ACTUS REUS (AR): (1) vol act (2) that causes (3) social harm.

Vol: NG unless RAPE: sex by a male with a female not his wife = rape if it is done: (1) forcibly; (2) w/ deception (fraud conduct has vol act. Habitual conduct (even if D unaware of it) may still be vol. Invol=spasms, seizures, in factum, not in the inducement); (3) while the female is asleep /unconscious; or (4) when female is not movements while unconscious. Must prove Ds conduct INCLUDED vol act (not that every act = vol) competent to give consent (drugged, mentally disabled, or underage). Cannot criminalize the status of being addict. Can punish act of public drunkenness w/o punishing General-intent offense: D guilty of rape if he possessed morally blameworthy state of mind regarding the status as alcoholic. Omissions: no legal duty to act unless duty b/c of: status rel, contract, creation of risk, females lack of consent. Traditional: males are legally capable of perpetrating the offense, and only vol. assistance, statutory duty to act. Social Harm may have harmful conduct (DUI), results (murder), or females can legally be victims of the crime. Modern: extends the law to specified forms of non-forcible, both (killing by an explosive); possession=act if person knowingly got/received thing OR was aware of it but nonconsensual, sexual intercourse, e.g., sexual intercourse by a male with an unconscious or for long enough to get rid of it drugged female. Increasingly defined in gender-neutral terms. Thuper reformed statutes: broadened to MENS REA (MR) Malice: if they intentionally or recklessly cause the social harm prohibited by offense) all forms of sexual penetration. Culpability definition: acted w/general culpable mind; Elemental definition: intentionally (desire to Force: Traditional: need proof that female didnt consent & sex was by force. Forcible if the male cause harm OR act knowing that harm is 99.9% certain), knowingly (aware of fact OR correctly believes it uses/threatens to use force likely to cause serious bodily harm to the female or another. Non-physical exists; willful blindness=aware of high prob that fact exists+doesnt investigate to avoid knowing), willfully threat =/= forcible rape at common law. Majority: girl must resist as much as she can unless it was (evil motive), neg (gross deviation from reasonable care - use learned hand formula), recklessness. If not prevented by threat. Minority: no resistance requirement OR requiring only that victim asserted a given, then must be either PKR. Higher culp will satisfy lower culp requirements. degree of resistance = reasonable under the circumstances or that was sufficient to indicate nonTransferred intent: If D intends to kill/injure P1 and accidentally kills/harms P2, the Ds state of mind RE: consent. Extreme minority (NJ): adequate force = penetration itself intended victim transfers to unintended one. Spec. Intent (SI): (1) includes intent/purpose to do future Marital Immunity: Majority: partial exemption: immunity does not apply if the parties are legally act or to achieve some further consequence beyond conduct/result of actus reus, e.g., B&E of separated or are living apart at the time of the rape. Minority: total exemption for marital rape, while at dwelling of another in the nighttime w/intent to commit a felony; (2) D must be aware of a AC, e.g., least twelve states have abolished the rule. receiving stolen property with knowledge that it is stolen. Gen Intent (GI) (battery): intentional If D says V consented, evidence of prior consensual sexual acts between the two is admissible. Most application of unlawful force upon another. Doesnt have any spec. intent beyond AR states bar evidence of victims past consensual sex w/others and her reputation for lack of chastity. STRICT LIABILITY: lack mens rea req for 1+ element of actus reus. Proof of AR = enough public Statutory Rape Sexual intercourse w/very young girl (e.g., twelve years of age or younger) remains welfare offenses. Conduct isnt immoral, but could affect health, safety, welfare of a sig portion of public punishable as forcible rape; intercourse with an older girl (esp. if D is older than female by a specified (food reg, anti-pollution, traffic, stat rape) number of years) is a felony of a lesser degree. MISTAKES OF FACT Strict liability: irrelevant; SI: D is NG of offense if his mistake of fact negates the SELF-DEFENSE : Victim (D) reasonably believes it is necessary to defend Ds person; must be specific-intent portion of the crime, i.e., if he lacks the intent designated in the definition of the threatened with a physical harm; D reasonably believes the threatened harm is unlawful; the force used offense, e.g., knowingly, negligently, etc. GI: Ordinary Approach: Reasonableness: D is not guilty of a must be proportional. May resist unlawful arrest. general-intent crime if his mistake of fact was reasonable, but he is guilty if his mistake was unreasonable. Deadly force must also show reasonable belief that D is imminently facing deadly force & had no Moral-Wrong Doctrine: if the facts had been D believed them to be (but werent in reality), opportunity to retreat. Deadly force may not be used to combat an imminent deadly assault if a non -deadly conduct would still be immoral = worthy of punishment. Legal-Wrong Doctrine: If the facts were as response will apparently suffice. D thought them to be, his conduct would still be illegal. D had mens rea for doing lesser offense, but actusMajority: no retreat (stand ground); Minority: D must retreat if D knows he can retreat to complete reus = that of higher offense. D is guilty of the higher offense. safety w/o using DF. Castle rule. MISTAKES OF LAW: CL & MPC: NO, except: Reasonable-Reliance: D excused if he reasonably relies D = justified in using force to if he subjectively believes that force is necessary & reasonable person would on official statement of law = later struck down by highest court/state. Reliance on Own Interp: D NOT agree, even if belief is wrong. Factors that may be relevant to the defendants situation or circumsta nces excused even if a reasonable person (even reasonable lawtrained person) would have done the same. Also include: movements of aggressor, knowledge D has about A, physical attributes about D or A, prior not excused by prosecutors/private counsels advice. Fair Notice/Lambert: At CL, everyone presumed experiences that D has -> provide reasonable basis for belief that deadly force is necessary. R person in Ds to knowlaw. However, a person unaware of a duly enacted+published crim statute may be NG if theres situation. lack of fair notice. (Lambert case: NG b/c: statute punished omission, duty to act was for status (presence When D is deadly aggressor, he loses his right to use force. May regain the right by removing himself and in LA), not for act; offense = malum prohibitum. So, there was nothing to alert reasonable person to need successfully communicating it by words/actions. If D, as the aggressor, uses non-deadly force, and to inquire into law. Ignorance/Mistake that Negates Mens Rea: Different Law Approach: EX: NG of victim responds with deadly force, D may immediately regain his right. burglary if one B&Es but does not know acts committing therein=felony. Can still be charged w/B&E and Maj: incomplete proof (e.g. unreasonable belief) = no defense; min: incomplete proof = murder -> w/felony committed, just not burglary. manslaughter SI Offenses: Different-law mistake, reasonable or not, is a defense in prosecution of a specific-intent Risk to Bystanders: Transferred-justification doctrine, right of self-defense transfers from the intended offense if the mistake negates the specific intent in the offense. GI Offenses: Different-law mistake, to the actual victim. Other courts do not treat this rule as absolute. If D, acting justifiably in self-defense reasonable or not, is not defense. Strict-Liability: Nope! against an aggressor, fires a weapon wildly or carelessly, some courts hold D guilty of manslaughter (or of CAUSATION: Actual; But-for test: No criminal liability without it reckless endangerment if no bystander is killed), but not of intentional homicide. Multiple Actual Causes Any of the multiple wrongdoers can be found culpable if his act was a cause- Can use self-defense for unlawful arrest (excessive forcenot so much for other things). If D uses deadly in-fact of the injury or death. It is not necessary that any act be the sole and exclusive cause-in-fact of force (no-no), its manslaughter. injury. Accelerating a result If Ds act accelerated death, he can be criminally liable. Would victim have SD of others justified in using force to protect a 3rd person to the extent that 3rd person is justified in died WHEN they did? Concurrent Causes If, in the case of infliction of harm from two or more sources, using DS. Must REASONABLY believe its necessary to protect 3rd person. each act alone was sufficient to cause the result that occurred when it did, the causes are concurrent and INSANITY: Can be mentally ill (medically) w/o being legally insane. each wrongdoer can be found criminally liable. Obstructed Cause If D commits a voluntary act intendingMNaghten : Guilty if at the time of the criminal act if he (1) did not know the nature and quality of the act to cause harm e.g., shooting a victim/intending to kill the victim, but another wrongdoer commits a more that he was doing; or (2) if he did know it, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. Requires serious injury that kills the victim sooner, the initial wrongdoer might only be convicted of attempt to kill total cognitive disability and does not allow for degrees of incapacity and nor does it recognize volitional since the subsequent wrongdoers act obstructed his goal to killing the victim. incapacity in which a person is aware that conduct is wrong yet cannot control his behavior. Irresistible CAUSATION: Proximate (direct) Intervening Causes Independent force that operates in Impulse: Above + includes mental illnesses that affect volitional capacity. Insane if, at the time of producing social harm, but which only happens after Ds voluntary act/omission; e.g. wrongdoing by the offense: (1) he acted from an irresistible and uncontrollable impulse; (2) he was unable to choose 3rd party, dangerous or suicidal act by the victim, natural force. When an intervening cause contributes to between the right and wrong behavior; (3) his will was destroyed such that his actions were beyond his the social harm, the court must decide whether it relieves D of liability = superseding cause . De Minimis control. Product (Durham) Test: excused if he had mental disease/defect at the time of the offense and Contribution to the Social Harm If Ds voluntary act caused minor social harm compared to the social the criminal conduct was the product of the mental disease or defect. Federal Test: Excused based on harm resulting from a substantial, intervening cause, the law will treat the latter as the proximate cause of insanity if he proves by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time of the offense, as the result of a the social harm. Foreseeability of Intervening Cause Some cases have held that the D cannot escape severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate: (1) the nature and quality of his conduct; or liability if the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable, whereas an unforeseeable intervening cause is (2) the wrongfulness of his conduct. Requires complete cognitive incapacity. superseding in nature. However, in determining foreseeability, the law tends to distinguish between Automatic Commitment (many states) NGRI: auto. committed to a mental facility on the basis of the responsive (or dependent) and coincidental (or independent) intervening causes. Responsive verdict. Not entitled to a hearing to determine whether he continues to suffer from a mental illness, or to intervening cause: act that occurs as a result of the defendants prior wrongful conduct. No relief unless determine whether his institutionalization is necessary for his protection or for that of society. the response was highly abnormal or bizarre. Coincidental intervening cause: force that does not occur Discretionary Commitment (some): Commitment not automatic. Trial judge has authority to require a in response to the initial wrongdoers conduct. The only relationship between the two is that the D placed person found NGRI to be detained temporarily in a mental facility for observation and examination, in order the victim in a situation where the intervening cause could act upon him. Relieves the original wrongdoer of to determine whether he should be committed indefinitely. Criteria for Release: Insanity-acquittee may criminal responsibility, unless the intervention was foreseeable. Apparent Safety Doctrine Ds unlawful be detained as long as she is both mentally ill and dangerous to herself or others. Length of act that puts a victim in danger = proximate cause of resulting harm, unless the victim has a route to safety Confinement: Insanity-acquittee is committed for as long as necessary until she meets the criteria for but instead puts herself in further harm, which causes the injury of death. Free, Deliberate, Informed release. Human Intervention D may be relieved if an intervening cause, e.g., a victim chose to stay outside in Sexual Predator Laws: People convicted of or charged with a sexually violent likely to recur. the freezing night and died, was the result of a FDIHI. A subsequent dangerous action that caused the Prosecutor files petition for involuntary commitment. If probable cause to believe that the person is a sexual victims injury or death would not relieve D of liability is such act resulted from duress. Omissions Will predator, theyre transferred to a mental facility for eval, after which a full hearing is held. If court rarely, if ever, serve as a superseding intervening cause, even if the omitter has a duty to act. E.g., a determines BARD that theyre a sexually violent predator, theyre committed until deemed safe. fathers failure to intervene to stop a stranger from beating his child will not ordinarily absolve the attacker Four states abolished insanity defense, but permit D to introduce evidence of mental disease/defect for the ensuing homicide, although the father may also be responsible for the death on the basis of in order to rebut the prosecutions claim that he possessed the requisite mental state. omission principles. GBMI: sometimes, insanity defense has been retained. In these states, the jury returns a NGRI HOMICIDE verdict if the defendant was insane at the time of the crime; it returns a GBMI verdict if he is guilty of Murder: the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought and w/o the offense, was sane at the time of the crime, but is mentally ill, as the latter term is defined by justification/excuse. Mens rea for malice: intent to kill w/deadly weapon, intent for GBI, gross statute, at the time of trial. recklessness/disregard for life (depraved heart), felony murder. 1st degree = intentional (poison, lying in ATTEMPT: D, w/intent to commit offense, does any act = subst. step in commission of that offense. 2 wait, willful+deliberate+premediated killing) types = Complete/imperfect: D does all acts he planned, but fails to reach crim. goal. Incomplete: D Willful = specific intent to kill; deliberate = willful OR evaluate choice; premed = no time too short does some acts but quits/is prevented from continuing (cop arrives before done). Must intend for crime to OR enough time to give it a second thought happen. Mens rea: D must intentionally commit AR of attempt (acts bring him closer to commission OR Manslaughter: unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought. = subst. step to, and must do acts w/specific intent to do target crime. If target=result crime: NG of Voluntary: no malice (heat of passion re: adequate provocation; imperfect justification: killing during lawful attempt unless actions in furtherance of target crime are done w/specific purpose to cause the unlawful act done in unlawful way result. -HOP: malice negated if: (1) heat of passion (2) as a result of adequate provocation (3) w/o time to cool Actus Reus: (1) Last act; (2) physical proximity: the defendants conduct need not reach the last act off. Words alone are generally NOT sufficient Trad. AP: extreme assault/battery on D; mutual combat, Ds but must be proximate to the completed crime (3) dangerous proximity: an attempt occurs when the illegal arrest; abuse of Ds relative; adultery. Modern AP: ordinary men liable to act rashly or w/o due defendants conduct is in dangerous proximity to success, or when an act is so near to the result that the deliberation/reflection & from passion, not judgment danger of success is very great. (4) Indispensable element: an attempt occurs when the defendant has Involuntary: unintended (criminal negligence killing from gross negligence; unintentional killing during obtained control of an indispensable feature of the criminal plan; (5) Probable desistance: an attempt unlawful act) occurs when the defendant has reached a point where it was unlikely that he would have voluntarily Felony murder: strict liability for 1st degree murder if death occurs during felony. Limitations: Majority: desisted from his effort to commit the crime. Unequivocality (res ipsa): an attempt occurs when a only applies to deaths that occur during felony specifically listed in st atute, or inherently dangerous felony. persons conduct, standing alone, unambiguously manifests his criminal intent. 2 approaches to inherently dangerous felony: (1) elemental (maj: Do the elements of the crime itself ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY/CONSPIRACY: intentionally assists another to do conduct=crime -> aiding, indicate that the crime cannot be committed without creating a grave risk of death?; (2)manner of abetting, encouraging, soliciting, advising, procuring. Can be convicted of any offense committed by commission (min): Was the crime inherently dangerous because of the manner and circumstances in which primary w/accomplices intentional assistance. it was carried out? Merger limitation: if felonys definition involves assault/battery/killing, that felony Majority: liability to any natural/probable consequence. Principal can commit offence if they commit it via merges w/homicide = no FM. Causation limitation: murder must occur in the furtherance of the felony. innocent person. Res Gestae: proximity: starts when offender could be charged w/attempt, ends when offender(s) = safe; Types of Assistance (misdemeanor) causation. Killing by non-felon: majority says D not liable (agency); minority says felon guilty for all prox. Physical conduct (lock door, drive getaway car; Psych influence (incite, solicitation, encouragement); caused deaths Omission: (if duty to act). May serve as critical factor in saying he helped w/psych influence.

Amount of Assistance Required: Conduct must in fact assist in the commission of the offense. Even Retreat if: only required to before using force in protection of another if he knows that it will assure the trivial assistance suffices. Accountable for conduct of the primary party even if his assistance was causally their complete safety (rare); must attempt to secure the their retreat if theyd be required to retreat, if the unnecessary to the commission of the offense D knows they can reach complete safety; 3) no retreat in the others dwelling or place of work to any Pinkerton Doctrine: a party to a conspiracy is responsible for any criminal act committed by an associate greater extent than in her own dwelling or place of work. if it: (1) falls within the scope of the conspiracy; or (2) is a foreseeable consequence of the unlawful INSANITY: not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the conduct, as the result of a mental agreement. disease/defect, he lacked sub capacity to (1) appreciate criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct; or Mens Rea: INTENT: Whether a person may properly be characterized as an accomplice Most courts: not (2) to conform his conduct to requirements of the law. Does not require total mental incapacity. an accomplice unless he shares the criminal intent w/principal. Recklessness/neg: Majority: accomplice ATTEMPT: 1) purpose to commit the target offense ; and (2) conduct = sub step toward the liability may attach w/crimes involving recklessness/neg. commission of the target offense. Majority: conviction/prosecution of principal is NOT required to get accomplice. P -> death, flight Mens Rea NG unless it was his purpose (conscious object) to do conduct/to cause result that = from the jurisdiction, or immunity from prosecution. Since accomplice liability is derivative, there must be substantive offense. Also guilty if he believes that the result will occur, even if its not his conscious object. proof at the accomplices trial of the principals guilt. Accomplice can be convicted of a more serious offense MR of purpose or belief does not necessarily encompass the AC of the crime. For AC, sufficient that D than primary. has degree of culpability required for substantive offense. Limits: (1) Leg-Exemption: Not accomplice statute prohibiting conduct was made to protect you. Stat Actus Reus: focuses on what the defendant has already done. D must have done/omitted to do rape: girl is not accomplice. (2) Abandonment: can avoid liability for subsequent crim acts of the primary something that = substantial step (e.g. lying in wait; looking for/following victim; scouting out possible if they communicate withdrawal to principal and attempt to neutralize effect of prior assistance.scene of crime; unlawful entry into place of intended crime; possession of materials to commit offense, if Must do more than spontaneously/silently withdraw from crim activity. they are specially designed for criminal purpose. MPC Attempt to Aid: if purpose of conduct is to aid another in the commission of the offense; and (2) such ACTUS REUS: Must include vol act. Invol = reflexes, convulsions, conduct during unconsciousness, sleep, assistance would have made him an accomplice in the commission of the crime under the Codes complicity hypnosis. Any conduct that is not a product of the effort or determination of D, either conscious or statute if the offense had been committed or attempted. habitual. Excluded from the vol requirement = violations = offense for which max penalty is fine or civil Renunciation (Abandonment): NG of attempt if: (1) abandons effort to commit the crime/prevents it; penalty. and (2) conduct manifests complete & voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose. Renunciation is Omissions: Same as CL. (1) if the law defining the offense provides for it; or (2) if the duty to act is not complete if it is wholly/partially motivated to postpone or transfer effort, OR if motivated by otherwise imposed by law. #2= duties from tort/contract law. circumstances (high risk of detection, hard to accomplish crime. MENS REA except w/violation, person must act purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY/CONSPIRACY: NO natural/probable consequences. Accomplice only liable for w/respect to each element of the offense (includes affirmative defenses). No general/specific intent acts he purposefully commits. Guilty if he commits it by his own conduct or by the conduct of another crime distinctions, thank fuck. person for which he is legally accountable, or both. Accomplice liability is founded on: (1) accountability Purposely: If it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. Acts through an innocent instrumentality: only if one causes another to engage in the conduct in question. purposely RE: attendant circumstances if he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes (2) Accomplice accountability: accomplice if, w/requisite mens rea, he solicits, aids, agrees to aid, or hopes that they exist. Knowingly: Aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a attempts to aid planning or commission of offense, or has legal duty to prevent offense, but makes no effort result. RE: AC and conduct elements: if he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such AC to. (3) Misc accountability Legislatures may enact special laws of accomplice liability, e.g., prohibiting exist. Knowledge is established, if a person is aware of a high probability of ACs existence, unless he the aiding/abetting suicide attempt or criminalizing the knowing facilitation of a prison escape. actually believes that it does not exist. Willful blindness: high probability that it exists UNLESS actually Rejects the Pinkerton doctrine of conspiratorial liability. Liability of one who does not personally commit believes it doesnt exist. Recklessly: if D consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the an offense must be based on accountability through an innocent instrumentality, accomplice accountability, material element exists or will result from his conduct. A risk is substantial and unjustifiable if or miscellaneous accountability. considering the nature and purpose of the defendants conduct and the circumstances known to him, its -Accomplice liability exists only if one assists with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe of the offense. in the actors situation. Negligently: If D should be aware of a substantial/unjustifiable risk that the -May also be found in cases w/recklessness or neg when causing a particular result is an element of a crime material element exists or will result from conduct. (given facts known to D) if: (1) he was an accomplice in the conduct that caused the result; and (2) he acted with the culpability, if Principles of Statutory Interpretation A single mens rea term of whatever specific type modifies any, regarding the result that is sufficient for commission of the offense. each actus reus element of the offense, absent a plainly contrary purpose of the legislature. -Can be accomplice, upon proof of crime, even if P isnt convicted/prosecuted/is acquitted. Can be convicted STRICT LIABILITY Does not recognize strict liability, except with respect to offenses graded as of a different offense/different degree of offense than primary. Person who is legally incapable of violations. For all other offenses, section 2.02 requires the prosecution to prove some form of culpability committing an offense personally may be guilty if it is committed by another person for whom he is legally regarding each material element. accountable. MISTAKES OF FACT is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any element -NG if: (1) he is the victim of the offense; or (2) his conduct is inevitably incident to the commission of of the offense. the offense; or (3) he terminates his participation before the crime is committed, and he:(a) neutralizes his Exception to the Rule Defense is not available if D would be guilty of another offense, had the assistance;(b) gives timely warning to the police of the impending offense; or (c) attempts to prevent the circumstances been as he supposed. Contrary to the common law, MPC only permits punishment at the commission of the crime. level of the lesser offense. CL ATTEMPT TESTS: MISTAKES OF LAW Fair notice exception applies where: (1) D does not believe that his conduct is illegal, Proximity: (a) How near D came to actually committing the offense. Steps taken/left. (b) How serious and (2) the statute defining the offense is not known to him; and was not published or otherwise would harm have been? Less serious/more nearness. More serious/less nearness. More polive/gov reasonably made available to him before he violated the law. Mistake or ignorance of the law is a defen se involvement = less nearness. if it negates a material element of the offense. Application of this defense generally surfaces in cases of a Desistance: last moment when D could stop; or when reasonable person could step in+stop the crime different-law mistake. Last Act: last act before D can change is mind before completing the offense of attempt. CAUSATION: Actual = but-for test; CAUSATION: Proximate But-for test is the exclusive meaning of MPC ATTEMPT: causation under MPC. Proximate causation = issues relating to Ds culpability. To find the D is Purposely engages in conduct = crime if circumstances were as he believes OR causing a particular result in culpable, the social harm actually inflicted must not be too remote or accidental in its occurrence from that an element of the crime (act or omit) with the purpose or belief it will cause such result w/o further conduct which was designed, contemplated or risked. Whether it may said that he caused prohibited result w/level on his part OR Purposely acts or omits to do anything when such act or omission = substantial step of culpabilityPKRNrequired by the definition of the offense. -MPC requires that Ds conduct strongly shows substantial step. More strict on Ds. EX: lying in wait, Offense w/o culpability requirement rare: causation is not established unless the actual result is a probable searching for or following the contemplated victim of the crime, possession of materials to be used which consequence of the defendants conduct. In a jurisdiction w/felony-murder rule & MPC causation principles, are specifically designed for such unlawful use or which can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the D cant be convicted of felony-murder if the death was not a probable consequence of his felonious conduct. circumstances, soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime HOMICIDE Guilty if D unjustifiably/inexcusably kills another human PKRorN. 3 types: MPC DEFINITIONS: Murder: Deliberate/premed = 1st degree; intent for GBI & extreme recklessness (depraved heart) = 2nd (1) human being: born and is alive; (2) bodily injury: physical pain, illness, any physical impairment; (3) Manslaughter: Committed recklessly; or (b) because od extreme mental/emotional distress serious bodily injury: creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, -EMED: homicide committed under the influence of EMED for which there is reasonable explanation or or protracted loss/impairment of function of any bodily part/organ; (4) deadly weapon: any firearm or other excuse. Reasonableness is determined from viewpoint of person in Ds situation under the circumstances as weapon, device, instrument, material, substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is he believes them. Broader than CL provocation. Words alone ARE adequate. No cooling off requirement. used/intended to be used is known to be able to cause death/serious bodily injury. Negligent homicide: 3rd degree. Its what it sounds like, dumb dumb. Extreme recklessness (and, (2) Sex. Int. = vag/anal/oral w/any penetration (3)Deviate sex =unmarried people or any sex w/animals thus, murder) is presumed if the homicide occurs while the D is engaged in, or is an accomplice in, the CL INTOX: may negate mens rea. Intox from alcoholism=vol. NOT defense to GI crime, IS to SI. Murder: D commission, attempted commission, or flight from robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnaping or escape. must show intox prevented him from having MR for 1st deg. Blacking out=still vol bc D vol drank. Some RAPE (corroboration requirement; silent re: the admissibility of evidence of the victims sexual history or allow invol def, but only for SI. Intox insanity: no temp insanity def when vol intox, but fixed insanity reputation for chastity, NO RAPE BY FRAUD) from long-term intox might be a defense in some places. Male guilty if, acting PKR re: each material element of offense, has sex with/female if: Invol if: coerced, innocent mistake (thought h2o), prop. taken Rx (cant purposely take too much), path (1)female is under 10; (2) female is unconscious; (3) makes female submit by force or by threat to intox (temp psych reax w/pre-existing mental/phys condition & D had no reason to know of reax). If invol, her or another of imminent death, GBH, extreme pain or kidnapping; or (4) he administers/employs can use temp insanity def or no MR def. drugs/intoxicants in a way that substantially impairs the females ability to appraise/control conduct. MPC INTOX: not a defense unless it negates an element of offense. (2) When recklessness establishes an -Defines rape solely in terms of the males acts/does not require proof of resistance by the victim. element of the offense, if the actor, due to self-induced intoxication, is unaware of a risk of which he would -Partial marital exemption that bars rape prosecution against spouse or persons living as man and have been aware had he been sober, such unawareness is immaterial. (3) Intoxication does not, in itself, wife, though theyre not married. Only exception= legally separated. constitute mental disease (4) Intoxication that (a) is not self-induced or (b) is pathological is an affirmative -Does not recognize any strict liability crimes, and thus does not recognize statutory rape, although it defense if by reason of such intoxication the actor at the time of his conduct lacks substantial capacity either does punish sex w/female less than 10 if he knew or should have known the females age. to appreciate its criminality [wrongfulness] or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. ] SELF-DEFENSE Victim (D) honestly believes force is immediately necessary to protect Ds person; harm is Insanity: Path+invol intox=affirmatives def if intox causes D to have mental condition like insanity unlawful. Deadly force = justified if faced w/death, GBH, forcible rape, or kidnapping. Threat w/o that (5) Definitions. (a) intox = disturbance of mental or physical capacities taking in substances; (b) selfpurpose is not deadly force, even if weapon backs it up. induced intox=caused by substances that actor knowingly consumes, the tendency of which to cause intoxi -Needs to be based on subjective believe. Does NOT need to be reasonable. Imminence requirementhe knows or ought to know, unless he consumes b/c of med advice or under such circumstances as would friendlier to Ds/battered wives afford a defense to a charge of crime; (c) pathological intox=grossly excessive in degree, given the amount -D must retreat if D know/realizes he can be completely safe by doing so. No duty to retreat from of the intoxicant, to which the actor does not know he is susceptible. home, even from a co-dweller. -If Ds initial act = lethal, NO SELF-DEFENSE. If D unlawfully starts a non-lethal conflict, he does CL: mistake of fact ONLY applies to AC, not conduct/harm MPC: statute w/o MR requires at least recklessness unless leg intent for S/L is clear. not lose right of self-defense if V escalates it into lethal assault. Retreat is required within one's home or office if the actor was the initial aggressor and he wishes to regain his right to self-defense. CL: Provcation can be rekindled by later act for HOP. Might also be evidence of premeditation. -May NOT use force to resist an arrest that he knows is being made by a police officer, even if the Cant attempt reckless crime, but can be an accomplice to it. arrest is unlawful (e.g., without probable cause). Rule does not prohibit use of force by an arrestee who believes that the officer intends to use excessive force. Willful blindness tends to show knowledge (MPC and common law). -Recognizes imperfect defense when D asserts a justification defense, seen in terms of Ds subjective Accomplice liability: do you have a stake in it? Helping to further the crime? Gravity of crime? belief in the necessity of using the force or other material circumstances. However when D is reckless/neg MPC: to be accomplice your mens rea re: harm part of actus reus only needs to be same as RE: facts, justification defense is unavailable to him. mens rea of principal. Mens rea re: conduct must be purposeful. Principal can=undercover cop -Risk to bystanders: If a person justifiably uses force against an aggressor, but uses such force in a -Fact patterns that tend to give rise to felony murder tend to also give rise to other homicide crimes where reckless or negligent manner re: safety of an innocent bystander, the justification defense, which is you need to prove mens rea -> harder. In FM elemental: can you commit F w/o danger (person OR available to person in regard to the aggressor, is unavailable to D. property)? If so, not inherently dangerous. SD of others: (1) uses no more force than he would be entitled to use in self-protection, based on the If both deliver fatal blow at the same time (concurrent sufficient cause): not but-for cause. Both stabbings things as he believes them; (2) under circumstances he 3rd party could use SD; and (3) he believes its are sufficient. If you take one stabbing away, the victim still dies. necessary for the 3rd partys protection.