I.

Fundamental Principles and Concepts Some of what we covered is foundational material necessary to give you a context in starting to study criminal law. The main points of that foundation are: * the basics of the theories of punishment, including how they differ (and sometimes conflict) * the reality that our actual criminal justice system, in its practical implementation, is based on a combination of the various theories * the historical origins of criminal law in the Common Law * the nature of modern criminal law, as exemplified in the Model Penal Code (which we will be discussing in much more detail beginning with the next unit) * the importance of institutional roles in criminal law: legislatures, executive branch enforcement officials (police and prosecutors), and courts (judges and juries) Much of the material in our first unit is tied together by that last point: institutional roles. For example, legality, Ex Post Facto, vagueness, and statutory interpretation all of these are connected to the respective functions of courts and legislatures in the criminal law.

II. Theories of Punishment / Moral Philosophy In my class, the theories of punishment are primarily foundational material, rather than a significant emphasis of the course. In other words, because they comprised only one of the first ten reading assignments before the midterm, you should expect that they will constitute ten percent (and probably less) of the coverage on the midterm. Nonetheless, the theories are important because they are foundational, and you do need to have familiarity with them. For purposes of the exam, you would need to be able to: * write, or recognize, a one or two sentence sound bite description of each theory of punishment * assess the position each theory of punishment would take on an issue presented * identify when the various theories of punishment would point in conflicting directions on an issue presented The assigned Problems in the book, 2.4 to 2.14, are a good reference for how you may be expected to analyze the theories of punishment on the exam.

III. Determining the Meaning of Contested Words in the Definition of a Crime The exam consists of situations (fact patterns). With the exception of questions based on Problem from the book, these will be fact patterns you havent seen before. Your job is to analyze them correctly. In the first unit, that analysis consists of making arguments about statutory interpretation how to determine the meaning of words used in the definition of a crime when the parties (the Government and the defendant) are contesting their meaning. In answering a question which includes material from this unit, you first must be able to correctly identify the question as such in the first place (issue spotting). That is, unlike many exams you have

taken previously, most of the questions will not self-identify which particular aspect of the material from the class any given question is testing. Rather, part of what you must do in reading the questions is issue spotting correctly assessing which legal issue(s) and which legal rule(s) are implicated on the facts presented. In questions involving issues and rules from the first unit, you would have to do one or more of the following: * explain the historical power of courts under the Common Law to define crimes (see Khaliq) * explain the rejection of that power, and the requirement of legislative crime definition, in contemporary American criminal law (i.e, the principle of legality) * explain why the principle of legality is, or isnt, violated on the facts presented * explain why the Ex Post Facto Clause is, or isnt, violated on the facts presented * explain why a court can, or cannot, apply its interpretation of a statute retroactively consistent with the Due Process Clause (see Keeler) on the facts presented * explain why a criminal statute is, or isnt, unconstitutionally vague on its face under the Due Process Clause (see Morales) on the facts presented * explain why a criminal statute is, or isnt, unconstitutionally vague as applied under the Due Process Clause (see Sattar) on the facts presented * explain the rule of lenity, and its implications for the meaning of the contested words in the fact pattern * explain the rule of fair import construction (see MPC 1.02(3); see also Keeler), and its implications for the meaning of the contested words in the fact pattern * explain the textualist method of statutory interpretation, and what meaning it would give to the contested words in the fact pattern * explain the intentionalist method of statutory interpretation, and what meaning it would give the contested words in the fact pattern * explain the dynamic method of statutory interpretation, and what meaning it would give the contested words in the fact pattern * explain your conclusion about how the court should interpret the contested words in the fact pattern (e.g., motor vehicle does not include boat) The explain could be in an essay, where you have to write your explanation on the page. It could also be in a multiple-choice question, where you have to think through your explanation in your head to determine the right answer (i.e., eliminate some choices and pick the correct one). Either way, youre explaining how the legal doctrine applies to the facts of the question. IV. Actus Reus For this material, I want you to focus on the provisions of MPC 2.01; for our purposes, there arent any meaningful differences between the CL and MPC on these points. On the midterm, you need to be able to: * identify whether, on the facts, the defendant is alleged to have committed the actus reus of the offense by action or by inaction * identify whether a crime, in its definition of its actus reus, imposes liability based on an act or liability based on an omission, see 2.01(1) & (3)(a) * identify when the prosecution must establish the source of the defendants legal duty to have acted in an omission liability case, see 2.01(3)(b)

* identify whether, in a crime of possession, the defendant has the actus reus of possession, see 2.01(4) * explain whether the fact pattern includes an act or omission which was voluntary, see 2.01(1), as defined in the voluntary act doctrine, see 2.01(2) V. MPC Mens Rea On the midterm, you need to be able to: * apply the rules of 2.02(1), (3), (4), and (5) to assign one of the four MR levels from 2.02(2)(a)-(d) to each AR element (conduct-circumstance-result) in the crime * remember that 2.05 means there are no strict liability elements for MPC crimes * identify when the defendant is claiming a mistake of fact, and use the rules of 2.04(1) for mistakes which negate the applicable MR * identify when the defendants mistake involves a lesser legal wrong, see 2.04(2) * identify when the defendants voluntary intoxication does, or does not, negate the applicable MR, see 2.08(1)-(2) [* identify when the defendant is claiming a mistake of non-criminal law, and use the rules of 2.04(1) for mistakes which negate the applicable MR] [* identify when the defendant is claiming a mistake of criminal law, which is not a defense, see 2.02(9)] [* identify when the exception to this rule applies, and the defendant does have a valid defense for mistake of criminal law, see 2.04(3)] VI. Common Law Mens Rea On the midterm, you need to be able to: * remember the general point that the CL does not have the kind of precise analytical rules that the MPC does, see Flores-Figueroa * determine whether the crime is a public welfare offense which might have one or more strict liability (SL) elements, see Balint, Morissette, and Taylor [* determine whether the MR of the crime is specific intent (SI) for all elements, general intent (GI) for all elements, or some of each, see Mistook I] [* identify when the defendant is claiming a mistake of fact, or mistake of non-criminal law, and use the appropriate rule for the relevant SI, GI, or SL elements, see Mistook II] ** identify when the defendants mistake involves a lesser legal wrong, or a moral wrong, which is not a defense for GI crimes or GI elements] [* identify when the defendant is claiming a mistake of criminal law, which is not a defense, see Hopkins and Mistook III] [* remember that, for purposes of the midterm, the Cox case and the Ratzlaf case will not be tested in CL questions] VII. Attempt Liability * First, you need to know the actus reus of attempt liability.

- be able to identify when the charge will be an attempt rather than a completed crime; e.g., attempted larceny instead of larceny - understand that attempt liability is about drawing the line between preparation (no crime) and attempt (guilty) - be able to explain and apply the difference between these CL tests: last act, proximity, and unequivocality - be able to explain and apply the MPC test from 5.01(1)-(2), and be generally familiar with the kinds of factors listed in 5.01(2)(a)-(f) - be able to anticipate fact patterns where the tests will diverge; e.g., where the defendant is guilty under MPC but not guilty under proximity - be able to anticipate fact patterns where the tests will converge; i.e., not guilty under any test, or guilty under every test * Second, you need to know the mens rea of attempt liability. - understand how the mens rea required to convict changes, under CL and MPC, when the charge is an attempted crime - be able to anticipate fact patterns where the CL and MPC will diverge; e.g., is the defendant guilty of attempted grand larceny or attempted petty larceny? - be able to identify when impossibility is implicated in an attempt case; i.e., failed attempts (Dlugash) vs. interrupted attempts (Rizzo, Jackson) - be able to apply the MPC rule that impossibility is not a defense - be able to describe the two CL rules (factual impossibility and legal impossibility) and what result each test reaches - remember that true legal impossibility is the converse of mistake of criminal law; i.e., defendants belief about what the law says is irrelevant * Third, you need to know several other aspects of attempt liability. - remember that abandonment of an attempt is not a defense under CL - be able to explain and apply the abandonment defense in MPC 5.01(4) - remember that soliciting someone to commit a crime is not an attempt, it is solicitation liability under MPC 5.02 - flag the elements of solicitation liability for comparison to conspiracy and complicity - flag factor (g) on the MPC attempt list in 5.01(2) (soliciting an innocent agent) for comparison to complicity VIII. Justification * Our main focus on justification was self-defense. You should expect most, but not all, exam questions on justification to involve self-defense. * Remember that justification (or excuse) only comes into play when D would otherwise be convicted of a crime that he has the AR and MR for. It is possible that D could have an AR defense or a MR defense as well, but if D indisputably has the AR and the MR of the crime, then justification (or excuse) is a third possible type of defense. * Self-defense and the other defense justifications involve two categories of force: deadly force and non-deadly force. - the level of force used in defense must be calibrated to the level of the threat - remember, though, the possibility of a valid mistake of fact about the level of the threat

* The CL and MPC have some pretty significant differences in their respective self-defense rules. - the CL standard is a reasonable belief about the need for self-defense; the MPC standard is just a belief - under either system, if the belief is actually correct, then D is justified in defending himself - if Ds belief is incorrect, however, the mistake of fact rules are very different - under CL, if Ds mistake is honest and reasonable then D keeps his justification; if Ds mistake is unreasonable, however, then he loses his justification - importantly, remember that under CL a mistake of fact in self-defense must be reasonable even if the crime implicated is specific intent; likewise, if the mistake of fact in self-defense is unreasonable (even if honest) then D is guilty of the otherwise applicable crime (whether specific intent or general intent) - under MPC, if Ds mistake is reckless (meaning D consciously disregarded a significant probability he might be mistaken) then he is not justified and can be convicted of recklessness crimes (but not purpose or knowing crimes); if D was not reckless then he keeps his justification (for P, K, and R crimes) and is not guilty - thus, CL emphasizes (a) reasonableness and (b) an all-or-nothing defense; the MPC emphasizes (a) recklessness and (b) a partial defense - the CL has no retreat rule (stand your ground); the MPC has a limited retreat rule - under either system, the initial unlawful aggressor cannot claim self-defense against the same level of force (NDF/NDF or DF/DF) in the same encounter - under the MPC, however, an initial NDF aggressor can claim self-defense in the same encounter if the victim unlawfully escalates to DF * Remember that under CL only objective reasonableness is considered; subjective factors are excluded from consideration in self-defense. - objective reasonableness includes physical attributes of the parties, the location of the encounter, and all other kinds of facts and information about the situation involved - subjective factors include personality traits, emotional reactions, and any other mental characteristics which are idiosyncratic to the person claiming self-defense * You should also be familiar with the basics of the other justifications we talked about. - Necessity applies to harms threatened by external forces or natural dangers, rather than threats by human beings (which would implicate self-defense), such as wild animals, wildfires, tornados, starvation (Dudley & Stephens), mechanical failures (bus with no brakes), or fate (one mountaineer slips, endangering the others tethered to him). - Defense of Home applies to prevent trespass or other crimes on real property; the CL allows a broader use of deadly force than the MPC. But remember, many crimes on Ds property will threaten Ds personal safety, which implicates self-defense directly. - Defense of Personal Property allows the use of non-deadly force to reclaim personal property, after a request to desist, when done in fresh pursuit of the taker (or later, but only in the rare situation where the taker makes no claim of right to Ds property). Again, remember that most takings of Ds property from his presence will implicate self-defense, not just defense of property. - Defense of Others allows D to defend V from A when Ds intervention is necessary to vindicate Vs selfdefense justification against A. Like self-defense, mistake of fact can play an important role in defense of others cases. IX. Excuse

* Duress applies when T threatens D and, due to that threat, D commits a crime against a third party, V. - remember, if D commits a crime against T to protect himself from T, the claim is self-defense, not duress - under CL, duress is limited to imminent threats of deadly force; e.g., help me steal the money or Ill kill you - under MPC, duress applies to a threat of force which a personal of reasonable firmness would be unable to resist - remember that the threat can be to D directly, or to a third party (e.g., Ds family in Contento-Pachon) * Insanity applies when D raises mental illness as a basis for acquittal. - accordingly, remember that the insanity defense is an excuse (not a mens rea defense) - be able to explain and apply the difference between a cognitive and a volitional test for insanity - know the MNaghten test - know the MPC test X. Complicity and Conspiracy * First, the basic structure of how complicity and conspiracy interact. - remember the Venn Diagram: most of the time, there is both conspiracy and complicity in play simultaneously - only rarely is there complicity without an agreement (but see, e.g., State v. Tally) - more frequently there is conspiracy functioning solely as an inchoate offense (i.e., when no attempt or completed crime has happened yet) - remember that being a member of the conspiracy, even if D never does anything else, is enough to make D an accomplice - remember that there can be multiple bases of liability in play for a single person (e.g., D joined the robbery conspiracy initially and subsequently served as lookout for the robbery) * Second, the actus reus issues. - know the four categories of complicity in CL and the various kinds of aiding & abetting AR (e.g., encourages, assists, advises, conspires, omits a legal duty) - know the five kinds of AR in MPC 2.06(3)(a): solicits, aids, agrees to aid, attempts to aid, omits a legal duty - remember that using an innocent agent to commit the crime on Ds behalf makes D guilty directly, rather than as an accomplice - remember that MPC imposes liability for two kinds of AR that CL does not: when the accomplice tries to help the principal but fails to actually help him and there is no conspiracy ( 2.06(3)(a)(ii) attempts to aid), and when the accomplice does everything he needs to do to help the principal but the principal never goes forward ( 5.01(3) attempt) - know the AR of conspiracy: an agreement and an overt act - remember that the number of conspiracy charges depends on the number of agreements, not the number of crimes or members - be able to discuss issues about the scope of the agreement (e.g., how many agreements, which object offenses, who is a member) - remember that MPC merges a conspiracy charge into a subsequent attempted or completed object offense; the CL does not merge conspiracy - also remember that MPC merges a solicitation into a conspiracy once the agreement is formed, and both CL and MPC merge the attempt into the completed offense

- be familiar with the MPC flowchart from class and the interrelationship between 5.02, 5.03, 5.01(1)-(2), 2.06(3), 5.01(3), and 2.06(1) * Third, the mens rea issues. - remember that there are big differences between the CL and MPC on this topic - in MPC, purpose to promote or facilitate the offense is necessary for both conspiracy, 5.03(1), and complicity, 2.06(3)-(4) - in CL, both conspiracy and complicity require Specific Intent toward the object offense or principals offense, respectively - be able to apply and discuss the split of authority in CL over whether knowledge is enough to show SI for conspiracy or complicity, or whether intent (stake in the venture) is required - remember that the Pinkerton rule for conspiracy (and corresponding rule for complicity, see Beeman) only applies after the defendant has SI about some offenses - and when he does, CL imposes Pinkerton liability for additional offenses when they are reasonably foreseeable in furtherance of the conspiracy (or are natural and probable consequences of the crimes the defendant specifically intended to aid & abet) - be able to apply and discuss Pinkerton liability in a CL question - remember there is no Pinkerton in MPC * Fourth, the remaining issues. - remember that CL requires a bilateral conspiracy, while MPC convicts for a unilateral conspiracy - be able to apply and discuss the different CL and MPC rules on derivative liability; i.e., whether or when an accomplice can be convicted of the crime even though the principal is (or would be) acquitted - know the requirements for withdrawal from a conspiracy and the consequences of withdrawing (same for CL and MPC, see 5.03(7)(c)) - know the requirements for renunciation of a conspiracy and the consequences of renunciation (MPC only, see 5.03(6); compare to abandonment of attempts, 5.01(4)) - know the requirements for termination of complicity and the consequences of successfully and unsuccessfully terminating (same for CL and MPC, see 2.06(6)(c)) - remember that when conspiracy and complicity overlap (see above), more than one rule on withdrawal, renunciation, and/or termination could be in play XI. Rape * Most of the historical background and policy discussion is context to help you understand the issues, but is not material I would test directly on its own terms. * You should know the traditional CL definition of rape (both AR and MR), as well as which elements have been reformed or modified in modern law. - be able to explain and apply the force element of CL rape, including actual and constructive force. - be able to explain and apply the non-consent element of CL rape, including the difference between consent and submission. - also be able to distinguish CL rape and statutory rape, including the differences in AR and MR. * You do not need to memorize any other sex offense statutes, such as the MPC or the others we read in the book. If I test other sex offenses on the final, I will provide a statute for you to interpret and apply to the facts. XII. Homicide * the actus reus of homicide is *any act or omission+ causing the death of another human being

* the mens rea is what determines the applicable form of homicide * Common Law has the following forms of homicide: - Murder, 1st degree: Specific Intent to cause death, Felony Murder - Murder, 2d degree: Depraved Mind, Specific Intent to cause great bodily harm - Manslaughter, voluntary: Heat of Passion mitigation (reduces SI murder to manslaughter) - Manslaughter, involuntary: General Intent toward causing a death * MPC has the following forms of homicide: - Murder: P or K cause death, Extreme Indifference - Manslaughter: R cause death - Negligent Homicide: N cause death * For purposes of my class and our final exam: - the deliberate and premeditated standard for murder will not be tested on the exam - the extreme emotional disturbance mitigation under the MPC, 210.3(1)(b), will not be tested on the exam - there is no felony murder under the MPC (i.e., ignore the compromise version of FM which appears in definition of EIVHL murder in 210.2(1)(b)) * be ready to identify and address various homicide fact patterns - there are two options for intentional homicide: murder (SI or P/K) and voluntary manslaughter (HOP) - there are three options for unintentional homicide: murder (DM or EIVHL), manslaughter (GI or R/N), or no crime (no MR / not N) - remember the different kinds of Mistake of Fact which can arise in homicide cases: mistake in mens rea and mistake in self-defense - be able to identify a qualifying felony for Felony Murder (e.g., arson, rape, or robbery, but not larceny or battery) - remember that the agency rule limits the application of FM to deaths caused by the felons, and precludes FM for deaths caused by non-felons (e.g., victim, police) - however, also remember that the provocative act doctrine can impose depraved mind murder liability (but not FM) for deaths caused by non-felons * causation has two components: but for cause and proximate cause - there can be multiple but for causes of a death (e.g., stab wound followed by infection or evil doctor) - but there can be only one proximate cause for a death in criminal law (i.e., in the infection case, the stabber is guilty of homicide; in the evil doctor case, the evil doctor is guilty of homicide and the stabber is not)

FORMAT OF EXAM and LOGISTICAL REMINDERS The exam is three hours long and is worth 210 points. It will be structured as follows: * first essay 60 minutes 75 points MPC * second essay 45 minutes 55 points CL * multiple choice 75 minutes 80 points 40 questions (25 MPC & 15 CL) Like the midterm, the exam will be administered uninterrupted. Accordingly, you may take the test out of order if you choose (e.g., write the second essay first, or answer the multiple choice before the essays). Without an administered break between sections, however, you will be responsible for your own time management during the exam. On a related note, keep in mind that you may not have a good view of the clock in the exam room, and that you will not have your familiar electronic devices (e.g., cellphones) with you during the test pursuant to the FCSL Exam Room Policy. If you do not ordinarily wear a watch, you may want to do so for your exams. MULTIPLE CHOICE The most important advice I can give on the MC is to read the fact pattern, and the answer choices, very carefully. There are two main reasons people got MC questions wrong on the midterm: getting the law wrong and misreading the question. Your general preparation for the exam is about all you can do on the former. Everyone, even the A exams, is going to make some mistakes in remembering or applying the law forgetting the MPC merger rule for inchoate offenses, or forgetting the non-merger of conspiracy under CL, or applying reasonableness instead of recklessness to MPC self-defense, or whatever it is. Obviously you should try to get as much of the law right as possible, but its inevitable youll get at least some MC wrong, and some essay issues wrong, for that reason. On the other hand, misreading the question is a preventable reason for getting MC questions wrong. Every MC question is set up so that the fact pattern, in combination with the answer choices, leads you to the right answer. Some questions are harder than others, certainly, even when youve read them very

carefully. But when you dont read the questions carefully, youre going to get easy questions wrong too. Thats the kind of preventable mistake you cant afford getting a question wrong because you read too fast or too superficially, when you would have gotten it right if youd only read more carefully. Time management is a big part of avoiding this problem. Rushing through MC questions leads to reading too quickly, and reading too quickly means youll miss an important detail or turn of phrase that makes or breaks the question. (Of course, rushing through questions also means youre more likely to misremember the law.) So do your best to allocate yourself enough time for the MC section of the test, and to stay on pace (eight questions per fifteen minutes) during the section. And remember that you have to read both the fact pattern and the answer choices carefully. Some answer choices are wrong because they incorrectly state the law (e.g., honest and reasonable mistake of law is a defense). Others are wrong because they correctly state a general point of law, but one that is not the law applicable in the question (e.g., honest and reasonable mistake of fact is a defense is a wrong answer for a specific intent crime). And others are wrong because they correctly state a general point of law, but one that is inapplicable on the fact pattern given in the question (e.g., defendant made an honest and reasonable mistake of fact is a wrong answer in a deadly force self-defense case when the defendant was threatened with a featherduster). Your ability to rule out wrong answer choices and pick the correct one depends in large part on catching these kinds of differences. Another way of making the same point is to say that getting the MC questions right depends on correctly applying the correct law to the relevant facts. If you havent read the question carefully, youre very likely to apply the wrong law or misread the facts. So try hard to avoid it! ESSAYS Remember your goal on the essay questions: to maximize the number of points you get for your answer. Everything about your strategy in taking an essay question should be directed toward that objective. Just as with MC, you need to read the fact pattern carefully. Its very hard to maximize points with errors in issue-spotting. And remember that errors include not only missing an issue you should have seen, but also seeing an issue thats not really there. While I never subtract points for incorrect analysis in an essay, all point scoring is relative; if you spend a paragraph talking about an issue thats not present and take a zero on that paragraph, someone else will have used that same time to write a paragraph they did get points for. You should plan to use IRAC to structure your answers. But in my class I do not require you to literally use headings (Issue:), and there are no points in the grading for including headings. Remember that IRAC is a tool for keeping your presentation structured, so dont lose the forest for the trees. Most of the time, if the first two sentence of the paragraph are the I and R, youll be in good shape. (E.g., Bob is charged with attempted murder. To be guilty of attempt under the MPC, Bob must have taken a substantial step toward committing murder which is strongly corroborative of his criminal purpose to commit it. Bob is guilty because). Likewise, remember that most of the points on an essay question are in the analysis. If its a ten point issue, for example, IRC is worth three and A is worth seven. Yes, you need to set out the issue in play, what law applies, and what the outcome is but thats just the basics. The points come from explaining WHY the outcome is what it is.

In other words, show your work. No step in analysis is too obvious to have to explain. Make sure you connect the dots all the way through the analysis. (E.g., if a crime has four elements, be sure to address all four elements, not just the one implicated by the defendants mistake of fact.) If it helps keep you on track, remember the rough benchmark that every analysis sentence should have a because in it. Dont assume Ill understand why your analysis follows from what you said tell me. (E.g., Conspiracy requires an agreement with specific intent and an overt act. Fred joined the conspiratorial agreement because he was part of the group that planned the crime. Fred had specific intent because he demanded and was promised a cut of the robbery proceeds. There is an overt act because Joe bought ski masks to wear during the crime. Therefore, Fred is guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery.) Similarly, dont assume I know which facts from the fact pattern you think are important. You need to explain exactly which facts establish exactly which elements of the crime. It is that explanation which provides the WHY in the analysis, to connect the dots from the applicable legal rule to your conclusion about the outcome. Time will be at a premium. But dont let that fool you the key skill in answering essay questions is not speed, but efficiency. Your goal is not to get as many words on the page as fast as possible; your goal is to maximize the points you get for your analysis. Rushing into writing your answer often leads to wasted time, especially talking about issues that arent actually in the question or duplicating the same analysis in different parts of the same answer. Taking the time to focus your analysis before you start writing, and to structure your answer before you start writing, eliminates many of those kinds of mistakes. On the 60 minute question, you probably need to take at least 15 minutes to read and analyze the fact pattern before you start writing. On the 45 minute question, at least 10-12 minutes. If you dont plan out exactly what youre going to say first, youll be inefficient in writing your answer and get yourself in trouble. The best answers usually arent the longest theyre the most precise and concise. For example, if both B and C aided & abetted A in committing a crime, then talk about them together. (E.g., B and C are both guilty of arson as As accomplice because or B is guilty of arson as As accomplice because C is guilty for the same reasons as B.) Similarly, if B was the lookout for two separate crimes, talk about them together. (E.g., B is a principal in the second degree to both arsons because or B is guilty for the first arson because B is guilty for the second arson for the same reasons as the first.) Thats what efficiency is all about: getting the most points from the fewest words. On most Criminal Law essay questions, there are two good alternative ways to structure your answer. One is organizing by defendant i.e., discuss As liability on the various charges first, then Bs liability, then Cs. The other is organizing by crime i.e., discuss the first crime and As, Bs, and Cs liability for it, then discuss the second crime and As, Bs, and Cs liability for it. There is no right way to organize an answer to any given question, so just use the structure that feels most intuitive to you. One final reminder about essay questions: be sure to read the call of the question carefully. Sometimes the question will expressly limit the scope of issues to discuss in your answer. If it does so, you wont get any points for discussing extraneous issues. (E.g., if the question says What homicide charges can be filed against Bob in connection with these events? then you get no points for discussing any other crimes, like battery or robbery, you think Bob might also have committed.) Similarly, there are no points in the MPC question for telling me about CL rules or how the outcome would be different under CL, and vice versa.

OTHER REMINDERS In terms of what you need to memorize: You do not need to memorize case names or MPC section numbers, and I do not expect you to use them in your essay answers (nor do you earn any extra points for including case names or MPC section numbers). The only case names which might appear in the test questions are case names which are actually the name of a doctrinal test, such as the Pinkerton doctrine or the MNaghten test, which I may refer to by name just as I might refer to the merger rule or the unequivocality test by their names. Finally, the only crimes for which you need to memorize the elements are CL rape and CL and MPC homicide. For all other crimes, I will provide a definition of the elements in the question. Dont argue with the facts i.e., take the fact pattern at face value. The facts you need to answer the question will be given to you. Dont add or subtract facts, and dont assume I couldnt have actually meant what the facts say. Sometimes the facts, or a defendants beliefs, are implausible. As the saying goes, truth is stranger than fiction. Likewise, dont redefine the law use the statutes I give you. Even if you think someone who does the actus reus recklessly ought to be punished, the correct answer is not guilty if the defendant was reckless and the crime requires purpose. Dont let your intuitions or emotions get in the way of correctly analyzing the actual crime defined in the question.