CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE

Ignorance or Mistake
COMMON LAW
Specific Intent
General Intent
Strict Liability

MPC 2.04 and Intoxication MPC 2.08

Mistake of Fact
Failure of Proof
Any mistake of
fact = defense
Failure of Proof a
reasonable mistake
of fact = defense
NO defense

Voluntary Intox
Failure of Proof
If it logically
negates spec intent
NO defense
NO defense

Mistake of Law
Defense

Intoxication
Defense - admissible

NO defense unless
mistake of
collateral civil law
NO defense

NO defense inadmissible
NO defense

** if there is a specific intent crime, there must also exist a lesser crime
MPC
Purpose
Knowing
Reckless
Negligence

Mistake of Fact
If it negates mens rea, then
failure of proof defense

Voluntary Intox
If logical, then failure
of proof defense
NO defense

Mistake of Law
NO defense unless
a) law was not published
b) law was published wrong
c) mistake of collateral civil law

MPCExceptiontoIgnorance/Mistake2.04(2)defenseisnotavailableifdefendantwouldbeguiltyofanother
offensehadthesituationbeenashesupposed.Insuchacase,however,themistake/ignoranceofdefshallreducethe
grade/degreeofoffenseofwhichhemaybeconvictedtothoseoftheoffenseofwhichhewouldhavebeenguiltyhad
thesituationbeenashesupposed.
MPCExceptiontoIntoxicationIfintoxicationisnotselfinducedorispathological,thenitsadefenseiftheactor
a)lackedsubstantialcapacitytoappreciateitswrongfulness/criminalityortoconformhisconducttoreqsofthelaw.
Lambertv.California(1957)held,54,inacaseinvolvingaLosAngelesstatutemakingconvictedfelons
failuretoregisteranSLoffense,thatconvictingapersonoffailingtoregisterasafelon,absentactual
knowledgeofhisdutytoregisterorproofoftheprobabilityofsuchknowledge,violatesdueprocessbecause
theregistrationstatutecoversanomissionundercircumstanceswhichfailtoputtheactoronnotice.
UnitedStatesv.Freed(1971)heldthattheNationalFirearmsActwasaregulatorymeasure and thus imposed
SL for the non-registration element of the offense of possessing unregistered hand grenades. The Court
distinguished Lambert on the grounds that being in Los Angeles is an innocent act while possession of hand
grenades is not.

ActrequirementMPC2.03
-

VoluntaryactrequirementApersonisnotguiltyofanoffenseunlesshisliabilityisbasedonconduct
thatincludesavoluntaryactortheomissiontoperformanactofwhichheisphysicallycapable.
Involuntaryacts:unconsciousness,reflexmotions
Omission:mustbebasedonalegaldutyeitherstatedbylaworrecognizedbylaw(ex.Billingslea)
o CLsourceofduty:family/relationship,contract,voluntaryassumptionofresponsibility,control
overanotherorpropertyonwhichanotheris,statute.
Concurrence principle: The criminal conduct and the required culpability must occur at the same time,
although where a result (such as death) is an element of the offense, the result may occur after the
conduct is completed.
Possession is an act. If possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of
his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.

People v. Decina (NY 1956) held that def could be convicted of negligent homicide for hitting and killing 4 children
with his car after suffering an epileptic seizure, because despite knowing that he was subject to epileptic attacks and
seizures at any time, he deliberately took the chance that he would suffer a seizure while driving, in disregard of the
risks to other people.
Under the MPC, Decina would have been convicted of reckless homicide, since he drove while aware of the
risk that he would hit pedestrians.

Causation
1.
2.

But for defs conduct, result element would not have occurred.
Proximate cause normative question/ value jment. Problem: intervening factors
a. CL reasonable foreseeable test of harm occurring when it did & in the manner it did versus an
unforeseeable circumstance
b. MPC normative question. The actual result must be w/i the risk that def is aware of, not too
remote or accidental in its occurrence
*foreseeability does not mean high probability foresee. is a normative not empirical std
*attempt crimes are treated just as seriously as ones with a result except for murder
Intervening events that do not break the chain of causation:
1. Medical treatment this was necessitated by and a response to defs criminal conduct
2. Eggshell pl you take pl as you find him
3. Removal from life support? Some cts yes, as a matter of law. Others say - matter for the jury.
a. Actual result involves same kind of injury as the probably result and is not too remote
b. Was it a deliberate choice of actor to take his own life?

Homicide
Murder

C.L.
Murder1:malice,premeditation&deliberation
Murder2:malice&premeditation

Manslaughter**

1.intenttokill/causeseriousbodilyharmor
2.knewdeath/serbodharmwouldresultor
3.extremerecklessindifftodeath
4.felonymurder
1.provocationintenttokillw/adequate
provocation
2.recklessorgrossnegligence
3.actorengagedinmisdemeanor
Involuntarymanslaccidental/crimnegl

Negligent

MPC
Purposeful,knowing,orrecklessindifftohuman
life***

1.reckless
2.EEMDforwhichthereisareasonable
explanationorexcuse
NegligenthomicideGross/crimnegligence

**reckless or criminally negligent

1. reckless is dift from extreme reckless indifference in degree of depravity
2. crim negligent = a reasonable person in actors sitn should have appreciated a substantial, unjustifiable risk of
death. Defs conduct disregarding that risk constitutes a gross deviation from the std of care.
***recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life
a. severity of harm risked is impt factor
b. social utility of conduct generating the risk
c. probability of death is not relevant (Roe p. 790)
d.

Provocation partial defense

Adequate

C. L.
Provoked to sudden anger/ passion

Reasonable

Reasonable person in actors sitn

Cool-off

Def didnt have time to cool off

CA recognizes brooding/ rekindling of passion

MPC (broader, more subjective)

EEMD from viewpoint of actors sitn under
circumstances as he believes them to be.
For which there is a reasonable explanation or
excuse
-x-

Reasonable person
a. words alone are not sufficient. Marks hyper-sensitiveness.
b.
PURPOSE of defense:
1. Less moral culpability
2. less dangerous
3. imperfect justification def still deserves some kind of punishment
PROBLEMS w/ provocation defense
1. Def could be more dangerous
2. takes away incentive for actors to learn self-control and legitimates mens self-perceptions as 1) natural
aggressors and 2) against women
3. male std violent rage is a male model

Attempt Liability (p.291-341)

Why do we use attempt liab?
(a) incomplete attempt
(b) unsuccessful attempt result is missing even though conduct is completed
(c) when causation cant be shown (Dlugash he shot someone who was already dead)
(d) when it is impossible to commit the target crime and
target crime exists and a/c element is not present although def believes it to be
Test
M/r requirement
Excuse

CL (objective)
Dangerous prox or unequivocal
act test
Specific intent to all elements of
crime
No excuse

MPC (subjective)
Substantial step
Special m/r: Purpose to a/r
Special m/r: Purpose/belief to result
A/c: m/r of target crime
Abandonment

Physical proximity test (CL): actor must be dangerously close to the commission of the crime.
Unequivocal act test (CL) a criminal attempt is an act which shows crim intent on the face of it. This test demands
manifest evidence confessions or representations of purpose are not enough. This limits liability for attempt to persons
with firm commitment to the crim purpose.
M/r (CL): specific intent is required as to all elements of the offense attempted.
MPC: 5.01 Code weakens objective a/r and so requires highest m/r (subjective) : Purpose to commit a/r. Must act w/
culpability required for commission of the underlying offense. MPC focuses on culpability and dangerousness of
criminal. Broadens liability, facilitates early police intervention.
A person is guilty of attempt if acting w/ the culp otherwise required for commission of the crime.

1.
2.
3.

impossible to commit crime: purposely engages in conduct which would constitute a crime if a/c were as
he believes them to be
completedconduct:whencausingaresultelementisanelementofcrime,doesoromitstodoanything
withthepurposeofcausingorbeliefthatitwillcausesucharesultwithoutfurtherconductonhispart
incompleteconduct:purposefullydoesoromitstodoanythingwhich,underthea/cashebelievesthem
tobe,isanactoromissionconstitutingasubstantialstepinacourseofconduct

Substantial step test (MPC): An act or omissions constituting a substantial step strongly corroborative of crim purpose
in a course of conduct planned. Following can be sufficient: (a) lying in wait (b) enticing the contemplated victim (c)
reconnoitering the place (d) unlawful entry of a structure (e) possession of materials specially designed (f) possession of
materials at/near the place (g) soliciting an innocent agent
**MPC5.01(3)AccompliceattemptCanbeguiltyofattempttoaidincommittingacrimeevenifcrimewasnot
committedorattemptedbyotherperson.
MPC 5.01(4) Abandonment/ renunciation of crim purpose: abandoned his effort to commit crime or prevented its
commission, manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of crim purpose. Renunciation cannot be motivated by
new circumstances which increase the probability of detection or apprehension or which make more difficult the
accomplishment of crim purpose. Also cant be motivated by decision to postpone crime.
Under the dang prox test, this is not a defense: there is no reason to allow an abandonment defense if social
harm has already occurred. Ex. Ross (p.336) attempted rape (sexual intercourse & threat of force w/o womans consent)

Rizzo (p.298) men armed and looking to rob a certain person were arrested. Not convicted. Physical prox test used.
Bowen (p.292) attempted larceny. Two men arrested inside old womans house. They had told her they were there to
help out as handymen. The bedroom was in disarray and jewelry was found on the floor near where men were arrested.
Trial judge error: should have charged the jury on the necessity of finding commission of an overt act. Overt
act must unequivocally refer to the commission of the crime. Trial judge just charged that if jury found that men had
entered the house with the intention to commit larceny, they were guilty. Entry is not an overt act here since these men
had come to the house before in the legitimate role of handymen. Reversed and remanded.
Mettetal (p.304) attempted murder of neuro-doctor. Arrested for crim trespass and stalking.
Under CL, no liab no dangerous prox. Under MPC, yes: substantial steps.
Thomas (p.310) Convicted for attempted reckless mansl. Actor must act with culpability required for commission of
the underlying offense (reckless here).
Dlugash (p.322) Dlugash shot a man after he was already dead. Ct. reverses his conviction for murder because evid did
not prove that victim was alive. What elements of the crime cant be proven: causation and a/c of live body. MPC
requires purpose to kill.

Accomplice Liability
When does prosecution need accomplice liab?
(a) when def does not engage in crim conduct element of the target crime
(b) when a group of individuals commit crime and prosecution cant prove that each def commit conduct elem
(c) when defs crim conduct did not cause the result element (Dlugash)
Traditionally: Conviction of principal is a prerequisite to trial
Today: Liability of an accessory is punished at the level of a misdemeanor
Level of assistance
m/r req towards a/r
m/r req towards result, a/c
Derivative liab?

CL
Actual assistance
Knowledge
Crime m/r
As liab is derivative of Ps liab. A

MPC
Attempt to aid or actual aid
Purpose to commit crim conduct
same
MPC recognizes dift culpabilities**

cannot be convicted of a more serious

crime than P.
MPC 2.06 - includes provisions for innocent agent and vicarious liab.
A person is an accomplice if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the crim cond s/he:
1. solicits another person to commit it
2. Attempt to aid or actual aid in planning or committing it
3. has legal duty to prevent commission, and fails to make a proper effort to do so.
**Acc can be convicted on proof of commission of the offense and of his complicity, though the P has not
been prosecuted or convicted, or convicted of a dift offense or degree of offense, or has immunity.
Compared w/ CL: weakens the a/r req and heightens m/r req. Concerned w/ dang and culp of actor, not as
concerned about actors objective conduct.
**presenceandprioragreementmaybeenoughforaccompliceliability.SeeDurham.
Withdrawal of aid : Accomplice must terminate his conduct prior to the commission of the offense and
1. wholly deprive it of effectiveness in the commission of the offense or
2. give timely warning to police or make proper effort to prevent commission of the offense
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Russell (p.682) drowning of wife and two kids. Charged murder, convicted of reckless mansl. Def was under
the duty by reason of his parenthood. Assent + presence + omission/duty
Def could not be convicted as a principal. Intervening event of another criminal actor (his wife) is the
immediate cause of death. Only if the intervening actor is an innocent or irresponsible agent, can def be held
liable as a principle.
Tally (p.688) judge wired a message to telegraph operator not to warn victim of assault by his brothers. Victim
had slept with brothers sister. Ct. finds that Tally actually made the situation more difficult thus he is guilty
as an accessory: he rendered actual aid.
Peoni (p.691) A sold counterfeit bills to B who sold them to C. Police arrested C, and charged A with
possession. Is Peoni liable as an accessory to Dorseys act of possession? Ct uses MPC and says No: Def must
have a purposeful attitude towards the principals criminal conduct.
Backun (p.692) Backun sold stolen merchandise to Zucker knowing that Zucker would transport it to the South
where there was a market for it. Is Backun an accessory to the transport of stolen merch?
Ct. says Backun is guilty. Backun made possible the commission of the felony and willed it. Also,
under CL, knowing facilitation is enough.
Durham (p.697) Durham got out of the car with his hands up. His buddy in crime got out and starting shooting
at the two cops who pulled them over. Durham rule:
1. Ct. held that def meant to aid or encourage the criminal endeavor and
2. that the crim conduct was the natural and foreseeable consequences of the criminal endeavor
Durham requires knowledge m/r not purpose m/r towards the criminal conduct. Affirmative defense of
withdrawal of aid : doesnt count here.
Cogan (p.701) Husband raped wife and then egged def on to rape her as well. Both husband and def are
convicted of rape. Husband had purpose m/r; Cogan did not intend to have sex without wifes consent.
This is the prevailing view. M/r of principle is irrelevant to liability of accomplice. Where the P has
committed the a/r, the liability of the accomplice should be assessed according to her/his m/r. Under this
approach, we only look to the P for the a/r.
versus
Dusenberry (p.703) Ct. overturned defs conviction of rape. Guard forced two people to have sex. Ct. held that
there can be no accessory w/o a principal.
Ct got it wrong. Said statute requied P to carnally know the victim, but under the innocent agent
theory, the defendant was the principal.
Richards (p.705) accomplice is charged with a higher degree of crim liab than the accomplices. Wife hires
thugs to beat up husband. Ct. refused to convict wife of a graver offense than was committed.

No innocent agent here, but an intervening party that caused the harm. Accomplice liab is derivative
of Ps liab. Under MPC, the ct. would convict Richards of a more serious crime MPC recognizes dift
culpabilities.

FelonyMurder(855987)
Culpability
Predicate

Causation
Mergerrule
Killingbynon
felon?

CL
SLforhomicidewhenpredicatefelony
issatisfied
inherentlydangerousHansenlooks
tofelonyinabstractwhendefiningthis.
Otherctslookatspecificfacts.
Normally,fromattemptthroughperiod
ofimmediateflight.
Felonymustbeindependentofhomicide
(assaultismerged)
Agencycofeloncannotbeconvicted
becauseprimarypartywasnother
accomplice
Proxcausefeloncanberesponsible
forkillingcommittedbynonfelonif
felonsetsinmotionactswhichresultin
death.

MPC
Felonycreatesapresumptionofm/rtodeath.NO
strictliability.
Recklessindiffispresumedifactor/accompliceis
engagedincommissionorattemptedcommission
of,orflightfrom(attempted)commissionof
robbery,rape,arson,burglary,kidnapping,or
feloniousescape
Naturalandprobableresultoffeloniousconduct
x
Probableresultoffelony

Hansen(CA)Mergerrule.Defsfiredgunataninhabiteddwellingkillingdaughter.Got2nddegreemurder
conviction.
- 1stdegreefelonymurderfeloniesenumeratedinstatute
- 2nddegreefelonymurderfeloniesthatareinherentlydangeroustohumanlife,i.e.
substantialriskorhighprobabilityofdeath
Defsarguethatfelonymergedw/resultinghomicide.Usually,onlyassaultismergedw/homicide.An
actw/adesignindependentofanintenttocausetheinjurythatcauseddeath,doesnotmerge.Dissentsays
thiswasacrimeagainstaperson,undertakentoeffectanassault,soitshouldmerge.
SophophoneFelonymurderconvictionfordeathofcofelonduringflightfromaggravatedburglary.Police
actuallykilledtheguyinselfdefense.Sophophonewasalreadyincopcaratthatpoint.
Holding:AgencySophophonenotresponsiblefordeathofcofelon.
Dissent:proxcauseapproachismoreconsistentw/felonymurderrule.Defisnotrequiredtobethedirect
causeofthedeath,andfelonymurderruleisnotlimitedtothedeathofinnocents.
Clarkcountyv.Morrisdefinedwhatwouldsupportconvictionofdrugsellerfor2nddegreefelonymurder
1)saleandingestionofnarcoticinquantitiesinvolvedmustbeinherentlydangintheabstract
1) mustbeanimmediateandcausalrelationshipbtwfeloniousconductanddeath
2) causalrelationshipmustextendbeyondthesaletoaninvolvementintheingestionofthelethaldosage
AntickGoodexamcase.Chargedw/burglaryandmurder.Postburglary,Antickscofelonwaskilledwhen
hestartedagunbattlew/thecops.Antickwalkedawayunobtrusively.Holding:Notguiltyofmurder.
1. Agencyapproach:Burglarywasnottheimmediatecauseofdeath,sofelonymurderdoesnt
applyhere.Plus,killingmustbedirectactoffelon/accomplice.
2. Vicariousliabforthecrimesofhisaccompliceimmediatecauseofdeathisnottheburglary,so
theresnofelonymurder.Also,Antickscofelondidnotkillanyone,sotheresnovicarious
liab.

Justification/ Excuses
Justificationexceptionstocriminalprohibitions.Sociallydesirableconduct
choiceoflesserevil
Excusewheninduscannotbefairlyblamedforwrongfulconduct.Notsociallydesirableconduct.
mentaldefect,lackofmoralagency(youth)
MPC3.02justificationconduct:
(a) GeneralRule:Conductwhichtheactorbelievestobenecessarytoavoidaharmoreviltohimselforto
anotherisjustifiableif:
(1) Choiceoflesserevil:theharmsoughttobeavoidedis>thanthatsoughttobepreventedbythe
lawdefiningtheoffensecharged(~totraditionalnecessitydefense)
1) Greaterevilcanbelegallypermissibleconduct
(2) Defensenotlistedincode:nolawdefiningtheoffenseprovidesexceptionsordefensesdealing
withthespecificsituationinvolvedand
(3) Legislativepurpose:alegislativepurposetoexcludethejustificationclaimeddoesnototherwise
plainlyappear.
(b) Forfeitureofdefense:whentheactorwasrecklessornegligentinbringingaboutthesitnrequiringa
choiceofevils,thejustificationisunavailable.
MPCv.CL:NYnormativestdwhichrequiresthechoiceoflesserevilstobeaccordingtothereasperson,not
accordingtowhatslegal/illegal.Givesjurychoicetosaywhatsimmoralregardlessofitslegality.However,theNY
courtconcludedthatsinceabortionsareconstitutionallyprotected,thejustificationstatutecannotintrudeonit.
Situationaljustification?Economicnotacceptable.Medicalnecessityyes,ifdefreasonablybelievedhisuseof
marijuanawasnecessary,lesserchoiceofevils(defshealthv.statesinterestindrugregulation),andnootherdrug
wouldbeeffective.
Moralculpabilityrequiresa
(1) defengagesinconductthatviolatesamoralnorm
(2) moralagent
(3) actviolatingmoralnormcanbefairlyattributedtotheagent(voluntaryact;fairopportunityto
complyw/conductrule)
________________________________________________________________________________________________
MarkumDefsappealfromconvictionfordefianttrespassonabortionclinic.ReliedonCapitolotest:
a. actorwasfacedwithimminentharm(notinstatute)
b. actorcouldreasonablyexpectthathisactionswouldbeeffectiveinavoidingthisgreaterharm
c. noeffectivelegalalternativeexisted(notinstatute)
d. legislaturehadnotactedtoprecludethedefense
Holding: defs guilty. Legislative intent clearly sanctions abortions. Dissent says that if the clinic was
processing abortions beyond the time of viability, the right to protect the life of the fetus would exist.
Framingofevil:courtcallsitpracticeofabortion,defscouldnotbeeffective.Defensesayspreventionof
theabortionoccurringonthatexactdayatthecenterdefscouldbeeffectiveatpreventingthis.
Dudleyv.StephensSeamanwhoatecabinboy.Ct.founddefsguiltyofmurder,sayingseamanshouldhave
sacrificedtheirownlives.Settingupastdthatreaspersoncannotreach,andrulesreaspersoncannotobey.
Thisdoesnotservedeterrence,willnotidentifydangpersons,orserveretributivepurposes.Rationalefor
rejectingnecessitydefensepreservingyourownlifeisnotanecessityincertaincircumstances.

SELF-DEFENSE - justification
Whendefendantisusinglethalviolence
1. Adequacythreatofunlawfulphysicalviolence
a. Actorwasreasonableinhisbeliefthatheneededtouseforcetodefendhimselffromphysicalharm
2.

3.

Necessityofusingdefensivedeadlyforce
A.Imminentthreat(CL)

MPC:subjectivestd3.04useofforceinselfprotection
MPC:3.04(1)wasdefsuseofviolenceimmediately
necessarytoprotecthimselffromotherpersonsunlawful
force
MPC:3.04(2)(b)(ii)retreatrule,Abbott,ifactorknows
B.Retreatnonecessitytokillifuseof
thathecanavoidthenecessityofusingsuchforcewith
deadlyforcecouldhavebeenavoided.
Majorityofstatesrejectretreatrule,butalso completesafetybyretreating.(p.429)
rejecttherighttostandonesground.
Habitationexception:homeorwork
Failuretoretreatshouldbeconsideredasa
circumstancetodeterminewhetherdefwent
fartherthanjustified.
3.04(2)(b)Otherpersonmustbethreateningdeath,
C.Proportionalityactionsnecessaryto
resistthreatmustnotbeoutofproportionto seriousbodilyharm,kidnappingorrape(notprop
interest)
natureofthreat.
MPC:3.04(2)(i)useofforcecannotbeprovokedbyactor
D.Forfeitureofselfdefenseifdefwasthe
intendingtocauseseriousharm
initialaggressor
(i)unlessaggressorwithdraws(seeLunsley)
Problemofmistakenbelief,mistakenevaluationofnecessityorexcessiveresponse
A.(CL)imperfectselfdefenseor
MPC:3.09reck/neglevaluationleadstoreck/neglcrime
provocation
charge;mitigationofmurdertomansl/neglhomicide

threatofphysicalharmrequiredbecauseeconomic/socialcoerciondoesnotcount
Fleeingcriminal:moderntrendisthatdeadlyforcecannotbeusedtopreventtheescapeofapersonbelieved
tohavecommittedaviolentfelony
Defenseofhabitation:permissiontousedeadlyforcetopreventanentryintooneshomebasedonthebelief
thatthisforceisnecessarytopreventcertainfeloniousconduct.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
GoetzObjective

defnofreasonableness.Shootingoffourblackkidsonthesubway.
Whatsreasonable?NYstatute:objectivenotion.MPCsimperfectjustificationsaysculpability
arisesfromamistakenbeliefintheneedtousedeadlyforceasselfdefenseshouldbenogreaterthanthe
culpabilityofthecrimecharged(negligentmistake,thenmitigationtonegligenthomicide;recklessmistake,
mitigationtomansl).
Goetzholding:reasonablenessmustbebasedoncircumstancesfacingadefincludingthephysical
movementsofthepotentialassailants,anyrelevantknowledgedefhasaboutthatperson,physicalattributesof
defandassailant,priorrelevantexperiences=specialexpertise(v.hypersensitivity).Actorsbeliefastothe
assailantsintentiontouseforceneednotbecorrecttobejustified
LeidholmSubjective

defnofreasonableness.Whetherthecircumstancesaresufficienttoinduceinthe
accusedanhonestandreasonablebeliefthathemustuseforcetodefendhimselfagainstimminentharm.
Standpointofareaspersonisnotrelevanthere.Thingspathologicaltotheindividualareconsideredhere.

KellyBatteredwifesyndrome;wifestabbedhusbandw/scissorsoutinpublic.Convictedofmansl.Ct.ruled
thatexperttestimonywasinadmissible.Defsaiditwasessentialtorebutmisconceptionsaboutbattered
women,andtoshowthereasonablenessandhonestyofdefsfearofseriousbodilyharm.
Pathology,irrationalbehaviorv.specialexpertiseindiscerningassailantsintention
Problems with BWS
- Imminence requirement? Proper inquiry should be immediacy of the response necessary in defense
- Objective prong? Relevance of past abuse to defs.
- Hostage defense? Sometimes.

Duress Excuse, but Haney views it as justification.

HaneyPossessionofescapeparaphernalia.Returnedtojurytodecidewhether
(1) threatagainstprincipal(Francis)wasimminent
(2) Haneypossessedwellgroundedfearthatthreatwouldbeexecuted
(3) Neitheraccomplice(Haney)norprincipalhadanyreasalternative
i. Choiceoflesserevil
Ifthisisajustificationclaim,accompliceshouldntbeconvictednocriminalact.Ifitsanexcuseclaim
suggestingthattheprincipleisnotmorallyculpablebecausedeniedopportunitytocomply,thisgivesreasonto
notexcusetheaccomplicewhowasntunderthesameduress.
DURESS
1.Natureofthreattriggering
thisdefense
2.Causes

3.Excusesnormativestd

4.Forfeitureofdefense,Willis

CL
1.imminentharm
2.threatofseriousbodharm
3.ondefor3rdparty
1.reasfearofthreatsexecution
2.lackofreaslawfulwaysof
avoidingthreat
1.defwascoercedtocommit
crime
2.personofreasfirmnesswould
alsohavebeencoerced
1.defhadnotreck/neglplaced
themselvesincoercivesitn

MPC 2.09 (vaguer standard)

1.x
2.unlawfulphysicalharm
3.same
1.useoforthreattouseunlawfulforce
2.implied
1.same
2.same
1.2.09(2)forfeitureofdefenseifyou
recklesslyplacedyourselfincoercivesitn
2.ifyounegligentlyplaceyourselfina
coercivesitn,youcanonlybeconvictedofa
neglcrime.

**Situationalcoercionnotacceptable.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
WillisCt.excludesevidofBWStosupportdefsclaimofduress.Willistestforduress:
(1) Imminentharm
(2) Noreaslegalalternative
(3) Causationbtwcrimactionandavoidanceofthreatenedharm
(4) Defdidnotrecklessly/neglplaceherselfinthecoercivesitn.

INSANITY DEFENSE

(531-84, 585-90, 636-53)

FULL Defense
NGInotguiltybyreasonofinsanitytriggerscivilcommitmentautomatically
o Mustbeinsaneatthetimeofthecrime
Mentalimpairmentasamitigatingfactorcanreducesentence
o Utilitarianjudgewillmighttreatmentalillnessasanaggravatingfactor
Issueisnotifdefunderstoodmoralsignificanceofhisactions,butwhetherhehadcapacitytounderstandor
control
Competencytostandtrialortobeexecuted
Rationaleforinsanitydefense:toexculpatenonmorallycapableactors&protectpublicwelfare
o Ontheotherhand,generaldeterrenceisservedbypunishinginsanedefs(dontwantpeopletothink
theycanfakeaninsanitydefensetogetoff).Butgendeterrenceisineffectivebecauselawabiding
citizenscantidentifyw/theinsane.
Triggeringcondition:
(1)mentaldisease
(2)thathadspecifiedincapacitatingeffectsatthetimeoftheoffense

CL:
1) MNaghtentest(novolitionalcriteria)Diddefknow:
(1) Whathewasdoing
(2) Thatitwaswrong
2) Durham/Producttest:noaccountabilityforactsproducedbymentalillness
3) Controltest:noaccountabilityforactsthatpersonisunabletocontrolasaresultofmentaldisease
4) Federalstatute:severeversionofMNaghtendefwasunabletoappreciatenatureandqualityoftheactorthe
wrongfulnessoftheactasaresultofseverementaldiseaseordefect.Triggeringdiseasehereismorethan
mentaldiseaseordefect.Tryingtogetridofimpreciseexcusingconditionofsubstantialincapacity.Was
unabletoappreciatewrongfulness,notdiminishedcapacity.Pohlottest.
MPC4.01apersonisnotresponsibleifasaresultofmentaldiseaseordefecthe
(1) Lackssubstantialcapacitytoappreciatethecriminalityofhisconduct
(2) ortoconformhisconducttotherequirementsofthelaw
cognitiveANDvolitionalcriteria
**Exceptionmentaldiseaseordefectdoesnotincludeabnormalitymanifestedonlyberepeatedcriminaloranti
socialconducti.e.sociopaths4.01(2)
Knowledge:
wrongcanmeanlegallywrong.Inthiscase,defcanbeconvictedevenifshethoughtshewasjustified.
o Otherstatesdisagree:moralwrongfulnessisthesalienttest.
Emotionalappreciation/affectivemeaning
o Truesignificanceofconduct:doesdefunderstandthenature,characterandconsequencesoftheact
Intellectualknowledge
Volition:causation/compulsion

10

Unconsciousdesiresmotivatingconsciouschoice?Criticssayifweallowthis,itwillunderminethecrim
justicesystemallactscanbelinkedtothesubconscious.

JudgeBazelon:mentaldiseaserequirementshouldbeabolished.Juryinstructioninstead:defisnotresponsibleifat
thetimeofhisunlawfulconducthismental/emotionalprocessesorbehaviorcontrolswereimpairedtosuchanextent
thathecantjustifiablybeheldresponsibleforhisact.
Focusonexcusingcondition(hecouldntcontrolhimself)notonmentaldisease/defect.Utilitariandisagrees:
w/otriggeringconditionofmentaldisease/defect,everytrialwouldthenbeaboutwhetherpeopleareresponsiblefor
theiractions.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
JoyBakerThoughtherauntwasthedevilandshother.Insanityisalegalterm,notaclinicaldisorder.
Problemw/thedefensehere:everyjurorhastheirownparadigmofwhatmentalillnessis.

DiminishedCapacitymentallyabnormalbutlegallysane.
Partialdefense: reduces1stdegreeto2nddegree=majority
reducesintentionalhomicidetomansl=minority
A. Mensreamodelproofthatdefdidnothavethem/relement
a. failureofproofdefense
b. Problem:psychologicaldescriptionsofdefsmentalstatushavelittletodowithcrim
lawsconceptofm/r
c. RationaleEvidthatdefsmentalabnormalityimpairedhisbehaviorcontrolsormadeit
difficultforhimtoappreciatetheactsgravity,explainswhyhehasm/rbutisless
blameworthythensomeoneelsewhohasthesamem/r.
B. DiminishedresponsibilitydefenserareinCL,MPCallowsitunderEEMD
a. Partialexcusemitigatessentencefrommurdertomansl
b. Rationalesforexcuse
i. Requiresjurytomakecommonsensemoraljmentaboutwhetherdefwas
sufficientlyimpairedtowarrantreducedpunishment
c. Critics:
i. amorestraightforwardsolutionwouldbetogivethesentencingauthority
expressdiscretiontoconsidermitigatingandaggravatingfactors.
ii. juryisaskedonlyifdefhasadiminishedculpability,notifheismore
dangerousthanthenormaldef
iii. mostmentallyabnormalindusarecapableofcontrollingantisocialimpulses
anddo
iv. dimcapdefensemayconflictwithlegislaturesgradingschemeofhomicide
offenses
__________________________________________________________________________________
Fouchav.LouisianaDeffoundguiltybyreasonofinsanityandwascommittedtopsychhospuntilheproved
thathewasnotdangerouswhetherornothewasinsane.Defcontendsthatthisdenieshimdueprocessand
equalprotection.
Majority:cantconfineFouchaaccordingtopresenttestofjustdangerousness.Dissentsaysmajority
istreatingFouchalikeacivilcase.Defwassaneatthetimeofhisplea.Hewasconfinedforpastbehavior
notforpredictionsoffutureconduct.
Moore(p.586)Heroinaddictclaimedthatduetohisabnormalpsychologicalconditionhelacked
substantialcapacitytoconformhisbehaviortotheselaws.Althoughcrimrespistheproductoffreewill,
thelawdoesntexculpateallwhosecapacityforcontrolisimpaired.Thelawrecognizesknowndeviations
wheretheresabroadconsensusthatfreewilldoesntexist.

11

Disabilitymustbegrossandverifiablesuchasthementaldisease/defectthatestablishes
irresponsibility.Thus,MPCrejectsaninsanitydefensethatisonlymanifestedbyrepeatedcrimandanti
socialconducti.e.sociopath.

12