Criminal law outline:

Quick overview:
-Specific intent crimes: 1) intent to do the act (crime), 2) the intent of the act was achieved
-General intent crime: 1) intent to do an act, not the specific crime, 2) an (crime) act occurred
-Strict liability crime: no requirement of mens rae, just requires an act to have occurred

*Actus reus: Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in
combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind" is a crime.

i. Offenses against the person

a. Homicide: is the killing of a human being by another human being, common law
1. Suicide does not count as homicide
2. It is not homicide for a human to kill an animal or for an animal to kill a
human
3. An animal maybe used to help in assisting killing a human like a horse
running over a person but in that case the person is responsible for the
killing
4. It is not considered to be homicide unless the death resulted a year and
a day after the incident “party die within a year and a day of the stroke.”
common law
5. In order to be homicide the person must be born, and proven to be died
ii. Death:
1. A person is considered to be dead when the heart-beat and breathing
stops common law rule
2. In a case a person when the victim died because of a malfunctioning
respirator, after being the attacked the defendant’s was still convicted
of murder because the court used the brain dead concept
3. In a case where the victim died after being attacked and suffered brain
damaged. The doctored contributed to the death by removing a life-
saving device. However, the defendant was still convicted because the
court held that the brain damage was irreversible brain death before
the victim was taken off life support
4. Determination of death act: 1) irreversiable cessation of circulatory and
respiratory functions or 2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the
entire brain, brain death has become part of common law death
iii. Infanticide
1. The killing of an infant is not homicide according to common law
2. It is homicide only when the deceased was born aive
a. Alive is considered to be apart from the mother’s body and
established a separate circulation
b. In some cases it is still sufficient as to be considered as born
alive even when the child has not cut the cord with its mother
 c. Keeler, an infant in the womb is not a child and cannot be
subjected to homicide therefore there cannot be murder.
d. An infant that is born alive but dies from injuries that were
inflicted while it was in the womb would still constitutes as
homicide
e. But if such injuries causes the child to be born died then it is not
homicide, probably battery
iv. One seriously ill or wounded
1. It is still homicide to shorten the life of one suffering from an incurable
disease, or one already dying from a mortal injury
2. On the other hand if two people contributed to the homicide like a
stabs b and then x shoots b and b dies from bleeding to death both are
responsible for homicide
3. Unless X comes along and just cuts the victims head off then x is
responsible not A.
v. The place and time of homicide
1. The situs (place) of homicide at common law is where the fatal force
was inflicted.
2. Homicide was is not committed until the moment the victim dies
vi. Innocent homicide: as a matter of criminal law, means homicide which does not
involve criminal guilt
1. There are two types of homicide (1) criminal homicide, (2) innocent
homicide
a. Two kinds of innocent homicide: 1) justified and (2) excusable
b. Homicide is justifiable when it is either commanded or
authorized by law
- Ex. killing of an enemy on the field of battle as
an act of war and within the rules of war, and
the execution
- Ex. of authorized are arresting a murderer or
some felons on preventing their escape or
recapturing them, lawful self-defense against an
assault which threatens the defenders life or is
a risk to causing serious bodily harm, and actual
resistance of an attempt to commit a violent
felony
vii. Criminal homicide: Is homicide without lawful justification or excuse
a. Two types murder and manslaughter
2. Murder: homicide committed with malice aforethought
a. “aforethought” is a design thought out in advance of the fatal
act.
 i. Time is not required only the element of reflection is
sufficient to prove aforethought. (similar to pre-
medation)
b. Malice: actual intent to kill or to inflict great bodily injury
i. Malice is an element in all form of murder
c. Implied malice: Wanton and willful disregard of unreasonable
human risk.
i. It is considered to be malicious intent when a person is
aware of a substantial risk but consciously disregards it
ii. Essential for the conviction of deprave heart murder
d. Felony murder rule: homicide is murder if the death results
from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an
inherently dangerous felony.
i. The death occurred during the process of the
committing the crime.
ii. No intent is necessary under this doctrine just the
felonious act.
- For a felony murder conviction, the state is not
required to prove any specific intent to kill,
premeditation or malice
- Must prove that the felony was inherently
dangerous
- Not all felony are inherently dangerous
iii. The conviction would be for first degree murder
e. Resisting lawful arrest:
i. In ancient law homicide resulting from resisting arrest is
murder, but today there is no firm ground on this
f. Merger Doctrine:
i. Manslaughter cannot be the underlying felony offense
the merger doctrine prevents this.
ii. merger doctrine: requires that the underlying offense
be separate and distinct,
- to prevents any manslaughter crimes from
being converted into a murder case.
iii. any crimes that deal with assault cannot be used as a
felony murder
iv. Perform this analysis if the other crimes were not listed
as any other crimes located on the cart if felony murder
was not applied.
3. Person endangering state of mind:
a. Includes state of mind necessary for murder:
 b. 1) Intent to kill, 2) An intent to inflict great bodily harm, or 3) an
intent to do an act in wanton and willful disregard of an
unreasonable human risk (the willful doing of a wanton act
under such circumstances that there is obviously a plain and
strong likelihood that death or great bodily harm may result 4)
an intent to perpetrate a dangerous felony.
c. Malice Aforethought: is an unjustifiable, inexcusable and
unmitigated person endangering state of mind.
4. Presumption of malice: express v. implied malice
a. Presumption of malice is called implied malice when an express
intent to kill is not present but can be implied from the
circumstances
b. There is malice aforethought but no intent to kill is implied
malice
5. Burden of proof: the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a
reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged and any effort
to shift his burden by a presumption or otherwise is unconstitutional
but if the defendant invoked an affirmative defense then it would not
be unconstitutional to shift the burden of proof to the defendant.
a. Model Penal Code:
i. Criminal homicide: a person is guilty of criminal
homicide if he purposely, knowingly recklessly or
negligently causes the death of another human being
ii. Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter, or
negligent homicide
iii. Murder: criminal homicide is committed when the actor
did so purposely and knowingly (specific intent) without
justification or excuse.
iv. Murder only includes homicide that is criminal
b. Manslaughter: unlawful homicide committed without malice aforethought
i. (1) voluntary and (2) involuntary manslaughter
ii. Voluntary manslaughter: an intentional homicide committed in a sudden rage of
passion engendered by adequate provocation
iii. Rule of provocation: no actual premeditation necessary unlike in first degree
murder but just provocation from the circumstances.
iv. In order for a killing, which would otherwise be murder to reduce to
manslaughter under the rule of provocation there are for requirements
1. There must have been adequate provocation (words are never
sufficient)
2. The killing must have been in the heat of passion
3. It must have been sudden heart of passion that is the killing must have
followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable
opportunity for the passion to cool
4. Provocation test:
a. the person was being provoked.
b. the reasonably prudent person in the same situation would be
provoked.
c. the provoked has not cooled off
d. a reasonably prudent person in the same situation would not
have cooled off.
5. There must have been a causal connection between the provocation
and the passion and the fatal act.
a. (1) adequate provocation: there must not only be provocation
but provocation of such a nature as to be recognized by law as
adequate for this purpose.
i. A person would have provocation if:
- brutally attacked but not killed,
- unlawful arrest,
- adultery,
- mutual combat
ii. If a person is in imminent danger of losing their life the
crime can be reduced to voluntary manslaughter or no
crimes at all.
iii. (a) mutual quarrel or combat
- A word altercation will not itself be sufficient to
mitigate to manslaughter a killing that is
otherwise murder.
- On the other hand mutual encounter which
goes beyond words to actual blows or to a
manifestation of intent to use immediate and
violent force may constitute adequate
provocation and in determining the adequacy of
the provocation in such a case the entire
quarrel including the words would be taken into
consideration
- An attack is not considered to be mutual
b. Battery: not every technical battery is sufficient to constitute
adequate provocation but a hard blow inflicting considerable
pain or injury will ordinarily be sufficient
c. Assault: in a case where a person was shot at with a gun and
missed and killed the shooter then was sufficient in provocation
to be considered manslaughter
 d. But an unsuccessful attempt to commit battery is usually not
enough to invoke provocation
e. Gesture: are not considered to be adequate for provocation
unless the gesture indicates an intent to attack with deadly
force maybe adequate but in those circumstances self-defense
might be invoked
f. Trespass: is not adequate provocation if it is not in or upon the
dwelling house and does not involve any personal danger to the
slayer. But just like gesture it might not even be considered a
crime if the trespasser presented danger.
g. Other provocation act:
i. When a husband see his wife in the act of adultery then
it is considered to be sufficient provocation
ii. Test for provocation in class:
- There was a reason for the heat of passion
- A reasonable person would be in heat of
passion
- There person has not have enough time to cool
down
- A reasonable person would not have cooled
down as well
c. Involuntary manslaughter (homicide by criminal negligence)
i. No criminal guilt necessary; whoever causes death to another without intent
but as a result of negligence still incurs liability under this doctrine
ii. Includes all homicides that are not murder and without intent.
iii. Must be left to the jury to decide if the act was accidental or count have been
avoided
1. And if it could have been avoided how far from the RPP test did the
actor deviate by not taking action to avoid the risk (substantial risk)
2. Three deviation: A little, moderate, and large deviation from what a
reasonably person would behave.
a. A little is considered to be negligence (tort) (not a crime)
b. A moderate is criminal negligence and can be used to convict a
person for involuntary manslaughter. (crime)
c. A large deviation, criminal recklessness can be convicted of
second degree, deprave heart murder. (Crime)
d. Homicide by unlawful act (the misdemeanor manslaughter rule)
i. Homicide resulting from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an
unlawful act, less than a dangerous felony
ii. Model Penal code:
1. Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when:
a. It is committed recklessly or
 b. Would constitute as murder but with provocation
e. Negligent homicide: any killing below the grade of manslaughter is innocent homicide.
(criminal homicide= murder, manslaughter and criminally negligence homicide =
negligence homicide)
i. Four Classification of homicides:
1. First degree murder,
2. Second degree murder,
3. Manslaughter
4. Negligence homicide (the killing of a human being by criminal
negligence)
f. Degrees of criminal homicide
i. Murder: all murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in
wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing or which
shall be committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any arson,
rape, robbery, or burglary, shall be deemed as first degree murder
1. Punishment for first degree murder is death sentence.
2. First degree murder can be defined as malice aforethought express or
implied with premeditation.
3. Three categories of first degree murder:
a. By specific means (poison, torture, BARRK)
b. By lying in wait or any kind of willful or deliberate act of
premeditated killings
c. By felony murder restricted to certain specific felonies
ii. Manslaughter: divided into two degrees, voluntary and involuntary mans.
1. Voluntary: recklessly causing death or intentional and unlawful killing
2. Involuntary: killing with criminal negligence \
g. Corpus delicti Rule:
i. Under this rule: no (involuntary) confession or admission outside of court may
be introduced in as evidence until the element of corpus deliciti has been
established.
1. Involuntary confession are confessions that are impelled by any form of
physical or psychological coercion or duress
ii. No criminal conviction can be based upon defendant’s confession or admission
although otherwise admissible unless there is other evidence tending to
establish the corpus delicti rule.
iii. This means that the prosecutor must prove the elements of murder for them
use the confession as evidence.
1. Victim is actually dead
2. That death was caused by the criminal agency of some other person,
and
3. If both are not established then in can implicate the corpus delitic rule
 a. In cases where a body was never found or person was proven to
be dead maybe missing a confession outside of court would not
be admitted as evidence under this doctrine.
b. In the warmike, the defendant admitted in court that her child
was dead, established one of the elements of the corpus delicti
of murder.
c. No out of court statements can be used to establish the
element of the corpus delicti
ii. Assault and battery
Assault is an attempt or offer to commit battery
Battery is the successful accomplishment of that attempt
a. Battery: CLD is the unlawful application of force to the person of another
i. If application of force was consented to then it is not battery
ii. Battery requires an intentional application of force to another person
iii. Unlawful offensive touching, another common definition
iv. Originally a specific intent crime.
v. All batteries includes the attempt to assault
vi. It can be attempted battery assault if there was intention to harm
b. Assault: (1) an attempt to commit a battery or (2) an intentional placing of another in
imminent apprehension of harm (pretty much attempted battery)
i. There is no such thing as attempted assault in criminal law maybe tort
ii. In a case to frighten with intent to bluff or scare an person by faking bodily harm
it considered assault.
iii. Common law assault is included in battery
iv. Assault can be committed in three ways
1. Attempting to commit a battery
2. Threatening to commit a battery or
3. Actually committing a batter
v. Threat must be imminent, and by themselves are not sufficient
 1st degree assault: when there is an intention to kill with a gun or a
deadly weapon
 2nd degree assault: when there is no intention to harm
 3rd degree assault with there is evidence an intent to scare
iii. Abduction: child stealing, intention to take a child from their legal guardian????????
iv. Abortion the willful bringing about of the miscarriage of a women without justification or
excuse (intent is necessary)
a. If there is a requirement to be necessary then it is not considered to be common law
abortion, like for example danger to the mother.
v. Rape and carnal knowledge of a child.
a. Rape is non consensual, sexual intercourse, with a women, not the actor’s wife.
 i. There has to be consent and if the female is too drunk to say no it can still be
rape because consent was never given
b. Requires sexual penetration to be Rape
c. Statutory rape is general intent and strict liability crime, no intent is necessary
i. It does not matter if the minor consented to sex and if the actor did not know
the minor was not of age
d. Rape on grounds of FRAUD: there are two kinds
i. pretended medical treatment
ii. pretend husband (in the dark)
e. a boy under the age of 14 is incapable of committing rape (common law)
vi. False imprisonment: is the unlawful confinement of a person
vii. Kidnapping: aggravated false imprisonment
a. Common law definition: forcible abduction or stealing away of a man woman or child
from his own country and sending him or her into another
b. Simple kidnapping: kidnapping such as holding for ransom or where the victim is injured
and does not fall within the type of misconduct as child stealing
c. Aggravated kidnapping: kidnapping for ransom
d. Child stealing: can be under abduction and kidnapping
i. Consent from a child is never sufficient to excuse this offense
ii. Common law def: anyone who shall take entice or detain a child under a specific
age with intent to keep or conceal it from its parents, guardian or other peson
having lawful care or control thereof.
viii. Other offenses against the person:
a. Mayhem: (common law def): maliciously depriving another of the use of such of his
members as may render him less able in fighting either to defend himself or to annoy his
adversary
i. In other words, malicious maiming of another (modern US law)
b. Dueling: prearranged fighting with deadly weapon usually under certain agreed rules
i. does not require someone to get hurt to die just need the knowledge and
understanding that they are intentionally provoke such a challenge of a duel
c. Robbery: is larceny from the person by violence or intimidation

III. Offenses against habitation and occupancy:

I. Burglary (common law def): is the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another in
the nighttime with intent to commit a felony therein.
Six elements for the crime of burglary: 1) the breach, 2) the entry, 3) the dwelling 4) of another
5) the nighttime, 6) burglarious intent.
a. Breaking (The breach): the word break is used no damage or destruction of the
property is necessary, just the mere crossing of an imaginary line which would
normally constitute as trespass.
i. You can break into a home but not out of a home
b. There are two types of breaking actual and constructive breaking
c. Actual breaking:
 i. If entering through an open door or window would not constitute as
breaking.
ii. However, opening a door or window that is not locked without consent is
still considered as breaking
d. Constructive breaking can be implied when a servant opens a door with the
felonious intent to commit a felony is considered as breaking
1. False pretenses, trick or fraud to gain entry or by device
2. Threat of violence
3. A person who is given the key to enter into a home at anytime is not
capable of committing a breaking unless is restricted by a specific
hour.
e. the entry (entering): if any part of a person is within the house is sufficient for an
entry
1. if a wrongdoer puts his hand inside the pane out of a window it can
be considered as entry
a. if a tool is used to accomplished a felonious act and not just
to get entry it constitutes as breaking and entering
b. a bullet can be considered as a tool to commit the felony by
shooting into the home to kill a person.
f. dwelling: a person’s home
1. to be a dwelling or a place of habitation it must be used as a place
to sleep in and the fact that the owner uses it for his meals and all
the purposes of his business is not enough.
a. A structure has to be big enough for a person to stand up in
to be considered a dwelling
2. Business buildings such as banks stores shops and factories are not
within the scope of common law burglary.
a. But a business can be considered a dwelling if the business
owners sleeps in the business as an apartment regularly,
and not just on rare occasions.
3. There must be a permanent occupation of the structure to be
considered a dwelling.
a. If it is a house but no one is living in it at the moment and
the home owner does not intent to move back into it
cannot be subjected to burglary.
b. If a person intends to return to the home then it is
considered to be a dwelling.
c. Building within the cartilage: the court yard of the
surrounding house can be subjected to burglary
d. Building in connection to use of the dwelling is considered
to be subjected to burglary
e. A structure across the highway cannot be subjected to
burglary
f. CLD: an outhouse is regarded as a dwelling if its connected
or within a common fence
g. A building not enclosed with the dwelling is not within the
cartilage cannot be subjected to burglary.
 g. Of another: a landlord can commit burglary by breaking into the house he has
leased to another.
i. But a dweller cannot commit burglary by breaking into his own dwelling no
matter what the purpose was for.
ii. In situations where a room is set out as an exclusive dwelling of another, it
is possible to be subjected to burglary.
iii. A hotel can be considered a dwelling house even if the occupant are
transients because it is regularly occupied as a place for a person to sleep
h. In the Nighttime: is the time between one 30 mins after the setting of the sun on
one day, and 30 mins before the rising of the same on the following day.
i. It cannot be burglary if it was between these to times.
ii. It deals with sunset and sunrise
i. Intent to commit a felony or any larceny therein (Burglarious intent): larceny is
usually the purpose for which burglary is committed but it is not essential to guilt
that the intruder succeed in carrying out the intent with which the dwelling was
broken into.
i. Intent to commit a felony or any larceny therein is required to be burglary
ii. A person can be convicted of burglary if they break and enter a home in the
night time with the intent to kill someone, because of the fact to commit a
felony.
iii. The felony can be crimes like murder, rape, robbery, etc.
j. Therein: the intent to commit the crime must be within the structure itself not
another.
II. Arson: CLD is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another
a. Malicious: voluntary and willful intent to burn the dwelling of another
i. In CL there is no arson if the person is burning his own home
b. Burning: unless there is a burning there is no arson but doesn’t need to be total
destruction of the building or even any considerable damage thereto.
i. If any part of the house be burnt it can be considered as arson.
c. Of a Dwelling: has to be a habituated home for it to be subjected to arson
d. Of another: CL the burning of one’s own home is not considered to be arson
iv. Offenses against property
I. There are five theft offenses:
a. Larceny;
b. Larceny by misrepresentation;
c. Embezzle;
d. false pretenses;
e. Robbery.
i. When looking at a fact pattern of theft must look for possession, lying, violence,
title and possession

II. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with
intent to steal the same.
a. Six element necessary to be larceny
i. Trespassory Taking (against the will of the owner)
1. Without consent
ii. and carrying away
 iii. the personal property
1. If an animal is good to eat or is used in the production of food it can be
considered an object of larceny.
iv. of another
v. w/ the intent
vi. -to steal it
1. if not considered stole property then it cannot be larceny when
receiving stolen property
b. Larceny is an offense against possession not title:
i. in the case when the defendant dry cleaned her clothes and don’t pay them for
it and take them it is still larceny because the item at that time was in the
possession of the dry cleaner
ii. it does not matter the property owner’s title in this situation but only the
rightful possession of the item.
iii. So items that is in your title can still be subjected to larceny by the title owner,
example car repair.
c. Rule: A dead person cannot possess anything (people v. walker)
i. The owner of the possession is the one who was given the estate in the will.
ii. So money on a dead person can be subjected to larceny
iii. Abandon property on the other hand cannot be subjected to larceny
iv. No wild animal is possessed by anyone one, but when killed upon the soil they
become the absolute property of the owner of the soil and the things taken
away should not be one continuous act to equal larceny.
d. Larceny:is an offense against possession
i. If title passes it is not larceny depending on the situation it can be another
offense
ii. There are debate if larceny or larceny trick is one or two separate offense
e. Lost personal property
i. First thing to decide is if there are any clues to ownership.
1. if yes, second thing, did the person take the money with a good or bad
state of mind.
ii. If a person finds personal property that have been actually lost and appropriates
them with intent to take dominion over them, believing the owner cannot be
found it is not larceny.
1. to be considered not recoverable property there has to be no clue
regarding ownership, the it does not matter what the finders state of
mind is in this case.
2. when you find a property and there is no clue to ownership even with a
bad state of mind then there is no trespassary taking , therefore no
larceny.
3. when you find a property with a clue to ownership and a good state of
mind then there is no larceny.
4. when there is clue to ownership, and the owner can be reasonable
found, and the finder still intends to take the property (bad state of
mind) then it is considered larceny.
 f. Larceny by trick (the same exact elements) when a person typically lies to get
possession the property from the victim. (lying to gain possession)
III. Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of personal property by a person to whom it
was entrusted either by the owner.
a. Embezzlement came was enacted because theft from trusting owners did not qualify as
larceny since it was not trespassory taking when there was consent to possession of the
personal property
b. custody is given to the person entrusted with the money but not possession.
i. typically when the master hands something to the server the master retains the
possession, 2 exceptions:
1. When a great deal of trust is involved (car lease, home etc.)
2. Or when something is handled over for the servant’s benefits
IV. False pretense: (lying to acquire title) general material misrepresentation which cause the
victim to pass title to the wrongdoer, and that was the intention of the wrongdoer during
the misrepresentation.
i. Can be determined to be false pretenses when the actor initially had the
intention to acquire the title on false pretenses
ii. In order to have false pretenses, transfer title must be rightfully transferred and
if not larceny by trick had accorded.
V. Robbery (Larceny +2):
a. Involves violence
b. Or intimidation
VI. Extortion:
a. Common law definition is the corrupt collection of an unlawful fee by an officer under
the color of the law.
b. Modern definition deals with blackmail. Know for final
VII. Solicitation: asking someone to commit a crime and really meaning it.
Know chapter 5 alternative crimes for final:
i. Forgery: tailoring or making a document as to make it false or untrue requires a
material or significant alteration.
ii. Counterfeiting: making false money
iii. Extortion: corruption of an unlawful fee by a state office to get money, similar to
bribery but the person is action as a state office when getting the money
a. Statue: unlawful extraction of money by means of a threat the would not constitute
robbery
iv. Receiving and concealing stole property: has to know (RPP standard) that the
property was stolen
v. Malicious mischief: the malicious destruction to another’s property of another
can be personal or real property (vandalism)
vi. Computer crime: access of data without permission, (permission to access)
damaginging destroying or misuse of data, stole computer service
vii. Bigamy: more than one wife
viii. Incest: sexual relation with a relative, depending on statue
ix. Seduction: no longer a law, common law men tricking a women
x. Sodomy: anal sex or sex with an animal
 VIII. Duty to act or not to act:
a. Failure to act when there is a duty to do so is a crime
i. Duty can arise from:
1. parent,
2. Landowner
3. spouse,
4. contract,
5. employment/employer
6. Voluntary assumption of duty and seclusion
ii. Duty to pay taxes, and remain at the scene of the accident, coming from
statutes.
1. “moral duty is not the same as a legal duty”

v. Attempt crimes:
I. Attempt (crime): Must consider these four things for an attempt fact pattern:
Specific intent; Perpetration + preparation; impossibility; abandonment
-Specific intent (intox. Can be a defense against specific intent crime) Mens rae
-Preparation vs. perpetration (act) actus rae
-Impossibility (factual impossibility no a defense, legal impossibility is a defense)
-Abandonment (cannot undo a crime after committing a crime and saying sorry)
III. Specific intent: the intent to commit the crime
a. There must necessarily be an intend to kill for a homicide crime
i. There is no such thing as attempted to do serious bodily harm, felony
murder, or deprive heart murder.
ii. It is possible to have attempted second degree murder without
premeditation with the intent to kill.
iii. You can have attempted voluntary manslaughter (attempt to kill)
iv. No such thing as attempted involuntary manslaughter (no attempt to kill)
v. There cannot be attempt of a general crime (ex. deprive heart murder) Has
to have intend.

vi. cannot have a second degree attempt to murder

vii. attempted voluntary manslaughter, with self-defense, unreasonable self-
defense
viii. intoxication may negate specific intent and cannot be consider attempt
b. Mere Perpetration v. perpetration
c. Mere preparation
i. Just the mental aspect more of thinking about committing a crime
IV. Act: has to voluntary, whether the act was mere preparation (no crime) or perpetration
(crime)
1. intent to commit a crime
2. attempt to commit the crime
3. failure commit the crime
b. Four test of perpetration
i. Substantial step: close to preparation, an act strongly callabotive of an
actor’s criminal purpose
 ii. Probable dissenace: when the defendant goes beyond what a normal
person would do
iii. Close Proximity: about to commit the crime (closest to committing the
crime)
iv. Mon penal code: pg 452
v. Equivocality (silent movie test)
1. A point of a silent movie that you can understand what is going on.
c. Perpetration
i. Substantial step (strongly culminate) probable
desistanceequivocation dangerous proximity

d. Negative acts or omission: when there is obligation or duty to do something, and

doing nothing would be a crime and an attempted to commit a crime. Not feeding
you child’s baby. Rail track baby laying on track and a passerby does not have a duty
to save the child unlike their mother would
V. Impossibility:
i. Legal impossibility vs. factual impossibility.
ii. Factual impossibility
1. If a person is died and a person still penetrate and the person
thought the person was still alive then it is attempted rape
2. No longer a defense for an attempt crime

iii. Legal impossibility

iv. It is legally impossible for a 13 year old boy to commit rape (is a defense for
attempt)
1. Legal impossibility is still is a defense against an attempt crime
VI. Abandonment:
i. Abandonment: a person goes beyond preparation, but more in preparation
but if a person has a change of heart then there is not attempt crime.
ii. Cannot have abandonment when they can’t follow through with a crime
because of the circumstance as opposed to an actual change of heart.
iii. Is not present in all jurisdictions in fact it is a minority approach.
b. Duty:
i. Duty can arise from relationship (spouse or parent), statue, contract,
(implied contract) assumption and seclusion.
1. Assumption and seclusion: after assuming a duty and then walk
away like finding the baby on the track the leaving the baby next to
the track.
ii. Landlord has a duty to people on their property, and a duty of their safely
when they have control of a person. (Taxi driver) or a parent has a duty to
tell their child to act responsibly.
iii. If creating a duty of parole then the person would have the duty to act if
they are responsible for the danger.
iv. Duty to pay taxes created by statutes
VII. Attempted murder:
a. Definition of attempt: A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting
with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime:
 i. 2 level of intent:
1. Intent to do the act and
2. The intent to bring about the result.
a. No crime, no attempted murder, since there is no intent to
kill and no result, deprave heart cannot be an attempt
crime.
b. Section 7: Transferred intent:
c. Identity of the victim is not an element in the homicide cases
i. This doctrine does not work well in criminal cases with the exception of
homicide cases.

VIII. Causation:
a. Looking for a cause of death, not the cause, and it was sufficient act that the
defendant’s act was a cause of harm
b. person’s conduct has to be a substantial factor in producing the harmful result
i. For example if Dudley stabs me and it’s a mortal wound and someone
comes a long and pokes you he is not committing murder because it was not
substantial cause of the death
c. An intended result was always foreseeable, anticipation of a reasonably prudent
person.
d. An intended result is always foreseeable in the eyes of the law.
i. For cases of malpractice when the injuries was sustained and was deadly
even if malpractice occurred during the treatment it is not the proximate
cause
1. if the injury was not deadly then malpractice would be the
proximate cause of death and would make the original cause a
remote cause of death and therefore not liable.
e. Either direct cause or indirect cause
i. Plaintiff’s act directProximate cause (direct cause)

ii. If indirect cause use the “but for test”

f. But for test: but for the action of the actor there would not be the result.
i. Looking for the most dominate and recent cause of the result.
ii. But for cause: the action for which the result, except for felony murder is
always required but not alone sufficient also the proximate cause of harm
iii. Then must determine if the cause was an proximate cause:
g. Proximate cause: deals with causation of result.
1. Proximate cause: is also known as legal cause, the legally recognized
cause of a result (not every single state uses this terminology, but
most do, majority)

ii. was it direct? If yes, then guilty, if no then look at indirect cause
iii. was in indirect cause?
iv. To determine this must look at all the intervening causes of harm
v. The test is all about foreseeability: to help determine if the intervening
cause is the primary cause to the harmful result?
 vi. was intervening cause foreseeable? If no, then the intervening cause would
(be independent) supersede the proximate cause
1. or the intervening cause would have been independent of the cause
and would have occurred either way, therefore superseding
2. omission is never a superseding cause
vii. was intervening cause foreseeable? If yes then the proximate is the primary
cause of the action
1. the intervening cause was dependant
2. Dependant intervening cause is almost always foreseeable,
3. while an independent intervening cause is almost unforeseeable.
viii. Or if the proximate cause is the primary cause to the harmful result that
occurred.
1. foreseeability is not the same as possibility.
h. Proximate cause does not apply for felony murder, it is more of a strict liability
i. Look at the red line doctrine to understand more about felony murder
restriction
i. Indirect cause intervening causes foreseeable and depend if yes n yes then the
original is the proximate cause.  therefore liable for harm
j. Diagram:
1. Plaintiff’s act directProximate cause (direct cause)= liable for harm

2. Plaintiff’s act creates a situation or riskindirect cause result (intervening cause)

a. When you have an intervening cause you have to look at foreseeability
b. Were the intervening causes foreseeable or not, if no then the intervening cause is
superseding cause and then that make the original cause remote.
i. A remote cause is not a legally recognizable and would not be responsible for
the result.
ii. But if the cause was foreseeable then the indirect cause was foreseeable then
you would have liability.
3. For contributory negligence to be a defense it has to be the sole cause of death.
IX. Chapter 7: Responsibility
I. Mens rea:
a. specific intent crime (malum per se)
i. crimes that require subjective fault
ii. Specific intent: an act that is natural evil, an intent to do the act and intent
to have result of act
iii. Examples: 1st degree murder intent to kill with pre-mediation, 2nd degree
murder intent, 2nd degree serious bodily harm, manslaughter, burglary,
robbery, and attempt crime.
b. general intent crime (malum per se)
i. crimes that are objective fault
ii. General intent crime: an act that is naturally evil and is decided by the
society, objective fault only intends to do the act. Malum in se.
iii. Rape and arson can be both a specific and general intent crime, malum in
se.
iv. Examples: Battery, involuntary manslaughter, rape, second degree deprave
heart murder
c. strict liability offenses (malum prohitition)
 i. crimes that require no fault,
ii. no intent require
iii. only requires the act
iv. Strict liability crime: that action is wrong only because it is made so by
statue (no fault) voluntary act requirement, Malum prohibitum
v. Examples: Statuary rape, felony murder, bigamy.
vi. How statues are written and what type of crime it would be specific,
general, or strict liability crime.
vii. Example in class, receiving stolen property and how the wording can be a
statue
viii. Has to have the knowledge of stolen property
ix. Reason to know
x. If receive stolen property guilty

II. Model Penal code for Culpability (responsibility)

a. Purposely: if the actor knows with a certainty that the result will occur
i. Conscious objective to engage in the conduct or to cause such a result
b. Knowingly: practical certainty that the result will occur from the conduct
i. Purposely and knowingly is the specific intent for a specific intent crime
c. Recklessly: conscious disregard of a known risk (risk is substantial and unjustifiable)
i. Is a serious risk that the result will occur
d. Negligently: when is not aware of the risk but one should be aware of a substantial and
unjustifiable risk
i. Recklessly is Criminal recklessness large deviation from the RPP standard, and
ii. Negligently is criminal negligence and is the moderate deviation from RPP
1. The little deviation is no offense or tort claim for negligence
e. P+K is specific intent and R+N is general intent
i. Specific intent exists where from the circumstances the offender must have
subjectively desired the prohibited result.
ii. General intent exists when the prohibited result may reasonably be expected to
follow from the offender’s voluntary act even without any specific intent by the
offender
f. Deviation from Reasonable standard: when determining negligence
i. No crime, negligence,  criminal negligence,  criminal recklessness
Small deviation medium deviation large deviation

X. Insanity:
a. Insanity is a legal term not a medical term
i. Insanity relates to mens rea: moral culpability is required to concur with
actus reas for conviction
b. Five times in a proceeding when the mental state of the mind has to be considered
is when:
i. Insanity at the time of the act
1. Must be able to form the mensrea and the wrongfulness of the act.
2. If proven to be true then they will require to be confined to an
insane asylum
ii. At the time of arraignment (when the person has to answer the charges).
1. Must understand that charges
 iii. At the time of the trial or during trial
iv. At the point at allocation (sentencing)
1. Occurs in sentencing, before imposing sentence
v. Execution: do not execute mentally insane person
c. Four test to insanity: need to know all four if in doubt then use the Ma’naghten
test:
d. Ma’naghten, irresistible impulse, MPC, and Product (Durman) test.
i. Ma’naghten Test:to establish insanity it must be clearly prove that at the
time of committing the act the party accused was laboring under such a
defect of reason, from diseased of the mind,
1. that he did not know the nature and quality of the act or
2. if he did know, he did not know it was wrong.
a. Ma’naghten test: is cognition based and is a main criticism
of the test
i. Use in 17 states, 10 states use the second prong
only
ii. Irresistible impulse test: the defendant is not guilty if he had a mental
disease which kept him from controlling his conduct.
1. Unlike Ma’naghten this test is volition based meaning actor knows
what they are doing and knows it is wrong, but cannot help but do
the act.
2. 3 states use this test + Ma’naghten test.

iii. Model Penal Code: (On final): sometimes called the ALI, or Substantial test.
14 state uses this test
1. Section 4.01: mental disease of defect excluding Responsibility
a. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the
time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect
he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the
criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the
requirement of law. (combined Ma’naghten + irresistibale)
b. As used in this article the term mental disease or defect do
not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated
criminal or otherwise anti-social conduct.
iv. Product test (Durman): defendant is not guilty if his act was a product of
mental disease or defect
1. Test is not used anywhere in this country but New Hampshire
XI. Defense against crimes
a. Immaturity, infancy defense
i. Common law: under the age of 7 irrefutable presumption of legal incapacity
to form mens rea (Cannot be trialed as an adult)
1. 7-13 there is a rebuttable presumption of legal incapacity
2. 14 and over there is a rebuttable presumption of capacity
3. This is primarily statutory today and varies from jurisdiction for
infancy.
b. Intoxication defense:
i. Voluntary intoxication can be a defense to specific intent crimes but not
general intent crimes
 ii. Involuntary (innocent) intoxication can be a defense to both specific and
general intent crime
Three types of innocent intoxication
1. Involuntary (innocent )intoxication; person did not know he or she
was drinking alcohol
2. Did not know alcohol was intoxicated
3. Or duress (threat of death or bodily harm)
iii. Drugs cannot be used as a intoxication defense, only alcohol
iv. State statute can dismiss the intoxication defense it is constitutional
c. Coverture: a married women cannot have the defense by stating my husband told
me to do it
XII. Chapter 9: responsibility: modifying circumstances
a. Ignorance or mistake of law:
i. Ignorance of law is no excuse, but mistake of law can be an excuse and a
defense
1. Particularly in situation of a specific intent crime.
2. Rule: if the defend had made a mistake of another law, other than
the law that he had supposedly broken, then a defense of mistake
can be used to refute a conviction
3. Only a defense when the ignorance or mistake of law negates the
mens rea or the specific intent to commit the crime
ii. 2 possibility: where mistake of law can be a defense of a specific intent
crime
1. A person is charged with larceny, and the defendant had a mistake
regarding some other law typically non-penal; can possibility negate
the specific intent aspect of the law the defendant is alleged to have
broke.
2. Authorized reliance:
a. Statute of court decision upon which the defendant was
relying, in which a mistake was made and later corrected, or
b. Reasonable reliance on an authorized official’s advice
b. Ignorance of mistake of fact:
i. Mistake of fact: More common then mistake of Law
1. The mistake has to be an honest and genuine mistake to be a
defense against a specific intent crime.
ii. Mistake has to be honest, genuine, and reasonable for it to be a defense
against general intent crime.
1. All three has to be proven to invoke the mistake of fact defense
iii. In strict liability cases mistake of fact or law usually will not considered to be
a defense
a. Statutory rape cases: mistake of fact defense cannot be
applied in this offense.
c. Impelled perpetration: Necessity and duress
i. In duress the rule has been historically you cannot take another person’s life
1. In a case of starvation cannot kill someone to save yourself
2. There is however some limited thought
ii. Duress compulsion from another human not in nature
 1. For duress you need the threat imminent deadly force, and
reasonable belief that the threat is a genuine one, and the person
being threat is blameless
iii. Model Penal code: duress and necessity
1. Duress:
a. It is an affirmative defense that the actor engaged in the
conduct charged to constitute an offense because he was
coerced to do so by the use of or a threat to use, unlawful
forces against his person or the person of another which a
person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have
been unable to resist
b. The defense provided by this section is unavailable if the
actor recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it was
probable that he would be subjected to duress. The defense
is also unavailable if he was negligent in placing himself in
such a situation, whenever negligence suffices to
established culpability for the offense charged
c. When the conduct of the actor would otherwise be
justifiable under section 3.02, this section does not preclude
such defense.

2. Section 3.02 Justification Generally: Choices of evil

i. Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to
avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is
justifiable, provided that:
ii. The harm or evil sought to be avoided by such
conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented
by the law defining the offense charged
and……………pg 834
iii. Neither the code nor other law defining the offense
provides exceptions or defense dealing with the
specific situation involved; and
iv. A legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed does not otherwise plainly appear
b. When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about
the situation requiring a choice of harms or evils or in
appraising the necessity for the conduct, the justification
afforded by this section is unavailable in prosecution for any
offense for which reckless or negligence as the case may be
suffices or establish culpability

iv. Choice of evil: Harm is much broader then a common law rule requirement
of imminent harm, and the harm must be less than the harm trying to be
avoided.
1. If the threat was seem to be reasonable, and the situation was not
deliberately caused by the actor then a necessity defense is allowed.
Example, setting fire to halfway house.
 2. Threat must be of death or serious bodily harm to invoke this
defense of necessity
3. Duress cannot defeat liability for murder.
a. Cannot invoke the doctrine of necessity to kill someone
b. Necessity to kill a few to save the greater number is allowed
under this doctrine of necessity
c. Can be invoked if it is a lesser evil
d. “Long pork means human flesh on final”
d. Consent of the other party
i. If there is consent to committing the act like larceny by the owner then
there is no offense
ii. A defendant however cannot invoke the defense to consent to sex when the
person was not notified about the STD the person was carrying
e. Guilty of the injured party
i. 18 U.S.C. section 873
1. A threat to expose a violation of federal law unless a thing of value
is given is blackmail. (extortion).
ii. Cannot used blackmail for crime committed to attain something in your own
favor .
1. Ex. teacher threat to report sexual abuses that has occurred if she
was not allowed to retain her job, this is considered extortion and
the teacher can get in trouble not the school
iii. Should be in the final: about guilt of the injured Party.
f. Condonation by the injured party
i. Even if the injured party does not want to press charges it doesn’t matter
the offense is considered to be against society, there is no such thing as a
forgiveness defense.
XIII. Chapter 10: Special defenses:
a. Public authority
i. Nothing done under valid public authority is a crime if such authority is in no
way exceed or abused. Ex.
1. The killing of enemies as an act of war and within the rule of war
2. The execution of a sentence of death pronounced by a competent
ii. Common law Rule:
1. A police office can use force if necessary to effectuated the arrest
a. He must used non deadly force if not deadly force is
sufficient
b. However the officer could use deadly force to make an
arrest when the use was necessary
i. There must be reasonable ground to believe a
felony was committed and that the person to be
arrested as who committed the felony; when there
is no other way to make another the arrest
b. Private citizen: domestic authority (property)
i. Each of us are privilege to use necessary force to protect property.
1. Private individual however has to be absolutely correct that a felony
was committed and that it is reasonable for a person
 a. You cannot used deadly force to protect property or to
reclaim property.
b. You may use non-deadly force to prevent crime
c. You cannot not used deadly force to prevent crimes only
when in extreme situation
d. No trap guns are permitted
ii. In common law parents are allowed to give moderate chastisement that is
reasonable for the circumstances. This law applies also to teachers, also on
the way to and from school.
a. But if the pupil has reached the age of majority the neither
the parent nor the teacher has this right and can be
considered battery
2. Prevention of crime
a. Cannot use deadly force unless in prevention of an
atrocious crimes (MBARRK)
c. Self-defense:
i. A person who is not the aggressor in an encounter is justified in using
reasonable force against an adversary when such person reasonably
believes,
1. (1) he is immediate danger of unlawful bodily hard and (2)
reasonably believe that the use of such force is necessary to avoid
this danger. (conjunctive)
a. the reasonably believe does not have to be correct just a
reasonable belief is necessary
2. Non deadly force can be repelled with non deadly force
3. Deadly force can be repelled with non-deadly force, and deadly
force but
a. Non deadly force can never be met with deadly force.
b. Some jurisdictions (20ish): require retreat to the “wall”
before the use of deadly force
c. Today this rule is changing and fewer jurisdictions are
requiring a reasonable retreat rule.
ii. Retreat vs. No retreat rule:
1. No retreat rule: An innocent victim can stand tall and use deadly
force even if reasonable escape is possible if reasonably necessary.
2. Retreat: if an innocent party has a path to safety then he or she
ought to use it, as opposed to using deadly force and self-defense
would not be a defense. The idea is you should retreat as opposed
to killing someone.
a. Castle doctrine: In a retreat state you do not have to retreat
if you are in your home.
b. About half of the retreat jurisdictions (10sih) states that if
the attacker is a co-tent then yes you do have to retreat in a
retreat jurisdiction.
d. Defense of others:
i. Common law rule: limited a person to go to an aid of someone in your
family, household, and master-servant.
 ii. you can have no greater right as an intervener as the person you are rushing
to aid when the attacker is being harmed you cannot aid him because he
has no right to self-defense
iii. No self-defense of a third party when the third party does not have a right
to self-defense themselves because they are an attacker.
iv. Today defense of other is the same as self defense
e. Defense of habitation
i. If you are an invitee you are allowed to defend the premise on the behalf of
the landowner
ii. Habitation is different from property you can use deadly force to protect
your home if necessary
1. Where stolen property you can never used deadly force
 Malice Murder

1st degree: Express malice 2nd degree: implied malice

-intent to kill w/ premeditation -intent to kill without premeditation
-TAP -Serious bodily harm (SBH)
-Felony Murder -Deprave heart
-(BARRKS) -Felony Murder (all other crims
Manslaughter

Voluntary Manslaughter Involuntary Manslaughter

-Intent to kill with provocation -no intend to kill
-imperfect right to self defense, mutual combat, -misdemeanor/manslaughter (all other crimes)
Bodily harm,
-provocation:
1) person is provoked; a RPP would be provoked
2) the person has not cooled off; a RPP would not
have cooled off either.

-words are never provocation, except when informational word doctrine is enacted, for example
information of adultery etc.

Arson: CLD elements

-Malicious
-Burning
-Of the dwelling
-Of another
Burglary: CLD Elements
-Trespassory
-Breaking
-and entering
-a dwelling
-of another
-in the nighttime
-with the intent
-to commit a felony
-or a larceny
-there in

Larceny: common law

-Trespassory Taking (against the will of the owner)
-and carrying away
-the personal property
-of another
-w/ the intent
-to steal it

Mayhem: modern law

-Maliciously maiming,
-or disfiguring
-of another (in a number of states, a specific intent to maim, or disfigure is required)

Mayhem: common law

the malicious maiming,
or disfiguring,
of another,
so as render them,
unfit from serving the king.

Rape: CLD: Elements

-Non-consensual (most important issue)
-Sexual intercourse
-With a women (modification: gender neutral)
-Not the actor’s wife (modification: depends on jurisdiction)

(Armed) Robbery
Trespassory
Taking
And carrying away
Of personal property
With the intent
To steal
By violence
Or intimidation