1. INTRODUCTION
TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF CRIME
ACT (or omission) + INTENT = CRIME
(ACTUS REAS) (MENS REA OR SCIENTER)
Act + Intent have to be together/conccurent.
A. MENS REA:
NON MODEL PENAL CODE JURISDICTIONS (e.g., Calif.):
1. specific intent
o (requirement that act be accomplished for a specified purpose;
§ e.g. burglary – entry with intent to commit theft or any felony.)
o specific intent for murder = malice (express or implied)
o voluntary intoxication may be defense (majority of states)
o mistake of law = defense (sometimes)
2. general intent
o (requirement that the accused knew he was doing the thing the law prohibits,
§ e.g., assault)
o Voluntary Intoxication is not defense
o mistake of law = no excuse.
o mistake of fact = excuse if reas. & wd’ve been lawful if as thought
§ (e.g., write check thinking $ in bank is exusable)
§ e.g. accidently bringing gun to airport. Not excusable.
3. gross negligence
· no intent to harm, but performs an act which is likely to cause harm to others
o eg. Involuntary manslaughter.
4. strict liability
· no mens rea required
· usually misdomeanor, low jail or fine, public good, regulatory, environmtal
· no social stigma (like theft)
MODEL PENAL CODE:
1. recklessness
o conscious disregard of risk
o vol. intox. not defense
2. negligence
o no intent to harm, but acts without exercising due care
o vol. intox. not defense
3. purposely
· conscious object to engage in conduct
4. knowingly
· awareness of high probability of result of act
· statute may require actual know. or should have known (willful blindness – will impute knowledge)
MANY STATUTES:
willfully – intentionally & purposely w/intent to do what law forbids
knowingly – factual knowledge, not necessary to know unlawful
Legistlature changed knowingly to willfully so P has easier time proving & made punishment harsher
B. ACT REQUIREMENT
AN UNCONSCIOUS ACT IS CONSIDERED NO ACT FOR PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL CULPABILITY = acquittal
If unconscious act = acquittal
voulntary intoxication defeats defense
FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTY AS CRIMINAL “ACT”
MUST FIND LEGAL DUTY OF CARE EXISTED (may be contract)
no duty to assist stranger
ACT MUST HAVE BEEN PERFORMED WITH THE REQUISITE MENTAL INTENT
d. have sudden and temporary loss of self control.
o physical injury, assault, mutual quarrel or combat.
o requires substantial provoking incident – words generally not enough.
§ Fear, jealousy, taunting, etc.
§ NOT revenge (premed.)
· Minority (e.g., Calif.): – no req. of triggering event; consider history
· COOLING PERIOD – legal provocation ends.
o Negates provocation
b) EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE (MPC)
· Subjective
· D has burden of proof
· Doesn’t require provoking event or homicide immediately follow cause.
· Reasonableness judged from D’s point of view
· Look at history
(2) ISSUE – PREMEDITATED MURDER – separates 1st from 2nd degree
First Degree Express Malice Murder.
· Thinking beforehand, deliberation, reflection, weighing pros & cons
· May be short time
Anderson Factors:
TEST: EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PREMEDITATION FALLS INTO 3 CATEGORIES: (planning, motive, manner) …
(1) WHAT D DID PRIOR TO KILLING, AMOUNTING TO PLANNING ACTIVITY;
