This site is 100% ad supported. Please add an exception to adblock for this site.



undefined, object
copy deck
MPC: §2.01 (1)
A person is not guilty of an offense unless his conduct is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or omission.

Proctor v. State
∆ charged with keeping a place with the intent to sell/give liquor. But there was no overt act to sell liquor.
MPC §2.01 (3)
Liability for offense based on omission only if either the statute says omission is enough or duty to perform is imposed by law.
Jones v. U.S.
∆ took in a friend\'s baby & baby dies of malnutrition (neglect).
1) Statute
2) Status Relationship
3) Contractual Duty
4)assumed care and secluded helpless person.

MPC § 2.01 (4)
Possession is in an act if the possessor knowingly procured or received, or aware of his control of it for enough time in which he could terminate his possession.
United States v. Maldonado
Δ then arrested for possession. Court says possession not only immediate physical possession, but also constructive possession. Cocaine left in room Δ was occupying & could easily return at will.
Martin v. State
∆ was taken by police from his home to the highway against his will and charged with public intoxication. Court held that the act element in the statute \"appear\" must be voluntary.
Common Law: Voluntariness
A person can not be guilty of a crime in the absence of voluntary conduct.
MPC §2.01(2)
Enumerates which acts are not voluntary (& only these): (a) a reflex or convulsion; (b) a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep; (c) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion; (d) not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.
People v. Grant
Δ assaults a police officer; his defense is that he suffers from epilepsy/seizure. If the conscious mind loses control over the body\'s acts, then the act was not voluntary (unless the involuntariness was anticipated – Δ acted to cause a situation where it would happen).
Common Law: Involuntariness
1) If there is adequate prior notice of the person\'s susceptibility to engage in involuntary conduct, and still acts consciously to cause that behavior, then those actions are voluntary (widens time frame)
2) Insanity is still voluntary because still making a choice to move body.
People v. Decina
Δ knew he was prone to seizures, and while driving, has a seizure & kills 4 ppl. The voluntary act is the choice to drive, knowing you’re prone to seizures. (diff if first time condition – like a heart attack, no warning).
Common Law: Possession
1) Actual Possession: having actual control over an object.
2) Constructive possession – the power and intention to exercise control, or dominion and control, over an object not in one\'s \"actual\" possession
1 Elements are (1) effective power over the thing possessed, and (2) the intention to control it.

Common Law: Status Offenses
It cannot be a crime to have a \"status\" of something, there must be an act.
Robinson v. California
Δ convicted being addicted to the use of narcotics. This is an addiction, a disease, can\'t punish someone for that – it is not voluntary.
Powell v. Texas
– statute made it a crime to be drunk while in public. This is not a status crime – doesn’t make the status of being an alcoholic criminal. Rather the act the statute is punishing is being drunk in public.
Pottinger v. City of Miami
– ordinance criminalizes certain activities from being done in public (like sleeping). Held this is invalid status offense - can\'t criminalize homeless for their daily activities performed in public, because being homeless is involuntary and part of their status.
MPC § 1.05 (1)
No conduct is an offense unless it is a crime or violation by statute.
Only the legislature can make laws
Ensure fair notice to ∆s so they can conform their conduct to the law. Must be a statute that 1. defines the crime 2. ahead of time (no retro active law making)
Ex post Facto
After the fact: a law that makes a criminal activity or eliminates a defense available to ∆ prior to its passage.
Rogers v. Tennessee
Δ stabs someone, who dies 15 months later from complications. CL rule where victim must die within a year & day of incident for Δ to be liable. Court says this rule no longer applicable because medical science has advanced & they can now tell what caused the death, and abolishes it.
i. Prospectivity - Doesn’t violate because rule is outdated, Δ put on notice it will no longer be used, most jurisdictions don’t use it anymore, plus because of the reasoning behind it no longer applies.
ii. Legislativity – doesn’t violate because this is a judge-made rule, not a legislative one.

statute cannot be vague, must be specific enough to give fair notice.
Chicago v. Morales
ordinance prohibits ppl from loitering in public. Held unconstitutionally vague. It did not provide sufficiently specific limits on the enforcement discretion of the police (may encourage discriminatory or arbitrary enforcement), nor did it provide sufficient notice to citizens – so vague you don’t know what is and isn\'t illegal.
if a criminal statute is ambiguous, court should construe statutes narrowly (in favor of ∆)
MPC § 2.02(1)
Minimum Requirements of Culpability: a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law may require, with each material element of the offense (Except Strict liability §2.05)
Common Law: Mens Rea
Guilty mind. Punish proscribed conduct only when accompanied by bad thoughts. Mens rea requirement is ambiguous 1)May refer to a general precept that punishment depends on proof that Δ acted with a guilty mind, or
2) May refer to the particular \"mental state\" the prosecution must prove to establish the Δ\'s guilt for a particular crime

Common law: Malum in se
1) Inherently bad Always felonies in CL
2) Need a guilty mind
3) Crimes have immediate impact (rape, murder, arson).
4) Harm on individual victim
5) Degree of punishment higher
6) higher punishment = higher mens rea

Common Law: Malum Prohibitum
1) Bad because legislature said so
2) Strict liability; No mens rea
3) not imminent; Risk of general public danger.
4) no direct victim (general public)
5) Often a culpable omission
6) degree of punish lower
7) lower punish = easier to impose strict

MPC § 2.05
Culpability requirements do not apply when (a) the offense is a violation (b) there is a clear legislative intent to impose absolute liability.
People v. Dillard
statute makes it a misdemeanor to carry a loaded firearm in public. Δ was carrying a firearm in public, not knowing it was loaded. The mens rea is that he knows he’s carrying a firearm. The statute imposes a duty to those that do so, to make sure it’s not loaded. Purpose of statute is to minimize danger, so if you’re going to carry a firearm in public, you have to make sure it’s not loaded.
Inferring or imputing Strict Liability
i.Look at statute to see if mens rea is an element of the offense. If not, and it is clear legislature intended to, court will impose strict liability, and no mens rea for government to prove.
U.S. v. Balint
statute made it a crime to sell narcotics w/o reporting to IRS. Δ argues he didn’t know the drugs were illegal (no mental state). Statute imposes strict liability (doesn’t make knowledge element of offense), so no mens rea to prove.
Morissette v. United States
Δ convicted for knowingly converting government property. Δ knew he took it, but thought it was abandoned property. Statute requires a knowing conversion – mens rea. No strict liability.
MPC § 1.04
distinguishes a violation from a crime. Violation is an offense punishable only by a fine or other civil penalty. Cannot be imprisoned for a violation. Liability is indefensible so you can\'t punish someone by taking away their freedom.
Common Law = General intent
Intent to commit any crime makes offender liable for any harm caused. The unlawful intent would \"transfer\" to the actual, but unintended result.
Specific Intent
need intent for specific harm caused.
1.Certain crimes require proof of specific intent – b/c only crimes b/c of intent to do harm (crimes involving an unfulfilled purpose, like attempt).
2. Also, CL courts or statute would define certain crimes needing a specific intent element

MPC 2.02 (5)
(5) When statute provides culpability, any higher culpability will also suffice to establish it.
MPC 2.02 (7)
(7) Knowledge established if person is aware of a high probability of existence, unless actor really believes it doesn’t exist.
Regina v. Faulkner
– Δ sailor on ship goes to steal rum; lights match, which spread and whole ship caught on fire. No intention to commit arson. Need to prove mental state for arson, either:
1.Purpose - Δ needs to have intended the act (arson) he is charged with; or
2.Knowledge - that it’s a necessary result consequence of another criminal act (theft)
3.Recklessness – the result was a foreseeable consequence of committing another criminal act

United States v. Jewell
Δ knew that it was highly likely that he was smuggling drugs into the U.S., but deliberately avoided positive knowledge to avoid responsibility if discovered. Held that willful blindness was equivalent to knowledge.
MPC 2.04(1)
Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if
(a) it negates the mens rea required to establish a material element of the offense(b) statute says the ignorance or mistake is a defense
Common Law: Mistake of Fact
. Mistake fact is a defense only to the extent that it negates mens rea required by statute (mistake or ignorance of facts that constitute elements of the offense).
Common Law: 1st degree murder
1) Premeditation
2) Malice - intent to kill or commit grievous bodily injury
3) Extreme Reckless Murder (abandoned and malignant heart)
4) Felony Murder- gov\'t shows BRD that death was a proximate result of felony

Common Law: Second Degree Murder
1) Malice without premeditation
Common Law Murder
1st Degree Murder
2nd Degree Murder
Common Law Manslaughter
Voluntary Manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter
Common Law: Voluntary Manslaughter
Provocation/ Heat of passion (Otherwise would be murder) w/ no cool down

CL Categories of provocation:
1) adultery 2) mutual Combat 3) physical attack.

Deck Info