CRIM Law Flowchart
CRIM Law Flowchart
B. OMISSION
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Elements Liability for the commission of an MPC: duty to act MUST be
- failure to act offense may NOT be based on an imposed by law
- legal duty to act omission unaccompanied by action
- capability to act UNLESS: CL: some non statutory legal
- the omission is expressly duties
Legal Duty to act: Can be statutorily defined made sufficient by the law
or implied by the required elements of an defining the offense, or
offense - a duty to perform the omitted
Common Legal Duties: act is otherwise imposed by
- Landowner’s duties regarding law
property
- Duties arising out of relationship b/w
actor and victim
- Contractual Duty
- Tort law creates a duty where actor
voluntarily assumes responsibility
- Duty to rescue if actor created peril
- Doctor’s have no duty to aid unless
person requiring aid is a patient
Knowledge of duty not required
III. MENS REA - A mental state is required for most crimes. Strict liability and public welfare offences are the exception. To
prove an offense, the prosecution must prove mens rea as to every element of the offense
A. TYPES
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Intentionally (willfully) – to consciously Purpose - conscious object with MPC splits intentionally into
cause the result or when one is virtually conduct & results. Must be aware of the purpose and knowledge
certain that the object will occur as a result existence or believe or hope that such MPC clear distinction between
of 's conduct. circumstances do exist negligence and recklessness - not
Recklessness – A heightened criminal Knowledge – Conscience awareness on the degree of risk involved but
negligence or conscious disregard of a that results are practically certain to on D's knowledge of the risk.
substantial and unjustifiable risk. occur MPC provides that when it is not
Negligence – Objective fault should Recklessness - Conscious disregard of clear which element a mens rea
have been aware that his conduct created a a substantial and unjustifiable risk. applies to, apply it to all elements
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the Negligence – Should have been aware of the offense
social harm would result. of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. MPC where the statute is silent on
Mens Rea, recklessness is required.
Rule of thumb
Purpose = desire for a certain outcome
Knowledge = indifference to a certain
outcome
B. STRICT LIABILITY - Where there is no mental state required for an offense
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Public welfare and traditional crimes. Created Under MPC, SL crimes are generally MPC is generally the same as
by statute restricted to violations and are CL.
punishable by fines, not incarceration -
public welfare crimes;
IV. RESULT
A. CAUSE IN FACT - Causation is only required for result crimes.
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Conduct satisfies the but-for test. Actual MPC only requires actual causation and MPC only requires actual
cause exists when the result that constitutes uses the same but-for test as CL. causation.
the criminal offense would not have occurred Cause in fact
when it did but for 's voluntary act (or
omission)
B. PROXIMATE CAUSE
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Forseeability Test MPC handles proximate causation For MPC, proximate causation
To determine proximate cause, one must within the mens rea as to results Satisfy is handled within mens rea (but
determine whether the actor was the direct but for test only. No intervening causes for).
cause and whether there were any intervening
actors or intervening causes (coincidences) Establish mens rea and you can Purp/Know: Causation not
that severer the causal chain back to establish causation; then use to established if result was not
No intervening causes unless the cause is determine if the result was too distant what was intended, unless:
foreseeable or de minimus. or accidental in occurrence to have a 1. just a different person
just bearing on 's liability or on the (Transferred Intent)
Intervening Acts - Intervening acts can gravity of the offense. 2. Injury less than intended
sufficiently break the chain of causation;
Dependent intervening acts: occur where If the result deviates too far from what Reck/Neg: Causation not
the intervening actor acts because of a is foreseeable, then one will be established if result not within
condition brought upon by the D’s prior exculpated for purpose and knowledge risk the actor was or should
conduct. However, if the dependant crimes. If not, then will be have been aware of, unless:
intervening actor was grossly negligent, this is convicted even if there is an 1. just a different person
sufficient to break the chain of causation. intervening actor. (Transferred Intent)
Voluntary Intervening Act: occur where the 2. Injury less than risked
intervening actor acts voluntarily. Intentional
acts always break the chain of causation;
reckless acts are sometimes sufficient
(depending on court).
De Minimus: when the original act would
not have caused the death
Dangerous Forces Rest: The danger has to
cease at some point.
V. CRIME
A. HOMICIDE
1. MURDER - unlawful killing of a human being
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
1st Degree Murder: Purposely or knowingly, or MPC includes gross bodily
Malice aforethought. recklessness plus. Premeditation and harm under recklessness.
Acting with Intent to Kill deliberation are not required.
MPC's mens rea is equivalent to
2nd Degree Murder a/k/a Depraved Heart , Recklessness Plus – reckless under CL's intent.
gross recklessness, malignant heart, Implied circumstances manifesting extreme
Malice, intent to do serious bodily harm - indifference to human life. When MPC uses recklessness
DEFN: Acts in the face of an unusually high Complicity: as the mens rea, it is similar to
risk that conduct will cause death of serious Accomplice – abets with requisite CL's malignant heart killings.
bodily harm. Under certain exceptional intent before or during the commission
circumstances of the offense. CL murder has degrees
Accomplice Mens Rea:
Felony murder (typically 2nd) - during the - Purposefully promotes or facilitates first degree includes certain
commission or attempted commission of a in the commission of a crime. enumerated types of homicide
felony in which death results. - Must act with culpability sufficient (lying in wait; by poison, etc.);
for the commission of the offense or a willful, deliberate, and
Complicity: - FMR makes him an accomplice in premeditated (WDP) killing
Accomplices are strictly liable; no mens rea the underlying felony making him
required. strictly liable for the death because he All other forms are 2nd degree
had the mens rea as to the result. murder. "malignant heart" is
- MPC deals with accomplice liability usually 2nd degree
in reckless or negligent contexts.
a. MITIGATION - LESSENS MURDER TO MANSLAUGHTER
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Provocation Doctrine Extreme Emotional Disturbance: MPC Broadens Mitigation by
- No time limitation – no
Act would have to fit in these categories in Can mitigate from murder to cooling off
order to get the manslaughter instruction to manslaughter even when intent to cause - No limitation that person
the jury: death was present. killed must have been the
1. Extreme assault or battery upon the D provoker.
2. Mutual combat Two components: - Leaving out exclusions for
3. D’s illegal arrest - Extreme mental or emotional mitigation
4. Injury or serious abuse of D’s close relative disturbance
5. Sudden discovery of spouse’s adultery - That has a reasonable cause MPC requires that be aware
- Under the circumstances as the of the risk being taken
Limitations actor’s sees it (recklessness).
Does not apply when enough time has passed
so that the perpetrator should have cooled off -
b/c then you are back to cold blooded killing.
b. FELONY MURDER
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
One is guilty of Murder if she kills another Recklessly manifesting extreme Code does not have an express
person, even accidentally, during the indifference to the value of life are felony M rule, it implies
commission or attempted commission of any inferred during the commission of recklessness plan during
felony. commission of inherently
- Robbery dangerous felony
Independent Felony/Merger Rule – - Rape
Underlying felony must be independent of the - deviate sexual intercourse
murder. - Arson
- Burglary
Causal Connection Required: - Kidnapping or
Either… - Felonious escape
Agency Theory: The causation limitation
requires that the killing be in furtherance of Complicity
the felony, or at least by an agent of the felon. One who intentionally assist another
The mere fact that a death occurs during the person to engage in conduct that
commission of a felony will not necessarily constitutes the offense.
subject the felon to felony M.
Or…
Proximate Cause: A few states apply a
proximate causation test which holds a felon
responsible for the killing by a non-felon if the
felon proximately caused the death / set in
motion the events that lead to the death.
2. MANSLAUGHTER
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Voluntary MS – homicide without malice Reckless - unlike reckless M, here the
aforethought conduct, although reckless, does not
manifest an extreme indifference to the
“Heat of passion" – an Intentional killing value of human life
without malice - committed in response to
legally adequate provocation OR
3. NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
None A criminally negligent killing of the Equivalent to involuntary MS
third degree under the Common Law
B. INCHOATE
1. ATTEMPT - an ct inn furtherance of an intent to bring about certain consequences which would in law amount to a crime.
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Mens Rea - Mens Rea - (1099) CL - Actus Reus tests are jxd
For the Attempt, D must have specific intent D must have the purposeful intent to specific
- an intent to do an act or to bring about 1. Do the act
certain consequences which would in law 2. Accomplish the result
amount to a crime 3. Under the same circumstances Most states no attempt for
Felony Murder
Negligent or Reckless crimes - Attempt to The mens rea for attempt is often
commit is logically impossible higher than the one required for the
target offense. Generally, the required
Merger Rule: Attempt merges with the mens rea is purpose.
completed crime.
Actus Reus – (1099 ex. of conduct)
Actus Reus - Tests - D must perform a substantial step
Proximity test – measures the attempt by how toward committing the crime.
physically and dangerously close D came to - D’s conduct must be corroborative of
actually committing the crime. D's purpose.
a. DEFENSES
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
2. CONSPIRACY
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Elements: Actus Reus MPC - knowledge is not
1. An agreement b/w 2 or more people enough. CL - knowledge and
2. with intent to agree Unilateral agreement (a subjective agmt to assist may be enough.
3. and intent to achieve objective view) and overt act
MPC is unilateral.
Overt Act - No overt act is required for
Plurality requirement – bilateral agreement – serious (1st or 2nd degree) felonies, but CL lets off if state cannot
an objective view. required for all other offences. Must be prove that there was another
some act, no matter how trivial or person with the requisite mens
Exception: Wharton’s Rule: Conspiracy innocent rea.
liability is barred where the criminal act itself
requires more than one person. Object of Agreement – criminal act Overt act requirement is only in
MPC.
Hub And Spoke (one common center with Merger – merges with the crime
reasonably independent subagmts or unless there are further conspiratorial MPC merges and CL does not.
Chain Relationship (a series of agmts all of crimes to be carried out.
which are regarded as part of a single larger MPC rejects the Pinkerton
scheme) Mens Rea (1101) Doctrine.
The purpose of promoting or
Actus Reus: Formation of the group along, facilitating the commission of the Hearsay evidence may be
no overt act offense. brought in to prove the
conspiracy, but not the
Object of Agmt - need only be unlawful / Courts are left to their discretion to substantive offense.
wrongful. decide whether purpose applies to all
elements of the offense, or just the
Nature of the Agmt - does not require result.
objective evidence of the agreement; mainly
mental in nature; its concerted action, Mere knowledge is not usually enough,
conversation, and conduct but can be when combined with a stake
in the success of the object crime.
No Merger - does not merge into an attempt
or the completed offense. Punishment - punishment is the same
for conspiracy as for the object crime in
Mens Rea all cases but 1st degree felonies.
Requires specific intent (purposeful) with:
1. intent to agree (may be inferred from Pinkerton Doctrine is rejected - if the
conduct, but not from mere knowledge) conspiracy goes beyond the intended
2. intent to carry out the object crime. purpose, one is not guilty of any
foreseeable crime unless he can be said
Some courts allow conviction if the second to have aided and abetted in its
mens rea (as to object crime) is merely commission.
knowledge. (SPECIAL SITUATIONS
ONLY)
a. DEFENSES
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Barbri says withdrawal was not a common
law defense Abandonment, if the conspirator
renounces his criminal purpose and
Abandonment, unless the offense is thwarts the success of the conspiracy
completed (once there is agreement) under circumstances demonstrating a
abandonment is not a defense. Can relieve complete an voluntary renunciation of
liability for future crime of former criminal intent.
conspirators.
C. COMPLICITY
1. ACCOMPLICE - An accomplice is one who intentionally assists another person to engage in conduct that constitutes the
offense
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Types Types MPC – Those that agree to aid
To be charged, Principal must have completed Accomplice – incites or abets with or attempt to aid but do not
the offense requisite intent before or during the actually aid are also liable
commission of the offense.
Accomplice can only be liable after conviction MPC - accomplice can be
of the principal Mens Rea convicted even if the
Purposefully promotes or facilitates in perpetrator has not yet been
Accessory before the fact – incites or abets the commission of a crime. prosecuted, has been convicted
but is not present at the time of the crime. of a lesser crime, has been
Accessory after the fact – if you aid a Actus Reus acquitted, or is feigning.
perpetrator after the completion of a felony, - must attempt or agree to assist
you can be liable if perpetrator MPC - knowing facilitation is
- you have knowledge the felony was - Must act with culpability sufficient not enough to establish liability.
committed, and for the commission of the offense A victim cannot be an
- personally give aid to felon to hinder accomplice.
his apprehension or punishment
CL - If the perpetrator is
Actus reus justified, then there is no
MUST assist the perpetrator in committing accomplice liability because
the offense there is no crime.
**accomplice need not be necessary for
successful completion of the offense CL- excuses do not transfer
**Can consist of encouragement alone from perpetrator to accomplice
A victim accomplice (underage
Abetting -is any significant assistance in the girl in statutory rape) cannot be
commission of an offense an accomplice unless there is a
legislative exception.
Inciting – encouragement even if not
accompanied by physical aid. Knowing or reckless facilitation
is sufficient to establish
Mens rea complicity in some courts
That which is required for commission of the
target offense .
a. DEFENSES
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Withdrawal Withdrawal
- Must take place before the events are - Wholly depriving his prior assistance
unstoppable of effectiveness,
- Inciter(encourager) – communicate an - Provide a timely warning of the plan
renunciation of the crime to the perpetrator to law enforcement
- Abettor – Must render the assistance - Make an effort to prevent the
gave ineffective commission of the offence
D. RAPE
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Elements of Rape: MPC 213.1, pg 1124 Modern trends vary greatly
- Forcible from both CL and MPC:
- Penetration of female by male Defines rape as being committed by a - Gender neutral terms
- Against V’s will male with a female victim recognizing rape doesn’t
have to be by male/against
Alternatives to force allowable: Force required: More than intercourse? female
- Fraud to such a degree that woman either: - Broader view of coercion,
- did not know she was having intercourse Mistaken reasonable belief in consent focuses on lack of consent
- did not know intercourse was not w/ can provide a defense instead of force
Husband - Only require verbal resistance
MPC 213.6, pg 1126-7 - Marital exemptions removed
Husband incapable of raping wife (1) mistake of age not a defense - Statutory age increased
- main concern was to protect the honor of (2) prohibits rape b/w husband - No corroboration required
husband/father and wife - No cautionary jury
(3) victim’s promiscuity a defense instructions
D’s mental state irrelevant (4) complaint must occur in 3 - Rape Shield Laws: V’s
Ds perception of Vs mental state irrelevant months sexual history no longer
(5) requires corroborative admissible unless prior
Admissible evidence: testimony history is b/w V and D
- Delay in victim reporting crime
- Some Jdxn require corroboration Children under age of 10 presumed Modern View Crime is:
- Prior sexual conduct (Prostitutes lack of consent 1. Crime of violence
incapable of being raped 2. Sex Crime, and
3. Privacy Offense
Prejudicial Jury Instruction: Rape is easy
to charge and hard to prove therefore requires
close scrutiny
E. THEFT
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Divided into Several CL Crimes: Theft by Unlawful Taking 223.2, pg MPC: if you remove
1. Larceny 1132 something attached to another’s
2. Embezzlement - Unlawful taking of another’s land, it is theft
3. False pretenses movable or immovable property
- Mens Rea is the same as CL: CL: if you remove something
Larceny: purposeful attached to another’s land, it is
Actus Reus not theft, it is a tort
(1) Trespassory taking: D takes Theft by Deception 223.3, 1132
possession of the personal property of - Similar to CL false pretenses MPC: distinction between
another without consent or in absence - purposely obtain another’s property possession and custody is
of justification by deception removed, if you exercise
- Possession: a person has sufficient - deception must be purposeful unlawful control over property,
control over the property to use it in - does not include puffing or you are guilty
an unrestricted manner immaterial misreps
- Custody: person has the right to - obtain means to bring about a transfer MPC recognizes theft of non-
control, but does not have unrestricted of a legal interest in the property property (Services)
use rights
- “Continuing Trespass”: even if the Theft of Property Lost, Mislaid or MPC recognizes that theft can
initial taking was consensual, as soon Delivered by Mistake 223.5, 1133 occur even if you don’t carry
as the intent of the actor changes, - one who comes into control of away the property
some courts have held that trespass property he knows has been lost,
begins at that point mislaid or delivered by mistake
(2) Carrying away: Any movement of - with purpose of depriving TO, he
the property qualifies fails to take reasonable measures to
(3) Of Personal Property of Another: restore property to TO
- title is irrelevant,
- Only personal property qualifies, not Theft of Services 223.7, 1134
real property, - one who purposely obtains services
- Intangible Property is covered under by deception or threat or by false
different laws token or other means to avoid
- If you give your property to payment for the service.
someone for repair, you have given - must know services are typically
them lawful possession compensated
Mens Rea - where payment is typically
(1) Intent to permanently deprive the other immediate (hotels, restaurants) mens
of property rea is presumed
(2) Must concur with the taking - a person who knowingly diverts
(3) “Continuing trespass” theory can services to his own benefit for which
overcome concurrence requirement b/c he is not entitled has committed theft
a new “trespassory” taking is
manufactured to concur w/ intent
Embezzlement:
(1) Taking of possession
(2) of personal property
(3) Lawfully entrusted to D
(4) and D converts it to his own use
- Common with financial crimes and shipping
Cases
- Very thin difference b/w larceny and
Embezzlement
False Pretenses:
(1) Actor transfers title
(2) In another’s property
(3) To the actor
- Typically involves fraud and
misrepresentation
- Ex: Using counterfeit money to buy gas
or groceries
VI. DEFENSES
A. JUSTIFICATION - conduct that is otherwise criminal, but that here is either "right" or "not wrong" under the circumstances.
1. DEFENSIVE FORCE JUSTIFICATION
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
A person is justified in using force on another: Self Defense, 3.04, pg1085 MPC looks at the D's subjective
- he is not an aggressor (1)A persons is justified in using belief, the belief need not be
- he reasonably believes force is necessary defensive force if: reasonable.
- to protect from imminent use of - the actor believes
unlawful/aggressive force by another - such force is immediately necessary MPC replaces imminence with
- for the purpose of protecting himself the phrase "immediately
Retreat Required (minority of states) - on the present occasion necessary" so that one may use
- must be able to retreat to complete safety force sooner under than CL.
- person must be aware of a place of safety (2)If you know you can retreat, then
- “Castle Rule” is exception: do not have to deadly force is off the table MPC - deadly force is more
leave your own home broad than CL one who acts
(2)(b)Deadly force is justified if one with the purpose causing death
Requires IMMINENT Threat faces a threat of death, SBH, forcible or GBH qualifies
- clear and imminent danger rape, or kidnapping.
- only action will avoid danger In CL force not likely to cause
- no effective alternative Defense of Other Persons 3.05, pg death or SBH is not deadly
- must have clean hands 1086 force even if it was the 's
- harm caused is less than harm - Essentially same as CL purpose to kill.
avoided
Defense of Property 3.06, pg 1087
Deadly force: Only allowed when life is - Use of force only after request actor
being threatened to desist if possible
- requires retreat to a public place - Deadly force available even where
- never allowed for unlawful arrest life is not threatened
Defense of Property:
- no more force than reasonably appears
necessary for defense of possessory interest
- deadly force is NEVER allowed
- Early CL allowed use of deadly force in own
home, now only if D reasonably believes lives
are in jeopardy
Evoking Conditions
- threat of harm not required
- whenever a recognized interest is
endangered, or
- an opportunity to further an interest is
Presented
B. EXCUSE - wrongful conduct, but under the circumstances, D is not morally culpable or blameworthy
1. DURESS
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Actor must be under the coercion; acting MPC 2.09, pg 1082 MPC abandons the CL
under the duress; and must have clean requirements of deadly force
hands (1) Duress is an affirmative defense: and imminency in favor of
- D was coerced to commit offense excusing whenever a person
Not a defense for homicide. - a person of reasonable firmness of reasonable firmness would
would have been unable to resist also have yielded to coercion;
A defense if performance of an otherwise (2) Defense is unavailable if D inserted
criminal act occurs himself in situation recklessly or MPC is one of general
1) Under threat of imminent infliction of death negligently applicability may be used in
or GBH murder cases
2) If he reasonably believes death or GBH will
be inflicted on himself or immediate family if MPC does not require that an
he does not perform imperiled party be s relative.
The act is termed excusable rather than MPC similar to CL in that it is
justifiable. limited to threats or use of
unlawful force and does not
apply to coercion by natural
sources.
3. MISTAKE
a. OF FACT
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
Not a defense to a Strict Liability Crime MPC 2.04(1)(a)(b), pg 1078 steals diamonds believing
they’re glass - MPC petty
Honest mistake defense available for specific Must negate the mental state required larceny; CL grand larceny.
intent crimes (less strict than reasonable to establish any element of the offense.
mistake) steals glass believing it‘s
If Mistake caused an offense to be diamonds, MPC petty
Reasonable mistake defense available for greater in degree than actor originally larceny and attempted grand
general intent crimes (NJ’s codified law) thought, mistake doesn’t get him off, larceny and CL petty larceny
but affords him the lesser degree of and attempted grand larceny.
offense
MPC – Look at the world
through the ’s eyes in a factual
(not legal) manner
5. IMMATURITY
COMMON LAW MPC DIFFERENCES
All those below a certain age are immature MPC 4.10, pg 1098