I. Basic Definition - Act + Mental State + Result = Crime – Defenses

II. Actus Reus - a voluntary act, omissions do not usually count.

A. Voluntary Act

Common Law / MPC / Differences
Requires a voluntary and a social harm An act is voluntary if D willed the action or if she was sufficiently free that she could be blamed for her conduct. The social harm is the wrong caused by D's voluntary act. / No person may be convicted of a crime in the absence of conduct that includes of which he is physically capable.

B. Exceptions

1. Omissions

Common Law / MPC / Differences
No crime unless there is a legal duty to act
Types:
Statute
Contract
Special Relationship
Assumption of Care
Peril wrongfully created for another / Same as CL criminal liability imposed for the omission of an act which D is physically capable. / None
Notes
Not obtaining reasonably available help can make D liable, no matter what D’s physical capabilities.

2. Involuntary AcT

Common Law / MPC / Differences
Can negate the action or serve as an affirmative defense. Done in a state of unconsciousness / Involuntary acts: reflex, convulsion, movements during sleep, movements under or the result of hypnosis, and unconscious movements. / MPC extends CL such that acts done under hypnosis and in states of unconsciousness are "no action."

III. Mens Rea - A mental state is required for most crimes. Strict liability and public welfare offences are the exception. To prove an offense, the prosecution must prove mens rea as to every element of the offense

A. Types

Common Law / MPC / Differences
Intentionally (willfully) – to consciously cause the result or when one is virtually certain that the object will occur as a result of D's conduct.
Recklessness – A heightened criminal negligence or conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Negligence – Objective fault D should have been aware that his conduct created a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the social harm would result.
Maliciously - when one intentionally or grossly reckless causes the social harm prohibited by the statute. / Purpose - conscious object with conduct & results. Must be aware of the existence or believe or hope that such circumstances do exist
Knowledge – Conscience awareness that results are practically certain to occur
Recklessness - Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Negligence – Should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Rule of thumb
Purpose = desire for a certain outcome
Knowledge = indifference to a certain outcome / MPC splits intentionally into purpose and knowledge
MPC clear distinction between negligence and recklessness - not on the degree of risk involved but on D's knowledge of the risk.
MPC provides that when it is not clear which element a mens rea applies to, apply it to all elements of the offense
Where the statute is silent on Mens Rea, recklessness is required.
Willful Blindness
MPC - if one deliberately avoids knowledge because of the belief that knowing would be bad, then D satisfies mens rea of knowledge. Requires high probability
CL - Only have to be aware of probable existence of element

B. attendant circumstances

Common Law / MPC / Differences
? / For a crime requiring a mens rea of:
Purpose - D must be aware of the existence of such circumstances (attendant), or believes or is aware they exist
Knowledge - Aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist: only requires high probability of existence.
Reckless: Conscience disregard of substantial and unjustified risk
Negligence - Should be aware of substantial or unjustified risk

C. Specific Intent/General Intent

Common Law / MPC / Differences
Applies to mens rea. Defined by the crime
General Intent – volitional doing of a prohibited act. Only require intent to commit the act constituting the crime. Can infer all mens rea from observing the conduct.
Specific Intent – intent to do some further act or cause some additional consequence beyond that which must have been committed or cause in order to complete the crime. Acts in addition to general intent. Proof of specific intent is required , but it may be circumstantial.
To negate specific intent, a mistake must be honest.
To negate a general intent, the mistake must be honest and reasonable. / MPC does not distinguish between general and specific intent. / This is exclusively a CL issue.
General intent – D desired to commit an actus reus;
Special intent – D desired to bring about something further
An alternative definition
Specific - intent to do conduct and a further intent.
General - intent to do the conduct.

D. Strict Liability - Where there is no mental state required for an offense

Common Law / MPC / Differences
Public welfare and traditional crimes. Created by statute / Under MPC, SL crimes are generally restricted to violations and are punishable by fines, not incarceration - public welfare crimes; / MPC is generally the same as CL.

IV. Result

A. Cause in fact - Causation is only required for result crimes.

Common Law / MPC / Differences
Conduct satisfies the but-for test. Actual cause exists when the result that constitutes the criminal offense would not have occurred when it did but for D's voluntary act (or omission) / MPC only requires actual causation and uses the same but-for test as CL.
Cause in fact / MPC only requires actual causation.

B. Proximate Cause

Common Law / MPC / Differences
Forseeability Test
To determine proximate cause, one must determine whether the actor was the direct cause and whether there were any intervening actors or intervening causes (coincidences) that severer the causal chain back to D
No intervening causes unless the cause is foreseeable or de minimus.
Intervening Acts - Intervening acts can sufficiently break the chain of causation;
Dependent intervening acts: occur where the intervening actor acts because of a condition brought upon by the D’s prior conduct. However, if the dependant intervening actor was grossly negligent, this is sufficient to break the chain of causation.
Voluntary Intervening Act: occur where the intervening actor acts voluntarily. Intentional acts always break the chain of causation; reckless acts are sometimes sufficient (depending on court).
/ MPC handles proximate causation within the mens rea as to results. Whether the result was too distant or accidental in occurrence to have a just bearing on D's liability or on the gravity of the offense.
If the result deviates too far from what is foreseeable, then one will be exculpated for purpose and knowledge crimes. If not, then D will be convicted even if there is an intervening actor.
For risky crimes, the result must have been foreseeable in order to convict / For MPC, proximate causation is handled within mens rea.
Purp/Know: Causation not established if result was not what was intended, unless:
1. P just a different person (Transferred Intent)
2. Injury less than intended
Reck/Neg: Causation not established if result not within risk the actor was or should have been aware of, unless:
1. P just a different person (Transferred Intent)
2. Injury less than risked
Exceptions to forseeability:
Take the Victim as you find him - Condition unforeseeable, but D still liable
Transferred intent - Result unforeseeable but D still liable
Voluntary intervening act - Result foreseeable but D not held liable.

C. Complicity

1. Accomplice - An accomplice is one who intentionally assists another person to engage in conduct that constitutes the offense

Common Law / MPC / Differences
Types
Principal in the 1st degree – Actually engage in the act or omission that constitutes the criminal offence
Principal in the 2nd degree – incites or abets and is present, either actively or constructively at the time of the crime
Accessory before the fact – incites or abets but is not present at the time of the crime.
Accessory after the fact - intentionally assists the principal after the crime.
Actus reus, mens rea and principal’s completion of the offense
Actus reus
Abetting or inciting - The D must have directly of indirectly encouraged of facilitated the commission of the offence.
Abetting -is any significant assistance in the commission of an offense
The aid must impact upon the actual perpetrator
aid does not have to be necessary for the successful commission of the offense.
perpetrator doesn’t’ have to be aware of the of the accessory’s assistance.
Inciting – encouragement even if not accompanied by physical aid.
Perpatrator must be aware of encouragement
Being present at crime with prior agreement to aid is sufficient encouragement
Mens rea
Mental state required for commission of the target offense
Intend for action to assist or encourage in the successful completion of the crime
Generally, this second element can be inferred from the first.
Accomplice is liable for all crimes that are a reasonably foreseeable result of the contemplated crime. Some jurisdictions allow D's to be accomplices to reckless or negligent crimes. / Types
Principal – Acting with the requisite mens rea, actually engages in the act or omission that causes the crime, or acts through an irresponsible or innocent agent (Innocent Instrumentality) to commit the offence
Accomplice – incites or abets with requisite intent before or during the commission of the offense. Includes solicitation and omission when a duty is present.
mens rea
Purposefully promotes or facilitates in the commission of a crime.
Must act with culpability sufficient for the commission of the offense
Note that this is especially significant in jurisdictions with felony murder because it makes an accomplice in the conduct (underlying felony) strictly liable for the resulting death because he had the requisite mens rea as to the result. This is how MPC deals with accomplice liability in reckless or negligent contexts. / MPC - no actual assistance for accomplice liability is necessary. Agreement to aid is enough.
MPC - accomplice can be convicted even if the perpetrator has not yet been prosecuted, has been convicted of a lesser crime, has been acquitted, or is feigning.
MPC - does not recognize the natural and probable consequences rule for homicide found in CL. MPC - one who is legally incapable of committing an offense may be accountable for the crime if another person for whom he is legally accountable commits it.
MPC - knowing facilitation is not enough to establish liability. A victim cannot be an accomplice.
MPC includes the crime of attempt to aid and abet.
CL - If the perpetrator is justified, then there is no accomplice liability because there is no crime.
CL- excuses do not transfer from perpetrator to accomplice
A victim accomplice (underage girl in statutory rape) cannot be an accomplice unless there is a legislative exception.
Knowing or reckless facilitation is sufficient to establish complicity in some courts
Substantiality of aid can also create complicity. Complicity may also be established if there is sufficiently substantial benefit to the knowing facilitator.
a. Defenses
Common Law / MPC / Differences
Withdrawal
Must take place before the events are unstoppable
Inciter – communicate an renunciation of the crime to the perpetrator
Abettor – Must render the assistance D gave ineffective / Withdrawal
Wholly depriving his prior assistance of effectiveness,
Provide a timely warning of the plan to law enforcement
Make an effort to prevent the commission of the offence

V. Crime

A. Inchoate

1. Attempt - an act done with the intention of committing a crime, that falls short of completing a crime

Common Law / MPC / Differences
Mens Rea -
For the Attempt - Specific intent to commit the acts or cause the resulting target crime.
For the Target crime - Intent necessary for the target crime (specific or general depending of the offence) For strict liability must only show intent to attempt, no target crime mens rea
Reckless crimes – Courts generally do not try for attempts of reckless crimes.
Negligent crimes - Attempt to commit is logically impossible
Actus Reus
Tests
Proximity test – conduct must be physically proximate to the intended crime. Focuses on what remains to be done.
Indispensable Elements – Control over all factors in the commission of the crime. Nothing must be left undone
Probable desistance - Likelihood that D would cease efforts to commit the crime given the conduct D has already committed.
Unequivocal (res ipsa loquitur) – An act amounts to attempt only if it firmly shows the D’s intent to commit the crime. The act “speaks for itself”
Last Proximate Act - test has been universally rejected, is traditional common law
Attempt is a misdemeanor. / Mens Rea -
For the attempt – Purposely or knowingly engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as D believes them to be.
For the Target crime – D acts with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the offense.
However, here too, the mens rea for attempt is often higher than the one required for the target offense. Generally, the required mens rea is purpose.
Actus Reus
D must perform a substantial step toward committing the crime.
D’s conduct must be corroborative of D's purpose.
.Attempt is a felony. / Under MPC, D may still be held for the attempt even if the target offense is neither committed nor attempted by D or anyone else.