea dlscusslon AL LhaL polnL you can dlscuss any relevanL mens rea lssue ?ou should
always sLarL aL Lhe Lop LhaL ls wlLh Lhe hlghesL mens rea LhaL can plauslbly be argued by a prosecuLor
lf Lhe facLs plauslbly supporL Lhe mens rea of potpose Lhen LhaL's where you sLarL and you work your
way down lL may be obvloos LhaL Lhe kllllng was done purposely lf so flne and you don'L have Lo go
down lL may be LhaL Lhe kllllng ls clearly an accldenL and Lhe only lssue ls wheLher Lhe kllllng ls reckless
or negllgenL 8uL sLarL aL Lhe hlghesL mens rea and work your way down ClLe your Model 9enal Code
secLlons

lallureofproof defenses versus [usLlflcaLlon and excuse a fallureofproof defense lsn'L really a
defense" for example mlsLake of facL A mlsLake of facL defense lsn'L really an afflrmaLlve defense
lL's a denlal LhaL you had Lhe requlred mens rea for Lhe crlme MlsLake defenses" shouldn'L be Lalked
abouL as [usLlflcaLlons or excuses lL should be Lalked abouL under Lhe elemenL lL supposedly negaLes

Mu|t|party cases

We'll have one ln quesLlon ll8

1 ueal wlLh Lhe alleged perpeLraLor flrsL Lhen Lhe alleged accompllce 1hls ls because of Lhe
derlvaLlve llablllLy lssues 8efore you can dlscover Lhe exlsLence of an accompllce you musL flnd
a prlmary crlme from whlch Lo derlve" llablllLy
2 ln accompllce cases you only need Lo deal wlLh Lhe acLus reus and mens rea of belng an
accompllce Co over Lhe evldence LhaL would show LhaL Lhe defendanL dld ln facL asslsL ln Lhe
crlme 1hen Lurn Lo Lhe mens rea quesLlon and use 206 1here ls no causaLlon requlremenL
for accompllces 1hen Lhere mlghL be some defense relaLed Lo Lhe accompllce (lnsanlLy for
example)
3 When you have an lnnocenL lnsLrumenLallLy case deal wlLh Lhe lnsLrumenLallLy flrsL LhaL ls
show Lhey are lnnocenL Lhen Lurn Lo Lhe prlnclpal ln Lhe flrsL degree" 1he prlnclpal ln Lhe flrsL
degree musL have caused an lnnocenL Lhlrd person Lo do Lhe crlme and musL have had Lhe
requlred mens rea for Lhe crlme

Mu|t|cr|me cases

We've only been asked abouL homlclde 8uL lf Lhe facLs of Lhe homlclde quesLlon lnclude a felony ln
whlch someone dled and lL ls suggesLed LhaL Lhe prosecuLor wlll Lry Lo make LhaL argumenL Lhen cover
Lhe felony flrsL because lL wlll resolve Lhe felonymurder lssue laLer

Say for example LhaL A raped 8 and Lhen Lhe vlcLlm dled 1haL would seem Lo creaLe felonymurder
1hen sLarL ouL wlLh

SLaLe v A (rape)
1hen laLerSLaLe v A (crlmlnal homlclde)

8emember LhaL Lhe Model 9enal Code doesn'L have Lhe felonymurder rule as such lf you look carefully
aL Lhe deflnlLlon of murder under Lhe Model 9enal Code you'll flnd LhaL under Lhe exLreme
lndlfference" provlslon LhaL mens rea wlll be ptesomeJ lf deaLh occurs durlng Lhe commlsslon of cerLaln
enumeraLed felonles 1he Model 9enal Code drafLers boteJ Lhe felonymurder 1hey made a
compromlse CommlLLlng a cerLaln felony creaLes a tebottoble ptesomptloo of extteme tecklessoess lf
you can prove oLherwlse Lhe felony drops ouL

Crlmlnal Law Lxam 9racLlce

leople v olo (crlmlnal homlclde)

1 volunLary acL under Lhe Model 9enal Code 201 a person ls noL gullLy of an offense unless
hls llablllLy ls based on conducL whlch lncludes a volunLary acL ln Lhls case Lulo's wllled bodlly
movemenL ln pulllng Lhe Lrlgger of Lhe gun wlLh whlch he shoL hls vlcLlm consLlLuLes Lhe
requlred volunLary acL
2 Soclal harm 1he soclal harm ln Lhls case ls Lhe Jeotb of Lhe vlcLlm buL lL ls ln dlspuLe whaL
consLlLuLes deaLh ln Lhls case 1he Model 9enal Code ls sllenL on Lhe deflnlLlon of deaLh" 1he
defendanL clLlng common law precedenL clalms LhaL Lhe soclal harm envlsloned by Lhe Model
9enal Code ls Lhe cessaLlon of clrculaLory and resplraLory acLlvlLy 1he 9eople on Lhe oLher
hand argue LhaL braln deaLh" ls or should be Lhe soclal harm
3 Meos teo ln order Lo be convlcLed of crlmlnal homlclde under Lhe Model 9enal Code
2101(1) Lhe defendanL musL have caused Lhe vlcLlm's deaLh potposely koowloqly tecklessly or
oeqllqeotly 1here ls no evldence ln Lhe record on Lhls appeal of Lhe sLaLe of mlnd of Lhe
defendanL aL Lhe Llme of Lhe kllllng Powever because Lhe defendanL does noL ralse Lhls lssue
on appeal and Lhe record descrlbes Lhe defendanL as havlng shoL hls vlcLlm ln Lhe head" lL can
be lnferred LhaL Lhe meos teo of purpose was proven aL Lrlal such LhaL lL ls noL aL lssue now 1he
Model 9enal Code 2102(1)(a) would classlfy Lhe defendanL's offense as murder whlch ls a
felony of Lhe flrsL degree ( 2102(2))
4 AcLual causaLlon under Lhe Model 9enal Code 203(1)(a) Lhe defendanL's conducL ls Lhe
cause of Lhe resulLlng offense when lL ls an anLecedenL buL for whlch Lhe resulL ln quesLlon
would noL have occurred" 1o deLermlne wheLher Lhe defendanL ls an octool coose of Lhe soclal
harm ln Lhls case we ask more speclflcally 8uL for Lhe volunLary acL of Lhe defendanL would
Lhe soclal harm have occurred wbeo lt JlJ?" lf Lhe defendanL had noL shoL Lhe vlcLlm Lhe vlcLlm
would noL have become btolo JeoJ when he dld ooJ alLernaLlvely would noL have ceased
resplraLlon and clrculaLlon when he dld 1herefore Lhe defendanL ls an acLual cause of Lhe
deaLh of Lhe vlcLlm

1here are no addlLlonal causal requlremenLs ln Lhe Code as conLemplaLed ln 203(1)(b)
3 9roxlmaLe causaLlon 1he Model 9enal Code dlsposes of Lhe proxlmaLe causaLlon lssue ln shorL
order 8ecause purposely causlng a cerLaln resulL (Lhe deaLh of Lhe vlcLlm) was an elemenL of
Lhe defendanL's offense and because Lhe acLual resulL lnvolves arguably Lhe same klnd of
ln[ury or harm as LhaL conLemplaLed by Lhe defendanL we consulL 203(2)(b) 1hls secLlon Lells
us LhaL because Lhe acLual resulL (deaLh under Lhe LradlLlonal deflnlLlon) ls noL Loo remoLe or
accldenLal from Lhe conLemplaLed resulL LhaL Lhe defendanL alleges (braln deaLh) Lo have an
effecL on Lhe defendanL's llablllLy


CuLllne L98

8ob reLurned home one day and Lo hls shock observed hls wlfe ln bed wlLh vlcLor Lnraged 8ob
sLalked ouL of Lhe house walked nexL door and angrlly asked Ann hls nelghbor for a gun LhaL he knew
LhaL she lawfully kepL for selfproLecLlon When she asked hlm why he needed lL he angrlly sLaLed l
need a gun Lo klll someone" Ann gave hlm her gun saylng Co geL hlm"

8ob reLurned Lo hls house and walked lnLo Lhe bedroom gun polnLed When he enLered vlcLor by now
ouL of Lhe bed had a large klLchen knlfe ln hls hand lrom a dlsLance of 10 feeL 8ob shoL vlcLor four
Llmes kllllng hlm lnsLanLly 8ecause of hls rage 8ob had noL seen Lhe knlfe ln vlcLor's hand when he
shoL hlm

ulscuss 8ob's and Ann's crlmlnal llablllLy lf any for Lhe deaLh of vlcLor Apply Lhe Model 9enal Code

5tote v 8ob (Pomlclde)

1 volunLary acL 1he Model 9enal Code requlres 8ob's conducL Lo lnclude a volunLary acL ln order
for hlm Lo be llable for any offense 201(1) 8ob's conducL lncluded Lhe volunLary acL of
shooLlng vlcLor
2 Soclal harm 1he soclal harm ls Lhe kllllng of a human belng (vlcLor) by anoLher human belng
(8ob)
3 Meos teo under Lhe Model 9enal Code ln order Lo be gullLy of crlmlnal homlclde a person
musL commlL Lhe octos teos of kllllng anoLher human belng purposely knowlngly recklessly or
negllgenLly 2101 1here ls evldence LhaL 8ob acLed wlLh purpose ln kllllng vlcLor 8ob Lold
Ann LhaL he was plannlng Lo klll someone 8ob also had Lhe moLlve Lo klll vlcLor he was angry
aL hlm for sleeplng wlLh hls wlfe 1hls would make 8ob gullLy of motJet 2102(1)(a) unless a
[ury can be persuaded LhaL 8ob was acLlng under Lhe lnfluence of exLreme menLal or emoLlonal
dlsLurbance for whlch Lhere ls a reasonable explanaLlon or excuse 2103(1)(b) ln whlch case
8ob's crlme would be mooslooqbtet

8ob could argue LhaL wlLnesslng hls wlfe ln an apparenL acL of adulLery enraged hlm so much
LhaL he experlenced exLreme emoLlonal dlsLress LhaL conLlnued Lhrough Lhe Llme of Lhe acLual
kllllng 1hls would be a Lhreshold quesLlon of law for Lhe [udge lf Lhe [udge allowed Lhls
argumenL Lo go before a [ury 8ob would furLher need Lo persuade Lhe [ury LhaL Lhe dlsLurbance
was reasonable ln dolng Lhls 8ob needs Lo Lry Lo geL Lhe [ury Lo sympaLhlze wlLh hls poslLlon
and lmaglne belng ln hls shoes

1he SLaLe would argue however LhaL 8ob had adequaLe Llme ln Lhe course of golng Lo hls
nelghbor's house and back LhaL he elLher no longer was under Lhe lnfluence of extteme dlsLress
or LhaL such dlsLress was no longer teosoooble aL Lhe Llme of Lhe kllllng lL could be argued LhaL
ln essence no one could sLay tbot moJ for tbot looq (a quesLlon for Lhe [udge) or LhaL
alLernaLlvely no teosoooble petsoo could sLay LhaL mad for LhaL long (a quesLlon for Lhe [ury)

lf Lhe facL ls conceded LhaL 8ob was so enraged LhaL he dld noL see Lhe knlfe ln vlcLor's hand
8ob could argue LhaL Lhls ls evldence LhaL hls exLreme emoLlonal dlsLurbance conLlnued Lo Lhe
momenL of Lhe kllllng 8ob could clalm LhaL no one could fall Lo percelve Lhe danger of anoLher
person holdlng a knlfe unless Lhey were experlenclng exLreme dlsLress of Lhe naLure
conLemplaLed by Lhe Model 9enal Code

1he purpose of allowlng Lhe parLlal defense of exLreme emoLlonal or menLal dlsLurbance ls Lo
recognlze LhaL socleLy sees an acLor as less aL faulL lf Lhey are noL ln full conLrol of Lhelr acLlons
due Lo a dlsLurbance wlLh an undersLandable or reasonable cause ln oLher words a
reLrlbuLlvlsL would flnd LhaL 8ob dld noL acL fully by cholce and Lhus hls culpablllLy ls llmlLed by
hls ablllLy Lo freely choose noL Lo commlL Lhe offense lrom a uLlllLarlan perspecLlve on Lhe
oLher hand someone ln a rage llke 8ob may noL be deLerred from commlLLlng murder and
Lherefore lL serves no purpose Lo punlsh hlm for murder because arguably no neL soclal galn
wlll resulL
4 AcLual causaLlon under Lhe Model 9enal Code 8ob's conducL was an acLual cause of Lhe deaLh
of vlcLor when vlcLor's deaLh would noL have occurred bot fot 8ob's volunLary acL lf 8ob had
noL shoL vlcLor vlcLor would noL have dled
3 9roxlmaLe causaLlon 1here are no lnLervenlng causes beLween Lhe flrlng of Lhe gun and Lhe
deaLh of vlcLor
6 uefenses 8ob's kllllng of vlcLor was [usLlfled for selfproLecLlon lf 8ob belleved LhaL such force
was lmmedlaLely necessary Lo proLecL hlmself agalnsL Lhe use of unlawful force by vlcLor
304(1) 8ecause 8ob used deadly force 8ob ls noL [usLlfled unless he belleved LhaL deadly force
was necessary Lo proLecL hlmself from belng kllled or serlously ln[ured by vlcLor 304(2)(b)
8ob's case for [usLlflcaLlon by selfproLecLlon ls weak for several reasons flrsL he dld noL see Lhe
knlfe ln vlcLor's hand whlch makes Lhe use of deadly force un[usLlflable glven Lhe clrcumsLances
as 8ob belleved Lhem Lo be lurLhermore because vlcLor was 10 feeL away 8ob wlll have a
hard Llme provlng LhaL he belleveJ LhaL force was lmmeJlotely necessary

5tote v 8ob (crlmlnal consplracy)

1 volunLary acL 8ob's conducL lncluded Lhe volunLary acL of agreelng wlLh Ann LhaL 8ob would
carry ouL Lhe offense of crlmlnal homlclde 201 and 303(1)(a)
2 Soclal harm 1he soclal harm ls Lhe kllllng of vlcLor
Meos teo 8ob acLed wlLh Lhe meos teo of purpose ln agreelng wlLh Ann Lo faclllLaLe Lhe
commlsslon of crlmlnal homlclde

5tote v oo (crlmlnal homlclde)

1 volunLary acL Ann's conducL lncluded Lhe volunLary acLs of glvlng her gun Lo 8ob and Lelllng
hlm Lo go geL hlm" 201(1) 1hese acLs consLlLuLed ald ln Lhe commlsslon of 8ob's offense
206(3)(a)(ll)
2 Soclal harm 1he soclal harm ln Lhls case ls Lhe kllllng of vlcLor by 8ob
3 Meos keo Ann may be llable as an accompllce Lo murder lf (1) she had Lhe purpose of
promoLlng or faclllLaLlng Lhe offense of murder 206(3)(a) ooJ (2) she had Lhe meos teo of
purpose ln regard Lo resulL of 8ob's conducL namely Lhe kllllng of vlcLor 206(4)

1he SLaLe may argue LhaL because 8ob Lold Ann LhaL he was plannlng Lo klll someone Ann's
sLaLemenL Lo 8ob ls evldence LhaL she had boLh Lhe purpose of faclllLaLlng 8ob's offense and Lhe
purpose LhaL 8ob klll anoLher human belng

5tote v oo (crlmlnal consplracy)

1 volunLary acL Ann's conducL lncluded Lhe volunLary acL of agreelng wlLh 8ob LhaL he would
carry ouL Lhe offense of crlmlnal homlclde 201 and 303(1)
2 Soclal harm 1he soclal harm was Lhe kllllng of vlcLor by 8ob
3 Meos teo Ann acLed wlLh Lhe meos teo of purpose ln agreelng Lo ald 8ob ln Lhe commlsslon of
hls offense 303(1)(b)