Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crim Law Outline Exam Number: 2590: Spring 2021
Crim Law Outline Exam Number: 2590: Spring 2021
Areinoff
Spring 2021
I. Nature, Sources, And Structure of Criminal Law
a. Criminal process
i. Pretrial
1. Statute
2. Violation
3. Report crime to law enforcement
4. Arrest
5. Initial appearance
6. Bail/detention decision
7. Decision to charge
8. Preliminary hearing/grand jury
9. Indictment/information
10. D’s decision to plead guilty or go to trial
ii. Trial
1. Jury selection
2. Opening statements
3. Prosecution case
4. Defense case
5. Prosecution rebuttal case
6. Jury instructions
7. Closing arguments
8. Verdict
iii. Post-conviction
1. Sentencing
a. Fine
b. Supervision
c. Incarceration
2. Appeal
3. Collateral attack
b. Presumption of innocence
c. Burden of proof
i. Prosecutor has initial burden to prove each element beyond a reasonable
doubt
ii. Affirmative defenses may place some burden on the defense, but final
burden remains with prosecutor
d. Hypo #1: Fear, pain, and bubble gum
i. Constin
ii. Ike
iii. Ed
e. Why have criminal law?
i. Harms of criminal acts extend beyond individual to society
ii. Society condemns criminal acts through punishment
f. Criminal v. civil
i. Moral blame
ii. Imposition of punishment
iii. Government as plaintiff
g. Malum in se: wrong in itself
h. Malum prohibitum:
wrong because prohibited
by law
i. Sources of criminal law
i. Statutes
1. Federal
criminal
code
2. Individual
state codes
3. Model Penal
Code
ii. Common law
iii. Constitutions
1. State
2. Federal
a. Due Process Clause
b. Eighth Amendment
j. Offense elements
i. Objective elements
1. Conduct
2. Circumstances
ii. Culpability elements
1. Mental state
k. Imputation
i. Imputing objective element (e.g., accomplice liability)
ii. Imputing culpability element (e.g., voluntary intoxication)
l. Defenses
i. Justification (e.g. self-defense)
ii. Excuse (e.g. insanity)
iii. Non-exculpatory defense (e.g. statute of limitations)
iv. Entrapment
v. Failure of proof
m. Hypo #2: fear of daggers
II. Legality (pp. 31-52): you have to warn people about what you are going to punish them
for before you punish them for it
a. Problem #4: Ray Brent Marsh
i. Georgia Code § 16-1-4
1. No conduct constitutes a crime unless it is described as a crime in
this title or in another statute of this state
ii. State v. Bradbury: common law offense
iii. Georgia Code § 31-2-44.1
1. Abuse of a dead body
iv. Glover v. State: rule of strict construction
v. MPC
1. § 1.05: Legality
a. “No conduct constitutes an offense unless it is a crime or
violation under this Code of another statute of this state.”
2. § 250.10: Abuse of corpse
b. Vagueness: rooted in right to due process
i. Rule of lenity
1. Vague: unclear what is being prohibited
a. Unconstitutional
2. Ambiguous: can be read in two or more equally plausible ways
a. Constitutional BUT MUST resolve in favor of D
ii. Ejusdem generis: “of the same kind”
1. When a law lists classes of persons or things, this concept is used
to clarify such a list
c. Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws
i. Cannot create a law after the fact to punish what happened before the law
was passed
d. Arizona statute codifying legality principle: ARS § 13-103
e. Statutory Interpretation: always have to start with language of the statute
i. Canons of construction
ii. Related statutes (can make analogies)
iii. Legislative purposes stated in statute
iv. Legislative history
v. Structure of statute and placement of relevant language
f. Hypo #6: Is a fetus less than human?
g. Hypo #7: gangsters can’t stop
i. Liable under statute
ii. Constitutional challenge
1. “Apparent purpose”
iii. MPC
iv. Chicago v. Morales (actual result): statute is void for vagueness
III. Theories of Punishment (pp. 78-93)
a. Sara Jane Olsen case: member of radical movement in LA, involved in pipe
bombs
b. Why punish?
i. Retributivism: wrongdoers deserve punishment
1. Backward-looking
2. Punishment because you deserve it
3. Punish based on blameworthiness (i.e., getting one’s “just deserts”)
4. Blameworthiness based on 1) seriousness of offense and 2) actor’s
moral accountability
ii. Utilitarianism: punishment creates beneficial consequences (e.g.,
deterrence)
c. Problems: #9 (Olson); #10; #13
IV. Actus Reus: the guilty act (act or omission requirements)
a. Act
i. Martin v. State
ii. MPC § 1.13(2): "act" or "action" means a bodily movement whether
voluntary or involuntary
1. Voluntary not defined but it can be inferred from examples of
involuntary acts in § 2.01(2)(d)
2. Involuntary acts
a. Reflex or convulsion
b. Bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep
c. Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic
suggestion
d. Bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the
effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or
habitual
b. Omissions (pp. 487-515)
i. Common law
1. Jones v. U.S.
2. 4 scenarios where omissions can be criminal
a. a statute imposes a duty;
b. status imposes a duty;
c. contract imposes a duty; or
d. one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and
secluded the person, preventing others from rendering aid
ii. MPC § 2.01(3): Liability for an offense may not be based on an omission
unaccompanied by action unless:
1. the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the
offense; OR
2. a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by the law
iii. Problem #72: Dunning’s Deal
iv. A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when as a direct result of
the doing of an unlawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, he
causes the death of another person
v. Basis for omission liability
1. Status:
2. Contractual duty
3. Others?
vi. Problem #71: David Cash Case
1. Relevant statutes & liability
a. Possibilities of Crimes:
i. Murder (p. 496-98)
ii. Kidnapping (p. 499)
iii. Sexual Assault (p. 500-01)
b. HOW? As a principal (accomplice) or if he had a legal duty
c. Relevant Cases
i. Lee v. GNLV Corp
ii. Labastida v. State
vii. Problem #74: stepping over the corpse in Aisle 3
1. MPC:
2. Liability in states with duty-to-rescue statutes:
a. Rhode Island
b. Vermont
c. Wisconsin
V. Mens Rea (pp. 109-144)
a. Overview:
i. When statute is silent: purposely, knowingly or recklessness is Mens Rea
ii. When one Mens Rea term: applies to all Actus Reus (unless contrary
purpose plainly appears)
iii. Proof of greater Mens Rea satisfies lesser Mens Rea
b. Common law
i. General intent: a general desire to commit a crime
1. Ex: “intentional application of force upon another” (battery)
ii. Specific intent: requiring some further purpose beyond a general desire to
commit a crime
1. Ex 1: trespass with intent to commit a felony (burglary)
2. Ex 2: assault with intent to kill
iii. Strict liability (no mens rea)
iv. Examples
1. Arson
2. False pretenses
3. Larceny
4. Kidnapping
c. MPC 2.02
i. Purposely [2.02(2)(a)]: conscious object is to cause such a result
1. A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an
offense when:
a. if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result
thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of
that nature or to cause such a result; and
b. if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is
aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes
or hopes that they exist
ii. Knowingly [2.02(2)(b)]: practically certain that the conduct will cause
that result
1. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of the
offense when:
a. if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the
attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of
that nature or that such circumstances exist; and
b. if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware
that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such
a result.
iii. Recklessly [2.02(2)(c)]: aware of substantial risk of result
(SUBJECTIVE)
1. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an
offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from
his conduct.
2. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the
nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances
known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the
standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the
actor’s situation (objective)
iv. Negligently [2.02(2)(d)]: unaware of substantial risk but should have
perceived it (OBJECTIVE)
1. A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an
offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable
risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.
2. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure
to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct
and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation
from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe
in the actor's situation (objective)
d. Concurrence requirement (p. 133): when an offense definition requires a
particular level of culpability as to a particular element, it means that the required
culpability as to the element must exist at the time of the conduct constituting the
offense.
e. Intent:
i. Extent
1. enough that D intended to cause the harm indicated in the statute
2. Prosecutor need not prove intent to cause the exact injuries
ii. Transferred intent:
1. Person to another person: YES
2. Person to property: NO
iii. Willful blindness: an actor’s deliberate actions to not find out a fact do not
protect her from being treated as knowing that fact
1. MPC § 2.07: knowledge requirement satisfied by knowledge of
high probability.
a. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an
element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a
person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless
he actually believes that it does not exist.
2. Cases
a. U.S. v. Jewell
b. Morissette v. U.S.
iv. Construction: MPC § 2.02(4) Prescribed Culpability Requirement
Applies to All Material Elements.
1. When the law defining an offense prescribes the kind of culpability
that is sufficient for the commission of an offense, without
distinguishing among the material elements thereof, such provision
shall apply to all the material elements of the offense, unless a
contrary purpose plainly appears.
f. Case: Thomas Fungwe
i. Under Michigan Law
1. Murder:
2. Manslaughter:
3. Negligent homicide:
4. Child abuse:
ii. Under MPC
iii. Actual case: no prosecution
VI. Negligence & Strict Liability; Mistake (pp. 144-150; 175-184; 681-696)
a. Case: Raymond Garnett
i. MPC
1. 213.3(1)(a)
2. 213.4(6)
3. 213.6(1): mistake of age defense
ii. Maryland law
1. Eggleston v. State: it is no defense that the defendant did not know
that the female was under the statutory age of consent
2. Michael M
iii. Actual result
1. Second degree rape (464(a)(3))
2. No mistake of age defense allowed
3. 5 years in prison but judge suspends sentence; he pays restitution
4. Affirmed on appeal in a 5-2 decision
b. Strict liability: pros and cons
i. Pros:
1. Incentivizes more careful action beyond reasonable person
2. Usually requires negligent behavior anyway
3. Usually civil-like penalties anyway
ii. Cons
1. Not fair because it does not even require negligence
2. Civil liability is enough of a deterrent
3. Devalues moral force of criminal law
c. People v. Olsen: mistake of age defense
i. California law
ii. MPC 2.04: Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense
if:
1. the ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief,
recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element
of the offense; or
2. the law provides that the state of mind established by such
ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense
VII. Mistake
a. Mistake of fact: when D was ignorant of a fact that relates to one of the elements
of the crime
i. MPC Summary
1. General rule: Awareness of certain attendant circumstances in the
statute is usually required, so ignorance of a fact is usually a failure
of proof [MPC 2.02(3)]
2. Exceptions
a. When statute expressly provides that awareness of a fact is
not required
b. When the defendant mistakenly thinks that he is
committing a lesser offense
ii. MPC Text
1. 2.04(1)(a)
a. “the ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose,
knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to
establish a material element of the offense”
2. 2.04(2)
a. “the defense is not available if the defendant would be
guilty of another offense had the situation been as he
supposed. In such case, however, the ignorance or mistake
of the defendant shall reduce the grade and degree of the
offense of which he may be convicted to those . . . of which
he would be guilty had the situation been as he supposed.”
b. Ex: Under MPC 2.04(2), what is punishment for selling
child pornography to 17 year old who D reasonably
believes was 18?
i. Statute 1: It is a felony to sell porn to a minor
ii. Statute 2: It is a misdemeanor to sell child porn to
an adult
iii. CL
1. Honest mistake negates specific intent
2. Only reasonable mistake negates general intent
3. No mistake defense for strict liability
iv. Examples
1. A driver goes over the speed limit without realizing it because his
speedometer is stuck at 55.
a. Speeding is a strict liability crime NO DEFENSE
2. Bob starts a bonfire in the woods, believing them to be
unoccupied. In reality, there are multiple cabins nearby.
a. Reckless burning: MPC 220.1(2)
b. Reasonable mistake?
b. Mistake of law: When the defendant is ignorant about an element of the criminal
offense
i. MPC Summary
1. General rule: Awareness of law is not usually required, so
ignorance of law is not usually a failure of proof [MPC 2.02(9)]
a. Exception #1: When statute expressly provides that
awareness of law is required. [MPC 2.04(1)]
i. People v. Weiss: KIDNAPPING FALSE ARREST
ii. Cheek v. U.S.: INCOME TAX CASE
b. Exception #2: When the defendant reasonably relies on an
official statement of law that is later determined to be
incorrect. [MPC 2.04(3)(b)]
ii. MPC 2.04(3)(b)
1. A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a
defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct
when:
a. he acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of
the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous,
contained in
i. a statute or other enactment;
ii. a judicial decision, opinion or judgment;
iii. an administrative order or grant of permission; or
iv. an official interpretation of the public officer or
body charged by law with responsibility for the
interpretation, administration or enforcement of the
law defining the offense.
iii. MPC 2.02(9): culpability as to illegality of conduct
1. Neither knowledge nor recklessness or negligence as to whether
conduct constitutes an offense or as to the existence, meaning or
application of the law determining the elements of an offense is an
element of such offense, unless the definition of the offense or the
Code so provides.
iv. Case: Julio Romero
1. Reasonable reliance exception
v. What is an appropriate official statement of the law?
1. Official opinion letter from the state AG or federal AG
2. Administrative order
3. Judicial opinion
c. Problem: #98 (Marrero)
VIII. Homicide (pp. 193-211)
a. Common Law
i. Murder: killing of another human being WITH malice aforethought
1. Malice: one of the four states of mind
a. the intention to kill a human being
b. the intention to inflict grievous bodily harm on a human
being
c. an extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life
d. the intention to commit a felony, during which death
results.
ii. Manslaughter: killing of another human being WITHOUT malice
aforethought
1. Voluntary: an intentional killing committed in the “sudden heat of
passion” as the result of “adequate provocation.”
2. Involuntary: negligent homicide
3. Misdemeanor: during the commission of a misdemeanor.
b. Pennsylvania/ Traditional American Model DEGREES
i. MOST STATES FOLLOW THIS MODEL, including Arizona
ii. First-Degree (3 TYPES) death penalty
1. Killings committed in a specified manner (e.g., poison, lying in
wait);
2. Killings that are “willful, deliberate, and premeditated”; and
3. Killings that occur during the [attempted] commission of a
specified felony (e.g., arson, rape, robbery, burglary)
iii. Second-Degree (4 TYPES) imprisonment
1. Intentional killings that are not premeditated;
2. Intent to commit grievous bodily injury killings; and
3. Reckless (depraved heart) killings; and
4. Killings that occur during the commission of an unspecified felony
c. MPC § 210:
i. Murder
1. §210.2(1)(a): purposely or knowingly
a. CL: intent to kill
2. § 210.2(1)(b): recklessly with extreme indifference
a. CL: depraved heart
3. § 210.2(1)(b): modified version of felony murder
a. CL: complicated
ii. Manslaughter:
1. § 210.3(1)(a): Recklessly
2. § 210.3(1)(b): committed under influence of extreme emotional
disturbance
iii. Negligent Homicide:
1. § 210.4
d. Case: Sabine Davidson: LOOSE DOG KILLS CHILD
e. State v. Guthrie (on D2L): DISHWASHER SNAPPED WITH TOWEL
f. Premeditation – deliberation definition
i. Clifford instruction: “It is not necessary that the intention to kill should
exist for any particular length of time prior to the actual killing; it is only
necessary that such intention should have come into existence for the first
time at the time of such killing, or at any time previously.”
ii. Schader instructions: “In order to constitute a ‘premeditated’ murder an
intent to kill need exist only for an instant. . . . What is meant by the
language willful, deliberate, and premeditated is that the killing be
intentional.”
iii. Hatfield: “Any interval . . . which is of sufficient duration for the accused
to be fully conscious of what he intended, is sufficient.
iv. Morrin: to premeditate is to think about beforehand. To deliberate is to
measure and evaluate the major facets of a choice or problem.
Premeditation and deliberation is a thought process undisturbed by hot
blood. No exact minimum time necessary but the interval between initial
thought and ultimate actions should be long enough to afford a reasonable
man time to subject the nature of his response to a second look
g. Premeditation analysis two factors
i. Quantity of time
1. Instantly?
2. First time at time of killing?
3. Long time to think?
ii. Quality of thought
1. Weighing of act?
2. Measure and evaluate choice?
3. Pros and cons?
4. Hot or cold blood?
5. Reasonable person has second look?
h. Midgett v. State: DRUNK FATHER PUNCHES SON TO DEATH
i. Charge: 1st deg premeditated murder
1. Guthrie standard:
i. State v. Forrest: SON SHOOTS FATHER IN HOSPITAL TO END SUFFERING
i. Charge: 1st deg premeditated murder
1. Guthrie standard:
j. Sentencing mitigating & aggravating factors
i. Mitigating:
1. Victim is aggressor or participant in criminal conduct
2. Offender plays minor/passive role
3. Offender lacks substantial capacity (physical or mental impairment
not drugs/alcohol)
4. Defendant or Ds children suffered physical or sexual abuse by
victim of offense and offense is response to abuse
5. Degree of harm or less attributed to crime is significantly less than
typical for such offense
ii. Aggravating
1. Victim particularly vulnerable (age, infirmity, reduced capacity
that was known or should have been known to offender)
2. Defendant’s conduct was excessively brutal to victim
3. Offense motivated by race color religion ethnicity national origin
or sex orientation
4. Offense involved fiduciary relationship between D and victim
5. D employed a person under 16 to avoid detection for crime
6. D is predatory sex offender convicted of crime o extreme sexual
violence
IX. Felony Murder (pp. 211-224)
a. Strict liability for death occurring during felonious conduct
i. No mens rea required
ii. Can be totally accidental
b. CL
i. Abolished in England
c. Penn Model
i. If the felony is specified, then 1st degree murder
1. Robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping
ii. If the felony is not specified, then 2nd degree murder
d. MPC § 210.2(1)(b)
i. Presume recklessness or extreme indifference to value of human life when
killing occurs during robbery, rape, arson, etc.
e. People v. Howard (on D2L)
f. Problem #25: visiting a witness
i. Quince
1. Under traditional law
2. Under MPC
ii. Ray
1. Under traditional law
2. Under MPC
g. Mayes v. People: DRUNK MAN THROWS BEER, BURNS WIFE TO DEATH
i. Charge is murder, not manslaughter
ii. Holding: presume malice
iii. MPC result?
h. Justification
i. Causal theory: D should be responsible for death as predictable outgrowth
of felony he tried to commit
ii. Equivalency theory: D’s culpability is morally equivalent to typical
murderer’s culpability OR culpability for underlying offense and killing
are, together, equivalent to culpability for murder
iii. Evidentiary theory: FMR eases evidentiary burden and facilitates
appropriate punishment
iv. Deterrence: threat of felony murder will make felons more careful to avoid
deaths
i. Limits
i. Specified v. Unspecified
ii. Inherently Dangerous Felonies
iii. Merger/Independent Felony Rule
1. Independent felony limitation
a. Felony is not independent when it is integral part of
homicide
i. Need independent felonious purpose
b. Independent felony ex: robbery; rape; kidnapping; arson
c. Non-independent felony ex: manslaughter; aggravated
assault
2. Merger: KEY QUESTION IS INDEPENDENT PURPOSE
a. Husband breaks into wife’s apartment without her
permission with intent to kill her
i. Felony: Burglary (with intent to commit what
felony?)
ii. Felony murder: NO bc burglary doesn’t have an
independent felonious purpose other than murder
iii. Result: Not guilty of felony murder (still guilty of
premeditated murder)
b. Man breaks into store with gun to steal televisions. Ends up
killing store clerks.
i. Felony: Armed Robbery
ii. Felony murder: YES bc the felony has an
independent felonious purpose other than killing or
injuring the victim
iii. Result: Guilty of felony murder
i. Proximate Causation Theory (in furtherance of felony)
ii. Innocent Person Limitation 2 approaches
a. Agency approach: FMR doesn’t apply if person who directly
causes death is non-felon (majority rule)
b. Proximate cause approach: If an act by one felon is proximate
cause of homicidal conduct by non-felon (including police
officer), can still be felony murder
j. Affirmative defenses
i. [In some jurisdictions] show that you did not commit, assist, or request the
homicidal act; were not armed; and had no reason to believe that an
accomplice might do something to cause death
k. Misdemeanor manslaughter
l. Application
i. Hypo #26: Exxon kidnap gone bad
1. Arthur kidnaps Exxon CEO for ransom money. Shoots CEO’s arm
during kidnapping. Puts CEO in a box without medical supplies or
water. CEO dies.
ii. Hypo #28:
iii. Hypo #29:
iv. Issue: Felony Murder Rule (pp. 226-230)
m. MPC presumption of reckless murder in certain scenarios
X. Provocation (pp. 267-274)
a. CL: 4 requirements
i. Heat of passion (subjective)
ii. Adequate provocation (objective)
1. “Adequate” provocation (traditional)
a. Extreme assault or battery
b. Mutual combat
c. Illegal arrest
d. Injury of a close relative
2. “Inadequate” provocation
a. Trivial assault or battery
b. Non-mutual combat (initiated by the defendant)
c. Legal arrest
d. Injury of a friend, or a distant relative
e. Learning about adultery without observing it, or observing
“adultery” involving a fiancée or unmarried partner
iii. Sudden (objective) -- no reasonable opportunity to cool off; and
iv. Causal links between the provocation, the passion, and the homicide.
(objective)
v. Sudden observation of a spouse’s adultery
b. MPC § 210.3(1)(b): Extreme Emotional Disturbance (SUBJECTIVE)
i. Criminal homicide is manslaughter when committed under
1. Influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which
2. There is a reasonable explanation or excuse
a. Reasonableness of explanation or excuse shall be
determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s
situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be
3. Example: Man and woman dated for 3 months and she dumped
him. He stalked her and three months later he killed her.
a. Charge: murder
b. Defense: extreme emotional disturbance (so it should be
manslaughter)
c. *Differences between provocation and EED under MPC*
i. MPC does not require “suddenness”
ii. MPC has no categories of “adequate provocation”
iii. “Last straw” or cumulative theories are allowed
iv. MPC allows the disturbance to be from the viewpoint of the person as he
or she believes them to be (SUBJECTIVE)
d. How does provocation work?
i. Charge of Second-Degree murder
1. Intentional killing of a human being
ii. Prosecutor has to prove a prima facie case
iii. Defendant raises affirmative defense of Provocation
iv. All elements of provocation have to be proven
v. Provocation is a partial defense
e. Examples & Application
i. Trucker finds wife in bed with another man, gets drunk for two hours, gets
a gun, then goes back to chase off the guy and kill his wife
ii. Case: John Gounagias
XI. Unintentional killing
a. Involuntary Manslaughter
b. Negligent homicide
i. Civil v. criminal negligence
1. Criminal: should have been aware of a substantial
unjustifiable risk but failed to perceive it (gross)
2. Civil: should have been aware of an unjustifiable risk (accidental)
c. Reckless homicide
d. Examples
i. State v. Hernandez: D drinks a 12 pack and some whiskey, drives and
kills someone with his car. He had posted a bunch of signs and pins with
drinking slogans all over his van Charge: Reckless murder or involuntary
manslaughter?
ii. State v. Williams: 14-month-old child has toothache, and they don’t take
him to doctor. Mouth and cheek are infected with gangrene and after two
weeks the child dies
iii. Hypo: sleepy driver kills a jogger. He drifted off the road once before
hitting and killing jogger.
1. MPC?
2. Reckless mans v negl homicide
e. Causation
i. But-for cause: conduct necessary for result to occur
1. Would result have occurred if actor had not acted as he did?
2. Necessary v. sufficient
ii. Proximate cause: fuzzy standard
1. Black letter law
a. MPC: “Not too remote or accidental in its occurrence”
b. AZ: “rendered substantially more probable”
2. Foreseeability: would a reasonable person foresee that their
conduct would cause a particular result?
3. Intervening act: Breaks causal chain sufficiently to reduce or
eliminate criminal liability
a. Look for volitional choice by someone other than defendant
b. Was volitional choice foreseeable?
iii. Analysis
1. Case: Joe Govan
2. Commonwealth v. Root: D drag racing with victim on rural
highway. Cars racing at 70-90mph in 50mph zone. V goes to pass
D in two-lane section of highway. V tries to pass and collides head
on with oncoming truck.
a. Charged with involuntary manslaughter
b. Court reasoned need to apply more demanding standard in
criminal cases, not sufficient for criminal liability
3. Michelle Carter case
a. Texting to encourage suicide
b. Involuntary manslaughter
4. Hypo #40: two killers, one killing
a. Wood: Shot to stomach—fatal wound, but takes a week
i. But-for cause? Proximate cause? MPC liability?
ii. Wood not liable since intervening shooting from
Alma
b. Alma: Shot to chest—immediately fatal
i. But-for cause? Proximate cause? MPC liability?
5. Hypo #43: jump to escape and drown
a. But-for cause: yes
b. Proximate cause: not clear
c. Maybe reckless or negligent, not knowing
XII. Diminished Capacity (pp. 277-281): mens rea issue
a. NOTE: Different than insanity
i. Insanity: affirmative defense that excuses criminal behavior (see Insanity)
ii. DimCap: mental condition negates particular mens rea element of offense
1. Not an affirmative defense—failure to prove every element beyond
a reasonable doubt
b. MPC § 4.02(1): Admit evidence of mental disease or defect where it is relevant
to prove whether D had state of mind that is element of offense.
c. Applications
i. U.S. v. Brawner: Brawner injured in fight at party. Leaves but vows to
return, saying “someone is going to die tonight.” Returns 30 mins later and
fires into door of apartment. Two shots strike and kill guest.
1. Holding: evidence at trial of epilepsy can be considered by jury in
evaluating mental state required for offense
ii. California v. White
iii. Problem: #37