Mens Rea, Actus Reus and Causation
What is actus reus? Under Common Law and MPC
Common Law -> actus reus is the actual criminal act. In order to be liable the act must be voluntary
MPC -> actus reus is a voluntary act. An act is not voluntary if it is: induced by hypnosis, muscle memory, seizure, or an act done while asleep
What is the felony murder rule? What is the main difference between the rule at Common law and MPC
The felony murder rule, holds a person liable for the death of another during the commission of a crime (with some limitations such as the agency approach). It is fairly similar in MPC and CL but the MPC has BARRKE and CL has BARRK.
Burglary Arson Rape Robbery Kidnapping and Felonious Escape
Does the necessity defense excuse homicide under common law?
No, the necessity defense would not excuse homicide, the only time homicide could be justified or excused is under the doctrines of self defense, defense of others and under rare occasions defense of property.
For inchoate offenses, would defendants prefer to be tried in a MPC jurisdiction or a CL jurisdiction?
What is the difference between retribution and utilitarianism? And which one does the MPC tend to prefer
Retribution is the idea that you have committed a moral wrong so you must be punished for it. Often its the idea of an eye for an eye. Insanity is a strong defense under this theory because you have not committed the moral wrong willingly
Utilitarianism is the idea of designing out crime, weighing the cost and the benefit. It has several smaller theories under it like deterrence, and incapacitation. The Model Penal Code tenders to prefer this as it is directly mentioned in the MPC.
What is Mens Rea? Under Common Law and MPC
Common Law -> Specific intent: which is what is written into the statue and General intent: which is not explicitly stated in the statue
MPC -> Purposeful: it was their conscious objective Knowingly: practically certain that it will happen Recklessly: there is a substantial and unjustifiable risk, that is a gross deviation from the standard, and you actually know this. Negligently: same as reckless but you should have been aware of it.
List the difference kinds of homicide under the model penal codes, and how they are different from Common Law
!). Murder, no grades
2). Manslaughter, there are not two types
3). Negligent homicide, does not exist under CL
4). Causing or aid Suicide, does not exist under CL
Spike although a punk rocker, has taken a vow to commit no harm. Spike is walking home one day, when Reily, his girlfriend's ex boyfriend approaches him. Reily is upset that his ex moved on, and starts yelling a Spike, and threatens to kill Spike. Spike runs back home, when he gets inside he grabs a knife and when Reily continues forward he stabs him. If Reily dies, does Spike have a defense? Is it an excuse or a justification?
Spike does have a defense, Self defense. Although Spike has a duty to retreat that duty ends if he is at home. Self defense is a justification, not an excuse.
Xander sends an email to Harmony, asking her to kill his wonderful too good for him girlfriend Anya. If Xander was an idiot and sent the email to a wrong address what could he be charged with under the common law?
Attempted Solicitation, if Xander had actually emailed the right address and he would have been guilty of solicitation but because he failed to correctly address the email he is only guilty under attempted solicitation. Under the MPC he would have been guilty of solicitation because there is not a requirement that the solicitation actually reach Harmony as long as Xander sent it.
What is mistake of law and what is mistake of fact?
Mistake of law is when a defendant has a wrongful idea about a law. Under CL it is only a defense if the defendant's mistake is due to a reliance on an official statement, if it is under constitutional notice, or where is negates the specific intent of the crime. Under MPC it is a defense if negates the mens rea, or the act is not published, or official statement.
Mistake of fact is when the defendant is wrong about an attendant circumstance. For example thinking an object is abandoned property when it is not. Under CL general intent crimes it is a defense when the mistake is reasonable. For specific intent crimes it is a defense as long as it is an honest belief. For MPC it is a defense if it negates the mens rea.
Faith is charged with owning a fox. If the state proves their case Faith could face up to three years in prison. Would Faith rather be in a common law jurisdiction or a model penal code jurisdiction?
This is a strict liability offense which means that Faith only needs to have an actus reus, that being owing a fox. It requires no mens rea. Under the MPC strict liability offense are highly disfavored and mens rea will likely be applied to the state. Under common law, strict liability is less disfavored although a court still might impose mens rea, because of the potential punishment.
Duke was driving at Dusk. His car has manual headlights. He forgot to turn them on, while he was driving he hit a dog walker. If the Dog walker died, what could Duck be charged with under the MPC and Common Law?
It depends
Under the MPC he could be charged with Negligent homicide because he should have turned on his headlights, however the state will have to prove that this is a gross deviation from the standard of care.
Under Common Law, he could be charged with involuntary manslaughter if he did not act with due care under the circumstances
Joyce is 99 years old. She cannot move, and can barely eat. The doctors estimate that she has 3 weeks left to live. Buffy and Dawn her two daughters hate to watch her suffer. They come up with a plan, the doctors have given them morphine, to help with the pain. Buffy and Dawn give her a lethal amount, and Joyce peacefully dies in her sleep. Do Buffy and Dawn have an excuse or a justification defense?
Neither, euthanasia is not recognized as a defense in either the model penal code or the common law. However if it is recognized in statue it could be an excuse but even then it is highly limited and under these circumstances would not be a defense.
Buffy and Willow agreed to rob the Master. They wanted to take things needed to stop the vampires. While robbing the Master Willow lit the layer on fire. Buffy saw the Master's Servant was home and stabbed him with a stake. The Servant died and the layer was destroyed. Can Buffy be charged with arson? Can Willow be charged with murder?
Buffy cannot be charged with arson. Unless the conspiracy is to rob the layer and than burn it down Bufffy does not have the specific intent to burn the house down. Willow on the other hand can be charged with murder because it was a natural and foreseeable event of the robbery. Furthermore under the felony murder rule Willow would be guilty anyways.
What is the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor?
A crime is a felony if it can have a sentence of more than a year. A misdemeanor is a crime that has a sentence less than a year.
Cordelia knows someone is watching her. While walking home one day, she hears footsteps behind her. She runs away, and goes inside. But the footsteps are still following her, she runs outside where she is strike by lighting. Synder had been the one chasing her, and stalking her. He calls the ambulance, and they pick her up trying to save her life. While driving to the hospital Synder shoots out the tires of the ambulance, causing a crash. Is Synder liable for Cordelia's death?
Amy, had a truly terrible mother. Amy's mother stole her life at one point. Stole her significant other and her friends. Amy just wanted her mother to go to bed. So she started giving her mom, sleeping pills in her dinner. If her mom was asleep she was free. One day, her mom dies due to the sleeping pills. If Amy was in a MPC Jurisdiction what is the highest level of crime she could be charged with?
Murder, by giving her mom sleeping pills every night she acted with reckless and extreme indifference to her mothers life. Although Amy's attorney could try and get her charged with the lessor offense of manslaughter.
Wesley is a 14 year old boy. He's been having really bad nightmares about a giant monster killing him. One day when he is walking home from school he sees the monster and throws a walk at it. It turns out the monster was actually Giles wearing a monster costume for reading hour. Does Wesley have a defense under the infancy doctrine in the MPC? Does he have another excuse under the MPC?
No under the model penal code, infancy is not a defense. Rather under the MPC, because Wesley is under 14 years old, he would go to Juvenile court unless he is waived up. Instead Wesley would have a better argument under insanity that being because of his nightmares of being killed by a monster he was so disturbed that he did not appreciate the wrongfulness of hurting Giles.
The council of watchers, hired Giles to watch over Buffy while she worked to kill all the evil in Sunny Dale. At the same time unknown by Buffy, Faith was also being watched over by Giles, as she also worked to kill all the evil in Sunny Dale. What type of conspiracy is this? Is Buffy liable for Faiths actions? (Hint draw it out)
This would be a chain conspiracy. With the council watchers at top, Giles being a middleman and Faith and Buffy at the bottom. Because it is a chain conspiracy Buffy would be liable for Faiths acts even if she does not know Faith exists.
What are the five privisons governing the definition of offenses?
1). to forbid and prevent conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests
2). to subject public control persons whose conduct indicates that the are disposed to commit crime
3). to safeguard conduct that is without fault from condemnation as criminal
4). to give fair warning of the nature of the conduct declared to constitute an offense
5). to differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor offenses
Angel was hired to look after Willow and Tara. Xander was jealous of the relationship between Willow and Tara. In an act of pure jealous and in the thaws of extreme emotion he stabs Tara. Tara starts to bleed out while Angel just watches and does nothing. If Tara dies is Xander guilty of murder? Is Angel also liable for Tara's death?
Xander would be liable for Tara's death because he purposely stabbed her. Although he could try to argue manslaughter, jealousy is not adequate provocation. Furthermore Angel could also be liable for Tara's death although to a much lessor extent than Xander. Angel was under contract to look after Tara, and thus had a duty to aid her after she was stabbed.
Darla is in a major fight with Buffy. Its intense and violent. While fighting Buffy slams Darla down onto the floor fracturing her skull. She starts bleeding out, and Buffy gets help. Unforcentently Buffy is too late, and Darla passes. Under common law, what crime is Buffy likely to be charged with?
Voluntary manslaughter. This falls under the heat of passion doctrine, as Darla was killed in an act of mutual combat.
Spike opened the door to his house. He saw a figure standing next to his TV, the figure saw Spike, and started to run away. Spike had a crossbow and shot the figure. If the figure ends up dying, does Spike have a defense under the MPC? If he does is it an excuse or a justification?
Spike has a defense of property, which is a justification. Spike can use deadly force if someone is trying to rob him.
Giles loved french cheese, but he knew it was illegal to bring them into the United States. He convinced Willow to smuggle the cheese into the country. It turns out that the type of Cheese Willow smuggle was actually not illegal in the US. What crimes can Giles and Willow be charged with under the MPC? Any defenses?
They can be charged with conspiracy to smuggle and smuggling. However because they are only guilty of one offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense under the MPC they would merge together. So Giles and Willow would only be charged with Smuggling.
There is a defense of legal impossibility unless Willow smuggled in more then just the legal cheese.
What is pathological intoxication?
It is intoxication that the act does not know they are susceptible. For example Medication with side effects you shouldn't know about. It is an affirmative defense, if it leads to a person failing the insanity test.