!MPC vs Common Law Chart[1]

!MPC vs Common Law Chart[1] - I. BASIC DEFINITION - Act +...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
I. BASIC DEFINITION - Act + Mental State + Result = Crime – Defenses II.ACTUS REUS - a voluntary act, omissions do not usually count. A.VOLUNTARY ACT C OMMON L AW MPC D IFFERENCES Requires a voluntary and a social harm An act is voluntar y if Δ 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 Δ'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 C OMMON L AW MPC D IFFERENCES 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 Δ is physically capable. None N OTES Not obtaining reasonably available help can make Δ liable, no matter what Δ’s physical capabilities. 2. INVOLUNTARY ACT C OMMON L AW MPC D IFFERENCES 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 C OMMON L AW MPC D IFFERENCES 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Intentionally (willfully) – to consciously cause the result or when one is virtually certain that the object will occur as a result of Δ's conduct. Recklessness – A heightened criminal negligence or conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Negligence – Objective fault Δ 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
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/25/2011 for the course LAW Criminal L taught by Professor Markel during the Spring '11 term at FSU.

Page1 / 15

!MPC vs Common Law Chart[1] - I. BASIC DEFINITION - Act +...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online