Fur Day
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Mens Rea (intent)
Common Law (2):
> General Intent & Specific Intent
MPC (4):
> Knowingly, Recklessly, Recklessly, Negligently
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Willful Blindness
Common Law: "willful blindness" (deliberately shielding yourself from the truth) satisfies the mens rea of "knowledge".
MPC: Under the MPC, having a subjective awareness of a high probability of a fact's existence is classified only as recklessness, not knowledge.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Voluntary Intoxication
Common Law: allows voluntary intoxication as a defense only to specific intent crimes, and never to general intent crimes.
MPC: allows intoxication as a defense if it "negatives an element of the offense," but specifically prohibits the defense if the required mental state is recklessness and the defendant was unaware of the risk solely because they were drunk.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Mistake of Fact
ALSO WHAT IS MISTAKE OF LAW?
Common Law: the validity of a mistake of fact defense depends on whether the crime is a general intent offense (requiring an honest and reasonable mistake) or a specific intent offense (requiring only an honest mistake).
MPC: a mistake of fact is a defense anytime it "negates an element of the offense".
> Mistake of Law: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," with very narrow exceptions: Entrapment by Estoppel (reasonably relying on an official statement from a government official) and specific "willful" tax offenses.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Mistake of Age (Statutory Rape):
Common Law: statutory rape is a strict liability offense where a reasonable mistake regarding the victim's age is never a defense.
MPC: Compromises by allowing a reasonable mistake of age defense, unless the victim is under 10 years old.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Proximate Cause
Common Law: The common law uses the concept of "proximate cause" to limit liability, relying on a set of factors (such as foreseeability or voluntary human intervention) to determine if an intervening cause breaks the causal chain.
MPC: The MPC abandons "proximate cause" entirely, instead asking if the actual result is too "remote or accidental" in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Attempt (Actus Reus):
Common Law: The common law utilizes various tests (such as the Dangerous Proximity Test or the Unequivocality Test) to distinguish innocent preparation from a criminal attempt.
MPC: The MPC uses the "Substantial Step" test, requiring an act that is strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Attempt (Abandonment):
Common Law: At common law, once an actor crosses the line into a punishable attempt, abandonment is not a valid defense.
MPC: The MPC recognizes complete and voluntary "renunciation" of the criminal purpose as an affirmative and complete defense.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Solicitation
Common Law: Under common law, a solicitation message must actually reach the intended recipient for the crime to be complete.
MPC: Under the MPC, an "uncommunicated" solicitation is still a crime if the actor engaged in conduct designed to effect communication. The MPC also provides an affirmative defense of renunciation if the solicitor successfully prevents the crime.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Conspiracy (Theory of Agreement):
Common Law: The common law follows the "Bilateral Theory," requiring a genuine meeting of the minds between at least two people; if one person feigns agreement (like an undercover officer), there is no conspiracy.
MPC: The MPC uses the "Unilateral Theory," focusing on individual culpability, meaning a defendant is guilty if they agreed, regardless of whether the other party actually intended to commit the crime.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Conspiracy (Withdrawal/Abandonment):
Common Law: At common law, withdrawing from a conspiracy prevents liability for future target crimes committed by co-conspirators, but it is not a defense to the already completed charge of conspiracy.
MPC: The MPC offers a "renunciation" defense that can defeat the conspiracy charge itself, provided the defendant actually thwarts the crime from happening.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Natural and Probable Consequences:
Common Law: The common law holds an accomplice vicariously liable for secondary crimes committed by the principal if those crimes were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the primary intended crime.
MPC: The MPC explicitly rejects and abandons the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Attempting to Aid
Common Law: At common law, an actor is not an accomplice if their effort to help fails entirely or if the primary crime never occurs.
MPC: Under the MPC, a person can be an accomplice if they "attempt to aid" the principal, even if their assistance is completely ineffective.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Self-Defense (Reasonable Belief):
Common Law: Common law self-defense rules require a defendant's belief of imminent peril to be both subjective and objectively reasonable.
MPC: The drafters of the MPC chose a wholly subjective test, deliberately omitting any requirement of "reasonableness".
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Self-Defense (The Aggressor Rule):
Common Law: At common law, an initial aggressor loses the right to self-defense entirely unless they completely withdraw from the conflict and communicate it.
MPC: Under the MPC, if an initial aggressor attacks with nondeadly force (like fists), and the victim responds with excessive deadly force, the initial aggressor regains the right to defend themselves with deadly force and retains a justification defense against homicide.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Duress
Common Law: The common law requires the coercive threat to be "present, imminent, and impending".
MPC: The MPC evaluates conduct against an objective standard of "a person of reasonable firmness in his situation" and uniquely allows the defense even if the actor is reasonably mistaken about the threat.
Difference between MPC and Common Law:
Insanity
Common Law: The common law (M'Naghten rule) uses a purely cognitive test requiring total mental impairment, meaning the defendant did not "know" the act was wrong.
MPC: The MPC utilizes a broader test requiring that the defendant lacked "substantial capacity" (not total impairment) to either "appreciate" the wrongfulness of their conduct (the cognitive prong) OR "conform" their conduct to the requirements of the law (the volitional/control prong).
What are the The Categories of Accomplice Liability? (4)
You need to know the historical Common Law categories of participation, and how modern law has changed them:
1.) Principal in the First Degree: The person who actually commits the crime.
2.) Principal in the Second Degree: A person who aids, abets, or encourages the crime while present at the scene.
3.) Accessory Before the Fact: A person who aids or encourages the crime, but is not present when it occurs.
4.) Accessory After the Fact: A person who hinders detection or arrest after the crime has already been committed.
> The Modern Shift: Under common law, these rigid categories created procedural loopholes (e.g., an accessory couldn't be tried before the principal).
> Today, the Model Penal Code (MPC) and modern jurisdictions have largely abolished these distinctions, holding accomplices DIRECTLY accountable as principals.
Felony Murder Limits (3)
(1) The Merger Limitation dictates that assaultive felonies (like child abuse) cannot support a felony murder charge; the underlying felony must have an independent purpose (like robbery).
(2) Agency Approach (felon is only liable if they or a co-felon do the killing)
(3) Proximate Cause Approach (felon is liable even if a third party, like a cop, accidentally kills someone).
The Two-Step Causation Analysis (Actual vs. Proximate) For any result crime, you must prove both.... (2)... and can you name the theories of them?
1.) Actual Cause:
> Use the But-For test (result wouldn't happen but for the act)
> the Substantial Factor test (used when two independent acts are each sufficient alone to cause the harm)
> The Acceleration Theory (hastening the death of someone already dying).
2.) Proximate Cause: Limits liability for unforeseeable events. You must know what breaks the causal chain (a superseding cause).
> Key examples include the Apparent Safety Doctrine (if a victim reaches safety and voluntarily returns to danger, the chain is broken)
> Voluntary Human Intervention (a victim's free and deliberate choice to operate recklessly, like a drag racer crashing on their own).
Impossibility Defenses (3)
(1 & 2) Factual and hybrid legal impossibility have been abolished in most jurisdictions and are no defense.
(3) Pure legal impossibility (believing you are committing a crime when the law doesn't actually prohibit your conduct) remains a valid defense.
What does the Pinkerton Rule Apply Under?
What is the Pinkerton rule?
What is Whartons Rule?
Conspiracy
Pinkerton: All conspirators are vicariously liable for the completed substantive crimes of their co-conspirators, as long as those crimes were reasonably foreseeable and committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Whartons: You cannot charge someone with conspiracy for a crime that inherently requires multiple people to commit (e.g., dueling, bigamy, adultery) unless extra people are involved.
Duty to Retreat?
Castle Exception?
What are these considered?
The Duty to Retreat rules (Common Law requires retreat; modern majority allows "Stand Your Ground")
The Castle Exception (no duty to retreat in your own home).
They are considered to be self defense.
Necessity Elements (4):
> What's the limit?
(1) Defendant was faced with the choice of two evils and he chooses the lesser evil;
(2) Defendant acted to prevent imminent harm;
(3) Defendant reasonably anticipated a direct and casual relationship between his acts and the harm to be averted;
(4) Defendant had no legal alternative but to violate the law.
>Limit: you can't murder an innocent person.
ECONOMIC NECESSITY ALONE CANNOT SUPPORT CHOICE OF EVIL DEFENSE!
The Insanity Tests and Mistake Doctrines You need to know the specific formulas for these major affirmative defenses:
> The four insanity tests