1. Was the act Voluntary?

2. If there was an omission, was there a legal duty?

1. The person doesn't remember it.

2. the person could not control one's own impulses.

3. The act is unintentional or its consequences are unforeseen.

1. In order for the actus reus to be satisfied all conduct elements must be voluntary

2. An act must be a willed movement and not an involuntary reaction to stimuli

1. A person must have a legal duty and not a moral duty to someone in order to be held accountable for said person's safety

2. Omission to perform the duty must be the immediate and direct cause of death

1. Where a statute imposes a legal duty

2. Where someone has a special relationship with someone

3. Where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another

4. Where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid.

5. When a person creates a risk of harm to another

Result Crime/Element

Law punishes because of an unwanted outcome

example: injury, death, battery

law prohibits specific behavior

example: possessing, breaking, entering

constitute part of the actus reus of every offense

condition that must be present in conjunction with the prohibited conduct or result in order to constitute a crime

exampls: a vehicle, a person, night time, over 55 mph, etc.

defendant is guilty of a crime if they commit the social harm of the offense with any blameworthy state of mind

not significant whether they caused the social harm intentionally or instead with some other state of mind

1. Purposely
2. Knowingly
3. Recklessness
4. Negligently

• Conduct: Act must have been the conscious object of the actor
• Result: must have been the conscious object of the actor (want or value the result)
• Attendant circumstances: the actor hopes of believes

Knowingly: Elements

• Conduct: the actor must be aware of their action
• Result: must be aware that the result is practically certain
• Attendant circumstances: must be a high probability

Recklessness: Elements

• Conduct: the actor consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk
• Result: same as conduct
• Attendant Circumstance: same as conduct

the risk is substantial and unjustifiable if the act of disregarding the risk was a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law abiding person in the actor's situation would observe.

Negligently: Elements

Conduct: the actor disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk

Result: same as conduct

Attendant Circumstances: same as conduct

a gross deviation from the care that would be exercised by a reasonable person in his situation

1.      Start with ordinary usage of the statute, must show contrary legislative purpose

2.      Public welfare: shifts the burden of proof to the defendant

3.      Strict liability crimes are to force people to take extra care

                                                              i.      Legislative History

                                                            ii.      Legislative structure

                                                          iii.      Tradition

• Can generally be used as a defense
• Can't be used in strict liability offenses
• If the defendant mistook the facts in good faith even if the mistake of fact was unreasonable, then valid defense because the specific intent as an element of the offense has not been established

Mistake of Fact eligible to negate the requisite mens rea element

Reasonable Mistake: negates the elements of Purposely, Knowingly, Recklessness, Negligently

Negligent Mistake: Negates the elements of Purposely, Knowingly, Recklessness

Reckless Mistake: Negates Purposely, Knowingly

1. Reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law afterward determines to be erroneous, contained in a statute or other enactment
2. The statute requires specific intent (knowledge)
3. Lambert Doctrine

Where conduct is passive and the law isn't widely known (not sufficient notice)

Example: Lambert didn't know he was supposed to register in his new city as a convicted felon. Didn't actively do anything (lack of action) and law was not well known.

1. Actual Cause
2. Proximate Cause

A defendant's conduct is a cause in fact of the prohibited result would not have occurred "but for" the defendant

But for the actions of the person being charged, the harm would not have occured

Used in Actual Cause. Two defendant, commit two separate acts, each of which alone is sufficient to bring about the prohibited act.

Proximate Cause "Legal Cause"

A cause, which in the nature and continuous sequence of events produces the harm and without which the harm would not have occurred

Must be a direct and natural result of the defendant's actions

• Whether the intervening cause was foreseeable based on an objective standard of reasonableness not too remote or accidental
• If foreseeable then liable (not too remote)
• If intervening cause is not foreseeable then not liable (too remote or accidental)

1. Act of God
2. Act of a Third Party
3. An act or omission of the victim that assists in bringing about the outcome

1. Purposely/Knowingly causing death

2. Purposely/Knowingly causing serious injury

3. Recklessness+ (extreme indifference to human life)

Felony Murder

no considerable provocation appears or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

Defendant caused death as a result of an unjustifiable risk creation that manifested wanton disregard for value of human life.

1. Want of provocation on the part of the deceased

2. The conduct and statements of the defendant before and after the killing

3. Threats and declarations of the defendant before/during the killing

4. Ill will or previous difficulty between the parties

5. Dealing of lethal blows after the deceased had fallen and rendered helpless

6. Evidence that the killing was done in a brutal manner

1. Adequate Provocation (reasonable) AND

2. Subjective Provocation (honestly) AND

3. No objective cool down period AND

4. No subjective cool down period

Purposely/Knowingly causing death but adequately provoked (heat of passion) 

Originally murder 1 or 2 but mitigated down to Voluntary Manslaughter

Recklessly or Negligently causing death (no malice aforethought)

Wilfull and wanton conduct leading to death

An act or omission may serve as the actus reus when there is a failure to fulfill a legal duty (failed to take measures to mitigate risk)

1. Will not consider mental disposition deficiencies (scared, impulsive, timid, etc.)

2. Will consider culture, race, sex, etc.

Murder without the intent to kill, second degree murder almost everywhere

Culpable for murder if during the commission of a dangerous felony someone is killed

That someone can be the victim of the offense or a bystandeer

Assault cannot be the trigger for felony murder

Felony Murder is inapplicable to felonies that are an integral part of and included in fact within the homicide

Substantial step towards the commission of a crime

an action that strongly corroborates the actor's intent to do the crime

Taking enough steps from the initial idea to strongly show the intent to do the criminal act

Attempt is always a crime of intent/purpose

The actor must intend to do the act deemed criminal in order to be punished

Cannot recklessly, negligently attempt to do a crime

The actor is liable for attempt if the circumstances had been as the Defendant believed them.

1. Voluntary Withdrawal

2. Complete Withdrawal

Burden is on the Defendant to prove

Must show

a. no new circumstances that increase the probability of detection

b. no new circumstances that made it more difficult to complete the crime

Burden is on the defendant

Must Show:

a. Complete abandonment - not waiting for a different time to attempt

b. not waiting for a different victim

c. must show 100% voluntary, no small part can be motivated by any part of the test

Must show preponderance of the evidence

A mistake as to the factual nature of something is not a defense

example: pick-pocketer reaching into an empty pocket is still liable for attempt

Elements of a Conspiracy

1. an unlawful agreement to engage in a felony or cause the commission of a felony
2. Overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy by any one conspirator is not needed to establish conspiracy but can be used as evidence of the agreement (Actus Reus)

• Agreement must happen before the substantial step
• Overt act does not need to be as much as the substantial step requirement
• need only be a step in furtherance of the conspiracy

• Not enough to just be present during the crime, must have other circumstantial evidence that points to conspiracy
• Agreement must happen before a substantial step is taken towards a crime

Everything goes up to Purposely(PPP) since it is a specific intent crime

Extra element is the conscious object to agree (PPP + P)

Conscious Object to agree (Actus Reus)

Conscious Object to conduct element

Conscious Object to result element

Hopes/Believes the attendant circumstance

Conspirators are culpable for:

1. Agreement of the overt act "conspiracy" AND

2. Principle crimes within the scope of the agreement AND

3. Any substantive crime that is:

a. In furtherance of the conspiracy AND

b. reasonably foreseeable

1. Evidence, need only circumstantial

2. Jurisdiction

3. Statute of Limitations (starts when the last act is committed)

4. Conspiracy can be stacked with principle

1. Withdrawal: effectively communicate your withdrawal to all people involved in conspiracy

2. Renunciation: must communicate and thwart efforts of crime (reasonably)

Can't be charged with conspiracy if there isn't an extra person; someone outside principle crime. Must be one or more unnecessary parties

Example: A duel requires two people to commit the crime, cannot be a conspiracy unless there was a third person involved with the duel. The third person would be unnecessary

1. Did the individual have both the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea
2. What is the size of the conspiracy? Do you have an extra, unnecessary person?
3. Did the actual crime occur? If so then held liable for principle crime
4. Pinkerton Rule? Did any other conspirators commit any other crimes that an individual could be held liable for?

1. Principles in the first degree
2. Principles in the second degree
3. accessories before the fact
4. accessories after the fact

Accomplices: Principles in the First Degree

Accomplice is on the hook for the principle crime/treated as principle offender - same grade of punishment

Attempt and conspiracy will get a lower grade of punishment even if they are charged with the principle crime

1. gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it
2. With the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime

• Soliciting
• Aid or encouraging
• Having a legal duty to prevent commission of a crime

Principle offender does not need to know that you are aiding

Encouragement needs to be heard in order to be valid (awareness)

Specific Intent Crime

Result element is fixed: PXP (P)

Extra P is for purposely aiding others

Needed for Justification Defense

In order to be justified the responsive conduct must satisfy two requirements:

a. it must be necessary to protect or further the interest at stake AND

b. It must cause only a harm that is proportional or reasonable in relation to the harm threatened or the interest to be furthered

Imperfect Defense: mitigates murder to manslaughter (honest but unreasonable)

Perfect Defense: acquittal

1. Have to be faced with unlawful force
2. Force must be imminent
3. Response must be proportional and necessary to force you are threatened by

Objective (reasonable person) AND Subjective (you honestly believed)

For subjective your allowed to consider time and place, physical movements/attributes, relative knowledge that victim knows about assailant

You honestly but unreasonably believed that provocation was unlawful, imminent and that you response was necessary and proportional

If self defense is valid but you execute the defense negligently or recklessly then guilty of a recklessness or negligent crime. (involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide)

No need to run away when out in public

Must exhaust all your options (notify law enforcement, put up barrier, talk do, safe retreat is NOT necessary)

Can only be used if:

• faced with deadly force
• serious bodily injury
• kidnapping
• rape
• breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony (proportionality)

An initial aggressor will not get the benefit of self defense if they are provoker.

Ways to reset it:

a. Attempt to withdraw (run etc.)

b. communicate withdrawal (reasonable person standard - would a reasonable person understand there is a withdrawal?)

1. if victim responds disproportionately to defendant aggression: "I'm going to punch you... pulls out a gun"

2. Withdrew and the victim comes at you anyway

• Individual that you sought to protect was faced with an unlawful and imminent force
• your response was necessary and proportional
• Can still get the defense if you are wrong as long as you acted reasonably and honestly

• Imminent trespass or theft
• unlawful trespass or theft
• necessity - can use force calculated to inflict severe bodily injury or death to protect against trespass or theft

Deadly force: protecting home, office, occupied vehicle

• Threat must be imminent
• Faced with something that is unpleasant
• response is necessary
• Balancing act ... harm avoided must be greater than the harm caused

• an immediate threat of death/seriously bodily injury (must come from humans)
• Well grounded fear that the threat will be carried our (honest and reasonable)
• No reasonable opportunity to escape the threaten harm
• Proportionality: You can't intentional kill under duress

1. Coerced
2. Pathological (knowingly take a small amount of alcohol and it has a disproportionate effect)
3. Innocent Mistake (roofie)
4. Unexpected intoxication from medically prescribed drug

Duress extended to crimes other than use of force, many things that self defense doesn't cover

Triggering condition must be greater than self defense

Can use force against an innocent third party

1. Break out the elements
2. Translate the Mens Rea for the given element
3. Apply the actus rea element
4. Add the voluntariness Instruction

1. Start with the Principal crime, then move to secondary
2. Add purposely to the different elements (PPP+P)
3. Add the actus reus (act of combining)
4. add voluntariness element

1. Break out the elements
2. Translate the Mens Rea (PXP+P to aid others)
3. Apply the actus reus element (action that aids others)
4. Add the voluntariness instruction
5. The principle crime had to actually have been committed

• Break out the elements
• Translate the mens rea for the given elements (PPX)
• Actus Reus element (from principle to attempt is modified by showing a mere substantial step
• Add voluntariness element