Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

Criminal Law Midterm Attack Outline Actus Reus 1) Acts: An act is voluntary UNLESS it is: A) Reflex B) Unconscious C) Done

under hypnosis D) Otherwise not a product of effort or determination 2) Omissions: You may have a duty to act under the following: A) Statute a) hit and run statutes require assistance B) Status relationship a) children generally have no duty to care for parents C) Contractual obligation a) cops have contractual obligation to public D) Voluntary assumption of care a) if you start to rescue someone, thats voluntary assumption b) secluding/imprisoning someone is voluntary asumption E) Failure to act + clear mens rea a) intentionally letting a fire burn house down to collect insurance money F) You created unfavorable circumstances Mens Rea 1) MPC: Rule: The MPC suggests the following mental states for criminal liability: A) Intent/purpose- you want it to happen B) Knowledge- you know it will happen, but do it anyway C) Recklessness- you disregard an unjustifiable risk D) Negligence- you should know, but dont 2) CL: Rule: CL has its own mental states: A) General intent B) Specific intent 3) Strict liability (no mens rea required) Rule: If the statute provides no mens rea requirement A) MPC: The standard is recklessness. B) CL: The court weighs the circumstances (public safety, punishment, etc.) before imposing strict liability (Staples).

Causation 1) MPC: Rule: Under MPC, you have caused a result if the result: A) Would not have happened but for your conduct AND B) It was within the relevant zone of risk and intention of your conduct AND C) It was not too accidental or remote. a) applies to attempts 2) CL: Rule: Under CL, you have caused a result if the result: A) Was a foreseeable consequence of your conduct AND a) applies to attempts B) It was a normal response to your conduct. 3) MRVWCC: >Explanation: Harm must be a manifestation of the risk in virtue of which the conduct is culpable. A) Manifestation refers to the harm/result. B) Risk refers to the specific circumstances. C) Conduct refers to the s actions. D) Culpable refers to the criminality of the s actions. >Examples: however, because Os death by falling piano (manifestation) is not a foreseeable result of s shooting at O (risk and conduct), is likely not liable for causing Os death (culpable). > When to use: A) MPC: Use when causation is a question of the risk/intention or accidental/remote. B) CL: Use when causation is a question of foreseeable or normal.

Complicity 1) MPC: Rule: You are an accomplice to a crime if you A) Purposefully promote or facilitate anothers commission of a crime a) includes acting through innocent instrumentality b) attempting to aid is sufficient i) not dependent on whether substantive crime is successful (see attempt rules) c) aid by omission possible B) With requisite mental state for the crime Defenses: A) Withdrawal if a) voluntary and complete AND b) neutralizes prior assistance OR c) warns law enforcement in timely manner AND d) makes effort to prevent commission of offense 2) CL: Rule: You are an accomplice to a crime if you A) Intent for principals crime AND a) implies same mens rea as principal b) > MAJORITY RULE: You can aid any type of crime. > MINORITY RULE: You cant aid reckless or negligence crimes. B) Intentionally aid, counsel, or encourage the principal a) > MAJORITY: only purpose; may not knowingly, recklessly, or negligently aid > MINORITY: knowledge and purpose; may not recklessly or negligently aid b) must have impact on principal (actual assistance) c) being present in itself is not enough d) aid by omission possible e) crime must be foreseeable and natural consequence of aid C) Before or during the crime a) accessory after the fact is a separate crime Defenses: A) Withdrawal if a) voluntary and complete AND b) neutralizes prior assistance i) render any actual assistance ineffective ii) repudiate any encouragement c) notifies principal of renunciation AND d) before crime is unstoppable

Conspiracy 1) MPC: Rule: One or more people (unilateral) A) Intentionally a) intent to agree b) intent to commit crime B) Agree C) To a) commit a crime b) attempt a crime c) solicit a crime d) aid/abet a crime Defenses: A) Renunciation/withdrawal: a) Must be complete and voluntary. b) Must notify ALL members before object crime is committed. c) Must thwart success of conspiracy. B) Pure legal impossibility 2) CL: > MODERN RULE: One or more people (unilateral) > TRADITIONAL RULE: Two or more people (bilateral) A) Intentionally a) intent/purpose to agree b) intent/purpose to commit crime c) agreements may be implied and inferred from circumstances B) Agree a) co-conspirator must a cop under the modern unilateral approach C) To commit a crime AND a) purpose crimes only (cant conspire to be reckless) D) Overtly act toward commission of the crime a) almost any act counts (need not be SSSCCP or dangerously close) b) act can be done by any conspirator c) > TRADITIONAL RULE: Agreement suffices; overt act unnecessary. E) > MAJORITY and FEDERAL LAW: Each conspirator is responsible for the crimes of any of the conspirators (Pinkerton) if a) they are done in furtherance of the objective crime AND b) they are natural and foreseeable consequences of conspiracy c) > TRADITIONAL RULE: No Pinkerton Defenses: A) Withdrawal is no defense to conspiracy charge BUT may limit liability for substantive crime. B) > SOME COURTS: Conspiracy merges with completed substantive crime if the crime inherently involves 2 people (Whartons Rule). C) Pure legal impossibility

Attempt 1) MPC: Rule: An attempt is A) An intentional, a) requires specific intent (BUT not necessarily for the substantive crime). b) by definition may not be reckless or negligent B) Substantial step strongly corroborative of criminal purpose (SSSCCP). b) must be beyond mere preparation. c) attempt charge for attempting to aid unsuccessful substantive crime Defenses: A) Pure legal impossibility B) Abandonment a) only if complete and voluntary 2) CL: Rule: An attempt is: A) An intentional a) requires specific intent (not necessarily for substantive crime) > FL and CO: you may attempt reckless crimes (other places its reckless endangerment). B) Act toward commission of the crime. a) split of authority > MAJORITY RULE: follows MPC (SSSCCP). > TRADITIONAL RULE: must come dangerously close to completion OR > OUTDATED RULE: committed his last act toward commission. b) no attempt charge for attempting to aid unsuccessful substantive crime Defenses: A) Mistake of fact a) must negate specific mens rea B) Pure legal impossibility C) Abandonment a) > MPC-LIKE RULE: only if complete and voluntary b) > TRADITIONAL RULE: no abandonment

Solicitation 1) MPC: Not appreciably different from CL. Green focuses on CL in the slides. A) With intent to commit crime B) Encourage or request a) Uncommunicated solicitation enough. b) Renunciation if complete and voluntary before crime committed C) Another person D) To commit that crime 2) CL: Green focuses on this in his slides. A) Asking someone to commit a crime a) Recipient doesnt need to accept >MAJORITY: Message doesnt need to reach recipient >MINORITY: Message must reach recipient B) With intent to promote it. a) Suggestion not enough b) Circumstantial evidence enough

Vicarious Liability 1) Liability for individual executives/managers of underlings MPC: A) Must have minimum mens rea of recklessness (similar to Park dissent). B) Pennsylvania has a statute that adopts this rule. CL: A) Strict liability if employee has responsible relationship to the misbehavior, i.e. the power to stop the violation (Park case majority). B) Park dissent says there must be mens rea of negligence (5-4 dissent). 2) Corporate liability CL/Federal Rule: A) Any agents misbehavior within the scope of employment is culpable, even if its contrary to company policy (Hy-Vee case). This could be any employee. MPC/Caseys Rule: B) Only high managerial agents are liable. > SOME STATES: policy makers > SOME STATES: supervisors > SOME STATES: good faith defense if policy makers pay due diligence to preventing lower-level employee misbehavior.

Homicide 1) MPC: A) Murder: Doesnt distinguish degrees. Not concerned with deliberation. Goes by mens rea elements. a) Intent/purpose (to kill) b) Knowledge (substantial certainty death will occur) c) Recklessness (extreme indifference to substantial unjustifiable risk i.e. depraved heart murder) i) No felony murder, but felonies presumptively reckless (see above ^). B) Manslaughter: a) experiences extreme mental and emotional disturbance (EMED) i) EMED can last for a long time, not just heat of passion ii) EMED must relate to specific person b) is reckless, but not extremely reckless C) Negligent Homicide: (exactly what it sounds like) 2) CL: A) Murder: a) 1st Degree: i) Unlawful- No excuse or justification ii) Killing> TRADITIONAL RULES: - V must die within a year and a day. - Person must be born alive (no feticide). - Cessation of heartbeat is death. > MODERN RULES: - V can die after a year and a day. - Feticide allowed (including CA). - Brain death is death. iii) Malice Aforethought (deliberation w/ intent to kill or do serious bodily harm) - Deliberation split > SOME STATES: Deliberation can happen in an instant > OTHER STATES: Deliberation requires time - Intent to kill may be inferred when uses a deadly weapon - Must have intent to kill to be guilty of attempted murder (Harris case) b) 2nd Degree: Same as above, except no deliberation. i) Unlawful ii) Killing iii) Reckless indifference to life/extreme recklessness (depraved heart) c) Felony Murder: Not all, but most states. i) some inherently dangerous felonies satisfy implied malice for 1st degree murder > MOST STATES: certain felonies enumerated in statute > OTHER STATES: evaluate by general standard, the crime itself, or s manner ii) 2nd degree for some non-enumerated felonies. iii) Split of authority on causation > MAJORITY: (trigger man rule): death must be caused by or co-conspirator > SOME STATES: death must be foreseeable result of crime (middle view) > OTHER STATES: if death wouldnt have happened but for the crime (broad view) iv) Must be within time frame - cant be on the way to the committing the felony - felony ends after reaches temporary safety v) No attempted felony murder. B) Manslaughter: Lesser homicide charge when is insufficiently deliberate. 2 types @ CL a) Voluntary i) Response to provocation (2-prong objective/subjective test) - Objective: reasonable person would be provoked? - Subjective: was actually provoked? - Split of authority on words as provocation > MODERN RULE (most states): Words are enough > TRADITIONAL RULE (some states): Words aren't enough ii) In the heat of Passion iii) With no cooling-off period b) Involuntary > Gross criminal negligence (MAJORITY). > Criminal recklessness (MINORITY).

3) Defenses A) Self defense a) Must seem necessary to prevent imminent threat of sufficiently serious harm. i) Must have reasonable basis for belief ii) Force must be proportional to threat b) Imperfect self defense: unreasonable mistake in SD gets reduction to i) manslaughter (MOST STATES) ii) negligent homicide (MPC) i) must be fear of attack, not just be afraid B) Intoxication a) If it negates mens rea b) MPC: No defense for reckless murder (i.e. depraved heart murder) c) CL: > SOME STATES: valid defense to DHM/extreme recklessness > OTHER STATES: not a valid defense to DHM/extreme recklessness

Sex Crimes 1) MPC: Green focuses on CL in his slides. Rape. A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if: A) Accomplished by force, threat, intoxication, unconsciousness OR B) Younger than 10 2) CL: Green focuses on this in his slides. A) Man and woman >MODERN TREND: Can be man OR woman > SOME STATES: man-on-man is assault, not sex assault B) Resistance > MODERN: resistance not required C) Physical force > NARROW: Enough to overcome will of V > MIDDLE: Creation of fear > BROAD: Any physical force at all > EVEN BROADER: Deception/fraud counts D) Exception for wife > MODERN: Crime to rape with everywhere Since 1997 BUT - sometimes relevant to degree of rape E) Nonconsensual > MODERN: this element is now an affirmative consent defense (see below) F) Intercourse > MODERN: Other types of penetration besides intercourse G) Strict liability: for statutory rape since minors cant give consent > MODERN TREND: reasonable mistake-of-age defense 3) Defenses: A) Consent is affirmative defense >SOME JURISDICTIONS: Withdrawn consent is nonconsensual (no defense) >SOME JURISDICTIONS: Withdrawn consent is not nonconsensual (its a defense) B) Mistake of consent is defense >SOME JURISDICTIONS: Must be at least negligent. (Williams case) >SOME JURISDICTIONS: Must be at least reckless. (Morgan case) >SOME JURISDICTIONS: Strict liability! (Kopierski case) C) Statutory Rape > TRADITIONAL: Strict liability if under age of consent > MODERN TREND: Reasonable mistake-of-age defense D) Fornication charge (CL, some states) is unconstitutional after Lawrence case.

Assault & Battery 1) Assault A) MPC: The MPC consolidates all crimes against the person short of homicide as assault. a) Simple Assault (misdemeanor) i) Attempting to cause bodily injury ii) P/K/R causing bodily injury iii) R/N causing bodily injury with deadly weapon, or neg. causing SBI w/DW. iv) Purposely causing or attempting to cause fear of serious bodily injury b) Aggravated Assault (may be felony) i) Attempting to cause serious bodily injury (w/wo DW) ii) P/K/R causing serious bodily injury (w/wo DW) iii) Attempting to cause bodily injury with deadly weapon iv) P/K causing bodily injury with deadly weapon B) CL: 2 kinds of assault a) > Attempted battery b) > Intentionally producing fear of imminent bodily injury i) Gradual broadening of coverage > Dangerous proximity to battery (OLD) > Actual frightening or dangerous looking" (NEWER) > Attempt to frighten (MODERN) (broadening trend) 2) Battery: A) MPC: doesnt exist. a) An offensive touching CL battery is nothing under the MPC (must cause injury to be assault) b) An unreasonable mistake that causes any kind of bodily injury is negligent i) if done without a deadly weapon is nothing. c) The same negligent mistake ^ would negligent homicide under MPC. B) CL: a) Unlawful (no consent) b) Force: > TRADITIONAL VIEW: offensive touching sufficient. > MODERN VIEW: bodily injury required. (narrowing trend). c) Against another

Theft Crimes 1) MPC: (MOST STATES): A) Theft: encompasses larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, receiving stolen property, etc., but not robbery. a) unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, b) movable property c) of another d) with purpose to deprive him thereof. i) No reliance (for false pretenses) on lies necessary. MPC satisfied with s subjective culpability. 2) CL: A) Larceny: Wrongfully obtaining possession a) Wrongfully i) Without consent is ordinary larceny ii) With consent induced through misrepresentation is larceny by trick. iii) If you borrow, youre entrusting possession, so it cant be larceny. b) Obtaining i) Employee wrongfully obtains possession if: - given custody of item by employer, then keeps it. ii) Bailee wrongfully obtains possession if: - breaks lawfully possessed bulk (he only had custody of individual pieces). iii) Borrowing something means you have lawful possession (its embezzlement). c) Carrying away d) Property (tangible goods) > FARRAJ RULE: Taking confidential information w/o taking physical document is theft of goods. > DAULING RULE: Copyright violation not theft of goods > BROWN RULE: Copying computer program not theft of goods e) Of another f) With intent to permanently deprive V of propertys value. i) split on when intent formed > OLD RULE: Formed at time of obtaining possession > MODERN TREND: Formed at time of carrying away of property. ii) intends to return Vs property but decides to keep= larceny via continuing trespass iii) Intending temporary deprivation is sometimes wrongful appropriation B) Embezzlement: Wrongfully retaining possession a) Fraudulent i) Must be intentional b) Conversion (retaining possession) i) Employee wrongfully retains possession if: - Receives item on employers behalf, then keeps it. ii) Bailee wrongfully retains possession if: - Keeps entire bulk or other item entrusted to his/her care. c) Property d) Of another e) Entrusted to defendants possession C) False Pretenses: Different from larceny by trick a) Obtaining title (ownership; no strings or conditions of use) to i) Without title, its larceny by trick b) Anothers property c) By false statement i) makes false statement AND > MOST STATES: Knowingly make false statements > SOME STATES: Intentionally making false statements d) Reliance on false statement > MPC RULE: no reliance element; s intent to deceive enough > SOME STATES: V must rely on false statement e) Intent to defraud V D) Receiving Stolen Property: a) Possession and control of i) riding in stolen car not enough b) Anothers property c) Known to be criminally obtained by d) Intent to deprive (owner) of property.

Burglary & Robbery 1) Burglary A) MPC: a) Defendant enters a building b) Occupied by another c) With purpose to commit a crime therein B) CL: a) Breaking; (minimal force sufficient; constructive breaking sufficient) and > MODERN: no breaking necessary. b) Entering into a > MODERN: remaining after permission sufficient c) Dwelling/Structure i) used for sleeping purposes ii) has a door (MOLER CASE) d) Occupied by another (even if owns the house) at e) Nighttime with > MODERN: this rule is largely done away with (though not completely) f) Intent to commit a felony > MODERN: this rule generally encompasses any misdemeanor theft too 2) Robbery A) MPC: A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he: (quoting MPC) a) Inflicts serious bodily injury upon another; or b) Threatens another with or purposely puts him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury; or c) Commits or threatens immediately to commit any felony of the first or second degree. B) CL: (a type of larceny) a) Taking; b) Anothers personal property i) Carjacking was robbery, not burglary (narrowly) c) From the others person or presence by i) must be taken in presence of victim ii) keyjacking was carjacking, even though car was elsewhere (LAKE CASE) d) Force/intimidation with i) pickpocketing is not force ii) toy gun is intimidation e) Intent to permanently deprive him of it.

Defenses (generally) 1) Excuses A) Intoxication MPC: Must negate an element mens rea of offense a) Voluntary: Not defense to recklessness or negligence b) Involuntary: if lacks capacity to appreciate criminality of conduct c) Pathological: if lacks capacity to appreciate criminality of conduct CL: Never for general intent crimes. >MAJORITY: Yes, only if it negates mens rea (most states) i) Only for knowledge or purpose crimes (same as MPC) >MINORTY: Voluntary intoxication no defense B) Mistake of fact: MPC: a) Must negate negate mens rea of crime (focus on subjective culpability) i) Negligence: only if reasonable mistake ii) Recklessness: only if unaware of the risk iii) Knowledge & Purpose: only if actual intent wasnt criminal iv) Doesnt matter (no defense) b) If MOF has nec. mens rea for a lesser crime actually committed, guilty of that crime. a) > SOME STATES: i) Specific intent: must negate specific intent of crime. ii) If honest and reasonable. C) Mistake of Law: MPC: Only for reasonable reliance on official statement of law. CL: > MOST STATES: No mistake of law > SOME STATES: reasonable reliance on statements from authorities (MPC rule) D) Impossibility a) Pure Legal impossibility: crime is not illegal. MPC: Valid defense to attempt charge. CL: Valid defense to attempt charge. b) Pure Factual impossibility: intends to break the law, but crime is impossible due to factual circumstance. MPC: Can be guilty if necessary mens rea is there. Focuses on subjective culpability. CL: Not a defense to attempt charge. c) Hybrid Impossibility: intends to break the law, but both factually impossible and legally impossible. MPC: Focuses on subjective culpability (same as factual impossibility). CL: >SOME STATES: Yes, depending on crime. >OTHER STATES: No, depending on crime. E) Insanity MPC: (volitional impairment) Will apply if a) crime results from s irresistible impulse or b) substantial lack capacity to conform conduct to law CL: > MAJORITY RULE: (MNaghten doctrine; cognitive impairment) You are sane if you can a) appreciate the nature of your action, and b) you can appreciate whether its right or wrong. >Legal right/wrong > WA: if given specific deific decree, insanity even if knows law >Moral right/wrong *** This distinction usually arises when God is talking to > IDAHO RULE: Insanity is only a defense if it negates mens rea (basically first prong of MNaghten). > OTHER JURISDICTIONS: (volitional impairment) If its an irresistible impulse (MPC rule). F) Infancy/Incapacity: MPC: Under 16 no capacity. 16 or 17, Juvenile court can decide. CL: a) Under 7, no capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of crime (similar to MNaghten for insanity) b) Under 14, but older than 7, presumption of no capacity (the older, the weaker the presumption) c) Over 14, no way. d) Incapacity works essentially same, but without strict age categories


G) Entrapment: Cop entices to commit crime he/she was not otherwise predisposed to commit MPC (Green doesnt focus on this): defense applies when peace officer is: a) making knowingly false representations designed to induce the belief that such conduct is not prohibited; or b) employing methods of persuasion or inducement that create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it. CL: a) not a defense to violence b) split over standard > MAJORITY: Did have predisposition to commit the crime? (Subjective test) > MINORITY: How outrageous was law enforcements conduct? (Objective test) J) Duress: Someone (or a mob) tells to commit crime under threat of force (distinct from necessity) MPC: a) MPC would allow this defense to a murder charge b) the must deadly force or great bodily injury (no threats of firing) c) no imminence requirement (> from CL) d) doesnt apply if s fault for getting in duress situation (e.g. loan shark collecting) CL: a) threat must be imminent (> from MPC) b) the must deadly force or great bodily injury (no threats of firing) c) cant unusually susceptible to coercion (court applies objective test). d) doesnt apply if s fault for getting in duress situation e) split over defense to murder > MOST STATES: Not for murder > SOME STATES: Reduce to manslaughter > SOME STATES: Excuse felony murder. 2) Justifications A) Self Defense MPC: a) Believe that force is i) need not be reasonable like CL, just honest ii) must retreat if he knows/realizes its possible to do so b) Immediately necessary to i) deadly force only in response to threat of death, GBH, rape, or kidnapping ii) no duty to retreat in home (even from co-dweller), or in places of work iii) allows to use force sooner (even preemptively) than CL c) Protect against unlawful force by another i) on the present occasion. CL: a) Seems necessary to prevent i) Must have reasonable basis for belief (objective test) - past experience relevant in this assessment (battered womens rule) ii) Force must be proportional to threat - cant escalate the need for defensive force - Initial aggressor has duty to retreat before using deadly force (all states) - No duty to retreat for non-deadly force iii) Duty to retreat before deadly force in (DF) some instances: >MAJORITY: No duty to retreat in home BUT > MAJORITY: no duty retreat anywhere, even in public > MINORITY: general duty to retreat in public; not in the home (MPC view) >SOME JURISDICTIONS: about where in public and co-dwellers > MINORITY: Must retreat, if can be done safely, before using DF iv) Deadly force theoretical justifications > LESSER EVIL THEORY: only use DF to protect life > MORAL RIGHTS THEORY: may use DF any time rights threatened > GREENS VIEW: DF to only protect rights essential to minimal proper functioning of society. b) Imminent threat of i) Substantially distinguished from MPCs immediately necessary prong >TRADITIONAL RULE: Wait until attack itself is about to happen. c) Sufficiently serious harm: i) Death ii) Serious bodily injury

B) Defense of Property MPC: Non-deadly force generally ok if has claim of right (see section F below) a) must believe force is immediately necessary to protect property b) No deadly force to defend property, except i) to defend against risk of serious bodily injury (some states follow), OR ii) if non-deadly force subjects self or family to risk of death/GBH CL: must reasonably believe force is necessary to prevent imminent loss of property a) Real Property > SOME STATES: Deadly force to defend property if burglar poses risk of serious bodily injury and non-deadly force increases that risk (MPC rule). > SOME STATES: Deadly force to defend property from unarmed burglars/robbers if theyre inside (OK and CO approve of killing unarmed carjackers if theyre in the car). b) Mere Property (not a house/building) > MAJORITY: you can protect with non-deadly force, but not with deadly force. > SOME STATES: you can kill anyone who takes anything from you (Coke case) C) Defense of Others MPC: must believe force is immediately necessary to protect the other (same as self defense) CL: must reasonably believe force necessary to prevent imminent threat of serious harm (see CL self defense) i) can use force to prevent crimes against others ii) split of authority over deadly force > OLD ALTER EGO RULE: Must be threat from perspective of one defended (some states) > VERY OLD RULE: Only defense for those of a special relationship > MODERN MAJORITY RULE: Must be threat from perspective of D) Necessity: Defendant decides committing the crime is, under circumstances, the best thing to do MPC: a) Allows general choice-of-evils defense, even when killing (no state follows) b) No necessity defense when created risk that led to necessity c) Violating property interest to preserve life acceptable d) Violating property for economic interest not acceptable CL: a) TRADITIONAL RULE: No COE killing; you have a duty to die (Dudley and Stephens rule). b) No necessity defense when is at fault for creating the dilemma c) Violating property interest to preserve life acceptable d) Violating property for economic interest not acceptable E) Law Enforcement MPC (not Greens focus): Officer using deadly force justified if a) suspect endangers innocent bystanders b) the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime or c) officer believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people CL: Officer using deadly force a) Must reasonably believe b) Force is necessary to protect self, others, prevent felony or perform duty i) Fleeing Felon rule: no deadly force against escaping/fleeing non-dangerous felons (applies to everyone, even for cops) ii) No duty to retreat for cops F) Claim of Right: is justified in taking Vs property. Applies to all theft offenses (not just larceny) > MOST STATES: belief doesnt have to be reasonable, just honest

Doctrine Cases 1) Pinkerton: Youre responsible for all foreseeable results of your co-conspirator. 2) Staples: Cant assume strict liability in absence of statutory mens rea requirement. 3) Powell: Being drunk in public can be a criminal offense because its a reckless choice. 4) Lambert: Malum prohibitum status crimes of omission are unconstitutional. 5) Robinson: Cant criminalize mere addiction. 6) Fulcher: Automatism is viable defense, and separate from insanity. 7) Morissette: Cant assume strict liability for non public welfare offenses without mens rea requirement. 8) MNaghten: You are sane if you can appreciate the nature of your action, and you can appreciate whether its right or wrong. 9) Clark: Having only appreciate wrongfulness prong of MNaghten is constitutional since it entails first prong. 10) Park: Strict liability if employee has responsible relationship to the misbehavior, i.e. the power to stop the violation. 11)