This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: • Elements: o AR Voluntary—decided by personal choice • MPC 2.01(1) and (2): NOT reflex, convulsion, sleeping, hypnosis • CASE: Martin—cops took to hwy to charge w/ pub intox (not) • CASE: Utter—when invol—(cond response is defense) BUT when state is voluntarily induced (is!) Volitional—ability to make choice/determine something Cond response? Time frame? At exact moment crime was committed, was there vol act by D? (broad/narrow time frame) Omission: 5 duties. • Domestic relationship (spousal, parent/child) o CASE: Beardsley—lover no duty) • Public duty by position/status relationship (Dr./patient, teacher/child, police) (CASE: Kitty) o Did duty expire? CASE: Barber—Dr. took off life supp b/c not effect. Proportionality: if burden > benefit, no duty • 1 assumes contractual duty • 1 voluntarily cares for another (and prevents other from giving aid) • Create the danger o MR What MR is required? Whatever it is, it applies to all material elements of crime How defined? MPC 2.02(2) Intents: (purpose, knowl, reckless, negligence)—if not stated, at least reckless • Negligence (based on reas. person—should be aware) • Recklessness * (consciously disregards substantial and unjustifiable risk AND must be gross deviation from std of conduct of law abiding person in that person’s shoes) • Knowledge (aware of conduct or attendant circumstances AND awareness that result is practically certain—if result crime) o Consider willful blindness doctrine! (MPC 2.02(7)—if you don’t know , but you know there’s a high probability=know—unless you think it’s not (ostrich rule), CASE: Nations (16 yo at dance club—MO law doesn’t incorp willful blind) • Purpose (it’s his conscious objective to act/cause result. If there are attendant circumstances, he’s aware/thinks they exist) Common law (malice, intentional, knowl, reck, neglig) • Specific/general intent crimes o spec=spec purpose of doing act—purp/knowl o general=just have to intend to do the thing you did—no mental state required—recklessness, neg??) (CASE: Conley—hit boy) Consider statutory interpret (CASE: Morris—intent w/ worm virus 2x?) Is there defense that would negate the element?? • Mistake of fact will negate MR when (MPC 2.04(1)) o Spec intent req, if it negates spec intent (knowl required, you didn’t know (if purpose or knowledge) (CASE: Nevarro—steal beams). Belief=good faith, doesn’t matter if unreasonable o If general intent, mistake must be 1) honest 2) reasonable in order to negate • Mistake of law—never work!! • Lambert defense: notice req where penalty may be suffered for failure to act when person is completely unaware of any wrongdoing (registering conviction when move somewhere new) o Causation 3 ?’s: • did D cause conduct/result?...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/15/2008 for the course CRIMINAL I taught by Professor Goodman during the Spring '08 term at Pepperdine.
- Spring '08