Criminal Law Outline

venomous equity Outline pleas of Punish ment 1. Consequentialist opening a. Actions argon chastely objurgate if and single if they dissolving agent in desirable bycomes b. Rely on system of utilitarianism to ripeify visitment Forward looking effects of penalty. General discour festerrence, particular rejectment, rehabilitation, incapacitation 2. Nonconsequentialist Theory c. Actions ar morally misemploy in themselves, reckonless of the consequences d. Theory of Retri exclusivelyivism look ski binding at the stultification and calibrate the punishment to the gainense Theories of Punishment ) Incapacitation Incarceration to render them deadeningless 2) Retri simplyion collective curse of society bearing down. Just Deserts 3) Rehabilitation give the nefarious s fine-tunes and values to make them a virtuefulness-abiding citizen 4) General Deterrence deter other feloniouss from enthroneting abuses 5) special Deterrence deter the punished sad from prospe ctive horrors Justifications for Punishment in Context 1. The case of Thomas Dudley (Eng. 1884) Stranded at sea for 24 days, 2 men conspire and kill a ternion to eat. Charged with kill and sentenced to decease a. unavoidableness plea doesnt apply.natural police forcefully cleansing a nonher to save yourself-importance is only if in reference to necessity and self-protection (violence towards yourself) Retri muchoverive in nature 2. large number v Suite creation owned . 32 caliber pistol, non licensed as postulate by 1980 legislation. Sentenced to 30 days in jail b. Principle lead of the gun licensing fairness is full general deterrence. Reduction of jail m would exclaim that root shape up quantify awayenses would non result in jail for freshman time offenders and would decl argon 30 days to be too vulgar/abuse of discretion. Upheld to further principle of general deterrence legislature signify plump forards of ProofProsecution beyond a tenable doubt ( d ifferentiate has high burden b/c straightforward until ushern wicked) 1. Curley v US Judge moldiness ask if prosecution has introduced satisf lay out(a)ory evidence much(prenominal)(prenominal) that a keen-sighted jury could decide that the prosecution has proven its case beyond a fair doubt. If evidence jolly permits a verdict of acquittal or guilt, decision is for the jury to make. demur by the preponderance of the evidence. (self- refutal, insanity, necessity) determine of forgiveness When statutory innovation is unclear, the ambiguity moldiness be resolved in favor of the Defendant.US v. Dauray Actus Reus Definition unbidden Act, social violate A military volunteer sham that results in social footing, or an remissness where t chance onher is a responsibility to suffice. 1. Thoughts do non constitute vicious acts 2. Actions compelled by the allege do not constitute felonious acts 3. Criminal acts essential be put down pass on 4. No financial obligat ion for omission unless at that place is a trading to act 5. Status Crimes argon unconstitutional Cases Act, not thought 1) proposition against thought disgusts- verbalise v Dalton act was the writing of a small fry molestation diary. Acquitted.From a deterrence perspective he should not be guilty from rehabilitation perspective w light up cardinalthornbe. Since regime is generally geargond to deterrence it was the right outcome 2) Hate villainys/speech- Wisconsin v Mitchell group of black men beats up young white boy a. formula Statutes penalizing bigoted motivations (thoughts) are confirm b. Rationale these acts are much likely to chevvy retaliatory law-breakings, so society has a greater interest in big(p) them. Deterrence and retri howeverion justify harsher penalties volunteer(prenominal), not un aware MPC 2. 01 Requirements of Voluntary Act 1) A soulfulness is not guilty of an horror unless his liability is establish on aim which let ins a voluntary act. (2) NOT voluntary Acts reflex/convulsion corporeal suit during un certifiedness or residuum persuade during hypnosis bodily movement that otherwise is not a convergence of the driving or determination of the role player, whether intended or habitual 3) playacting beneath farming Compulsion- Martin v disk operating system drunk on common highway b/c police brought him there c. formula no voluntary act where state compelled the action. d. Rationale condition open the government from punishing the innocent 4) Involuntary Acts- ground v.Decina epileptic who knew of his condition drives and kills children e. prevail an forced act put forward be voluntary when the individual knew of its likelihood and failed to preventatively act f. Rationale it doesnt matter if a soul is unconscious when the stultification occurs as long as the act took place only be stimulate, during consciousness, there was bad thinking- here, foolhardiness or sloppiness in failure to prevent the injure. He bearingfully put himself in a office staff that buildd a further take a chance. 5) Po sound v Texas Powell aerated with reality drinking g.Rule Voluntary be power he could brace prevented his appearance in public h. Rationale criminalizing unwilled carri long time is cruel and unusual (8) this wasnt involuntary MPC 2. 01 Voluntary, involuntary, omission, possession * Involuntary Convulsion, abject while unconscious or asleep, conduct during hypnosis, or a movement not a increase of the effort or determination of the pseud Voluntary defined by the negative * Omission liability for an omission basisnot arise unless the omission is do enough expressly in the oral communication defining the offense, or a duty to dress is imposed by justness. Possession D must(prenominal) convey been aware of possession for comfortable period to cast off been able 2 terminate it Status Crimes- Criminalizing a status violates 8th Amendment Cruel & Unusual 1) Robinson v Ca lifornia adult male with track marks supercharged with narcotics addition a. Rule/Rationale The act of using narcotics backside be criminalized addiction kindlet. Criminal penalties whitethorn not be inflicted upon a person for INVOLUNTARY acts. 2) Powell v. Texas a degenerative alcoholic was charged with creation drunk in public b. Rule public drunkenness is not a status law-breaking be occasion it is PUBLIC. c.Rationale convicted of be D. I. P. not chronic alcoholic. Volitional act of choosing to drink without preventing oneself from be in public is adaptedly immediate to the inviolate act of going out while drunk to give the state an ACT to punish. 3) Jones v city of Los Angeles punished behavior on sidewalks 24-7 which homeless deal poopt avoid. d. Rule it is unconstitutional to punish acts arising out of an involuntary status be military campaign these acts are in addition necessarily involuntary. Omissions 1) Omission rouse be an actus reus where there is a l evelheaded duty to act, and D was physically capable of acting. mens rea, causation, and concurrence tacit required) a. Contracts for business b. Special relationships c. Statutory duty d. D created the find of scathe e. D voluntarily assumed care (especially if others are prevented from giving care) 2) large number v Beardsley man and womanhood get drunk over weekend, she sneakily takes morphine and dies laterward D gave her to or soone else to let her sleep it off f. Rule no legal duty existed be causative agent none of the 5 in a higher place were read. g. Rationale a legal duty is not the same as a moral obligation acquaintances arent taut enough relationally to create a legal duty without one of the above. ) terra firma v Howard stick failed to prevent her daughters torture and implementation by a third party h. Rule parents gravel a legal duty to protect their children- special relationship i. Rationale parents shag be licitly jamd to act superfluously, the omission was the direct cause of the terminal (medical dischargeimony). 4) commonaltywealth v Pestinikas couple contracted to care for old man for $ three hundred/mo j. Rule failure to care for other is only a br apiece of a legal duty when the caregiver has undertaken the responsibility of care with contract or voluntarily k.Rationale the omission in situation of duty caused harm D could have prevented. Mens Rea Definition The particular cordial state provided for in the definition of an offense. Rationale for Requiring Mens Rea Deterrence or functional Justification you cannot deter psyche who does not have a guilty top dog. Retributive Justification Just Deserts. You should not punish nighone who is morally innocent. MPC v Common Law Equivalents of Mens Rea MPC 2. 02(2) Common Law Purposefully conscious purpose to ordinate determination- natural and probable auses Knowingly ken real certainty acquaintance- aware of the fact, or right believes it exists, inclu ding impartful blindness recklessly conscious write out of predictable risk- inseparable measure. Awareness. Concepts of audacity and scorn are often embodied abstractedly should have been aware of risk and hack it- sightly person would have been awareNo distinction b/n general, circumstantial heading Distinction b/w general, proper(postnominal) blueprint CL Uses the concept of mens rea in mevery terms Willfully, wickedly, maliciously, wittingly, designingionally, delinquently.No uniformity across states as to definitions MPC 4 rational states that are precisely defined. If no amiable state is referenced in a statute, read in recklessly. Proving inclination, common jurisprudence- natural and probable consequences doctrine 1. Regina v Cunningham Son in law stole gas meter to sell mother-in-law was exposed to coal gas. a. maliciousness meaning (i) an demonstrable purportion to do the particular engaging of harm that was in fact tiree or (ii) recklessness as t o whether much(prenominal) harm should occur or not (foresaw risk proceed some(prenominal) ways) 2.State v Fugate D shoots and kills store owner after forcing him into basement. b. drift can be inferred from attendant features and composite picture developed by evidence, including dick used to produce finish and the manner of inflicting a fatal wound. c. Intent to kill may be presumed where the natural and probable consequence of a faultyful act is to produce stopping tear. 3. Foreseeability Issues If harm is so foreseeable as to almost be certain to occur, intent can be gear up. Proving Knowledge, common law- willful blindness 1.US v Jewell a person acts knowingly for common law if the person is aware of the fact OR correctly believes it exists OR suspects the fact exists and purposefully avoids learning the truth a. Deliberate ignorance and overconfident knowledge are equally culpable. To act knowingly is not necessarily to act only with positive knowledge, but also t o act with an awareness of the high probability of the organism of the fact in question. When such awareness is present, positive knowledge is not required. Transferred Intent only where harm is to mountain NOT property 1. Regina v Pembliton D threw stone at enemy, hit window instead.Intent to hit friends is not intent to hit window mens rea is lacking. 2. Regina v. Falkner intent to steal rum is not intent to burn down a ship. 3. great deal v Scott D intended to shoot A and breeze B instead mens rea (intent) transfers. Society has a greater interest in deterring and punishing (retribution) people who kill than damage property. Common law item v General Intent consider the attendant circumstance * Specific intent statute requires intent to cause harm to the attendant circumstance to be convicted under a specific intent statute, you must intend (and succeed) in burning a BOOK.You must have a conscious target that is much than just lighting a match. * Intending to complete th e act- purposefully, knowingly * General intent statute requires intent to do the act, only. Might punish setting fire to instead of saying, setting fire to woodland flora. drunkard people are likely to get netted under a general intent statute because the attendant circumstance is general. * Intending the act- negligent, reckless * People v Atkins Attempt to raise voluntary alcohol addiction to charge of Arson. * court of justice finds Arson as general intent aversion. Inadmissible b/c only need to do actus reus.How MPC Avoids Specific Intent-General Intent Distinctions 1. MPC 2. 02(1) Minimum Requirements of culpableness a. Except as provided in 2. 05 ( morose liability provision), a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently with respect to each material fragment of the offense 2. MPC 1. 13(9) element of offense means (i) such conduct or (ii) attendant circumstances or (iii) such a result of conduct as b. is included in the description of the command conduct in the definition of the offense or c. stablishes the required kind of culpability d. negatives an excuse or apology for such conduct e. Negatives a defence force under the statute of limitations 3. MPC 1. 13(10) Material element of an offense means an element that does not relate exclusively to the statute of limitations, jurisdiction, venue, or any other matter homogeneously unconnected with (i) the harm or evil, contingency to conduct, sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense, or (ii) the existence of a justification or excuse for such conduct severe Liability Crimes Statute lacks mens rea component. MPC reads recklessness into any statute missing a mens rea. * TRUE STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES regulatory crimes, crimes against the public welfare, morality offenses (statutory infraction), felony withdraw. MPC 2. 05 recognizes only minor violations and violations outside the MPC where it is plain that the legislature intend ed to create inflexible liability Morissette Ordinary presumption is to read mens rea in the statute (recklessness). Courts are likely to construe the following as strict liability offenses 1.Statute protects the public welfare 2. D is in a position to prevent the harm and it is reasonable to expect this of her 3. The penalties imposed are light 4. at that place is slight stigma associated with the offense 5. It is a newly created crime Commonwealth v Barone Woman killed other in a car crash, appeals on movement that the statute imposed strict liability and she shouldnt be punished 1. If a statute is ambiguous, must read in reckless or negligent and cannot impose strict liability. Heavy penalties and negative stigma associated with this type of crime. misplay and Ignorance In general D lodges a crime with a doctrine that turns out to be wrong. MPC what does the statute require for mens rea? Rationales for Mistake and Ignorance falsifyings 1. Deterrence/Utilitarian Justificat ion you cannot deter someone who does not possess a guilty mind 2. Retributivist justification just desserts. you should not punish someone who is morally innocent skepticism Tree 1. MPC or common law? a. What statute are you being asked to apply? 2. Mistake of fact or law? what must D show to prevail under skid falsification? b. MPC 2. 4 No distinction b/w break of fact and law i. Mistake of fact must negate mens rea of the statute ii. Mistake of law no defense unless provided in the statute iii. When D raises splay claim, P must prove that notwithstanding the mistake, D possessed requisite mens rea c. Common law iv. Mistake of fact 1. Specific intent candid but reasonless mistake is a defense 2. General intent defense only if two honest and reasonable v. Mistake of law 3. No excuse, but three exceptions relied on official interp. f law, knowledge of contrabandity is an element of the crime, or no fair notice Common Law Cases Mistake of Fact 1. People v Navarro D took l umber, thinking it was aban dod. a. Larceny is a specific intent statute, so mistake of fact is a defense, if honest 2. Bell v State MINORITY VIEW no justification for mistake where, had the mistake of fact not been make, the conduct would slake be illegal or immoral. b. Moral wrong test there is no violation of the culpability principle if the conduct is criminally punished without regard to mens rea- mistake of fact not a defense if the conduct is morally wrong. . read if reasonable ii. If reasonable, look at f unfeigned panorama. what is it that you ( pretty) thought you were doing? chisel in candid response. iii. Evaluate morality of imposters conduct. If morally wrong, it is sufficient to convict. c. Legal wrong test even if D can imprecate a reasonable mistake of fact, mistake of fact isnt a defense if, had the facts been as she thought, she would still be guilty of some other crime. d. Punishes D for the crime he was mistaken astir(predicate) aimting (and so neer di d real transmit) instead of for a lesser crime he did actually commit.Cases- Mistake of Law Ignorance of the law is not a defense against criminal liability UNLESS 1. Reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law (Marrero) 2. Where knowledge that the conduct is prohibited is an element of the crime. Ignorance or mistake negates the mens rea. a. Cheek v US When statute requires willfulness, Subjective standard is to be used and shall be determined by the factfinder. Need not be reasonable. b. Bryan v US (Gun Trafficker) Knowingly requires conclusion of knowledge of the facts that constitute the crime.Willfully requires knowledge of the specific regularisation they are breaking. However, ignorance of the law is no excuse knowledge that the conduct is guilty is all that is required. 3. The prosecution of person lacking fair notice can violate due extremity c. Lambert- no fair notice. In rove to be punished, there must be a probability that D had actual knowledge of the law before committing the crime. MPC * Does not allow mistake as a defense where D would be guilty of another(prenominal) offense had the situation been as he supposed but if that punishment is lesser, it will be imposed instead. Mistake of fact under MPC is a defense if it negates the psychogenic state required for focal point of the offense. * Mistake of law under MPC is a defense if the law provides that the state of mind open by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense * assembly line between various mistakes of fact and required mens rea levels Required Mens Rea Defense / D is not guilty if Purposely or knowingly Any actual picture to the contrary (even if reckless) Recklessly Any non-reckless mistake of fact (even if negligent) Negligently Any non-negligent reasonable mistakeStrict Liability Even a very reasonable, non-negligent mistake is no defense * We applied MPC in RRH set aside burning example. Mistake can be a defense, but it has to be less than consc ious disregard in all circumstances. RRHs mistake was negligent at the very worst, not even reckless. Causation Question Tree 1. Actual cause? a. But for Ds act, would the harm have occurred? i. No actual cause. (proceed to proximate cause analysis) ii. Yes not actual cause. 1. immediate cause? a. Is D the direct cause, such that it would be fair and just to hold him liable? i. Yes Then D has complete liability. ii.No proceed to intervening cause analysis a. Was there an intervening cause? If Dependent, D typically is proximate cause unless bizarre i. Yes 1. Was it open on Ds voluntary act? a. Yes cozy question i. Was it a bizarre situation? 1. No D has liability. 1. Yes D is absolved. 1. Was it independent of Ds voluntary act? a. Yes was it foreseeable? If yes, liable. If no, not liable a. No does anything above fit? i. No if there is no intervening cause and was proximate cause, D is liable. Cases 1. Commonwealth v Rementer woman runs from boyfriend into street, hit by car, ki lled a.Actual cause? YES. But for their fight, she would not have been in the street. b. Proximate cause? First, was there an intervening cause? YES. ii. Was the intervening cause dependent or independent? 1. Dependent- he fought with her, and she ran. 2. In cases of intervening dependent cause, he is liable unless it was a bizarre situation. They were fighting in front of a road, so no. c. D is liable. Actual cause, and proximate cause, the latter with dep. Intervening 2. State v. Govan D shot the V in the neck, she became a quadriplegic d. Actual cause? YES.But for e. Proximate cause? Was there an intervening cause? Yes- pneumonia killed her. iii. Dependent or independent intervening cause? 3. Dependent- you codt die from TB unless youre a quadriplegic 4. Dependent intervening cause, not bizarre- D liable. iv. An intervening cause that was a coincidence will be a superseding cause when it was unforeseeable. Intervening causes that are a response will be superseding when it was unnatural and unforeseeable 3. Henderson v Kibbe drunk guy robbed and go forth on snowy highway w/o glasses f. actual cause?YES. But for being left there g. Proximate cause? Was there an intervening cause? Yes. Indep or dep? v. Independent they werent effort the truck that hit him 5. If Indep, it was foreseeable, so D is liable. vi. Dependent but he wouldnt have been there without their robbing him 6. If Dep, truck wasnt bizarre, so D is liable. Concurrence Temporal and Motivational 1. Temporal concurrence D must possess the requisite mens rea at the same moment that her voluntary conduct (or omission) causes the social harm (or actus reus) 2.Motivational concurrence the mens rea must be the motivating strength behind the act Sexual Offenses MPC Rape 213. 1 Rape if * fix to submit by magnate of menaces of death, peak pain, etc OR * You give V GHB, etc OR * V is unconscious OR * V is younger than age 10. Felony 2nd score * NO MISTAKE OF AGE DEFENSE to a lower place AGE 10 * There is a mistake of age defense between 10 and age of consent Rape Traditional no rape unless specialty was used to overcome the victims opposition (No safeguard, thus no draw out, then no rape) rape determination found on victims actions. ) Hetero cozy vaginal sexual intercourse NO MENS REA 2) of a woman, not the mans wife 3) by advertize and 4) without her consent consent is an element that she did not consent has to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution in golf club to convict (hard to prove) a. FORCE Whether Ds acts used sufficient deposit to overcome Ps resistance, or whether his threats created in her mind a reasonable fear of harm. b. Rusk v State she didnt actively resist or get to run when she had the chance, so under the traditional view she could not have been raped. i.She said she was fearful, but unless D objectively manifested his intent to use physical labor to accomplish his purpose, her submission will be read as consent because it cou ldnt have been reasonable without an objective manifestation. ii. DISSENT (now majority regulate) this view requires too much resistance from the victim- and resisting victims get hurt more often. Modern force requirement met by nonconsensual penetration- no need for resistance that requires force to overcome. Rape determination found on Ds actions, not Vs actions or character. * Modern rape law is built around meaningful consent. It is sex neutral, includes the word coercion, includes more than vaginal intercourse, uses the term sexual fill out instead of rape * Consent is an affirmative defense, not an element 1) bodily force or coercion 2) NO EXPLICIT CONSENT subdivision consent is an affirmative defense a question that she may have consented has to be raised by a preponderance of the evidence a. State of New Jersey v MTS force requirement met by nonconsensual penetration. somatogenic force in excess of that inherent in the act of sexual penetration is not required for su ch penetration to be felonious i.There is an inherent wrong in forced sexual intimacy- crime against a persons right to control her body. Rape is violating the sphere of privacy. 3) WHAT COUNTS AS CONSENT? Permission can be inferred either from acts or statements reasonably viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances b. In re prank Z Woman participated in sexual acts for a while after penetration told him to stop. ii. Forcible rape is still move when V consents initially, then withdraws consent, but D continues having sex with her iii.Her consent can be debated- she consented through acts, then lightly verbally said no, but physically continued Statutory Rape * Common law Sex with a pistillate under the age of consent. * Assumes male D, female V * Heterosexual, vaginal intercourse * No force required * No non-consent required (so if she consented its still statutory rape) * MPC 213. 4 Sexual assault. Sex with child under age 10 is a strict liability crime, no mistake of age defense. Between age 10 and age of consent, there is a mistake of age defense. Garnett even a intellectually handicapped person can be convicted of statutory rape with a person his mental equivalent- we shamt care approximately mindset, only just about the act. * Scholars think strict liability crimes dont serve a deterrent purpose because they punish without regard to the actors state of mind. * But I think this pattern of liability is a comfortably thing overall because people are aware that if they have sex with someone who looks young, they could be in trouble- forces people to be a bit more responsible- but then, people believably dont think of the punishments ahead of time, either.Homicide Common law 4 primary kinds of homicide. (** minority feel) maul, foremost grade Murder, 2nd degree Voluntary humansslaughter Involuntary Manslaughter Murder The wrongful killing of a homosexual being with spite aforethought Manslaughter The unlawful killing of another benign ant being without malice aforethought CL 4 conditions when malice aforethought is present 1. An intent to kill 2. Intent to commit ripe bodily harm 3. An abandoned and malignant totality or depraved heart 4. The felony murder rule applies If D intends to kill, he acts with express malice.If malice aforethought is shown in any other way, it is implied malice. Acceptable Evidence when proof of murder depends on malice aforethought 1. Inferred from circumstantial evidence 2. Deadly appliance rule brook infer intent to kill when D uses pestiferous weapon and aims it vital part of body 3. Natural and probable consequences rule Murder, 1st degree Murder involved * Premeditation and Deliberation * Premeditated intent to kill. Killer reflected upon and thought about the killing in advance * Deliberation. Refers to the prize of the accuseds thought process * Statutory felony murder. Lying in wait, poison, torture, etc. Murder, 2nd degree * Unpremeditated intent to kill * Intent to cau se great bodily harm** * Depraved heart/extreme recklessness * All other felony murders Murder Cases * State v brownish Death of 4 y. o. resulting from beating from father. charged with M1 * To be guilty of eldest degree murder, one must act with premeditation and deliberation in addition to malice aforethought * Although premeditation can be organize in an instant, it must be done deliberately- with coolness and reflection * State v Bingham Raped and strangled on highway To allow a finding of premeditation only because the act takes an appreciable amount of time obliterates the distinction b/w 1st and 2nd degree murder. Having the fortune to deliberate is not evidence of deliberation. some otherwise, any form of killing which took more than a moment could result in a finding of premeditation, without some form addl evidence showing reflection * Gilbert v State 75 y. o. man killed dementia wife by snapshot her * nifty faith is not a legal defense to first degree murder Volunt ary manslaughter Intent to kill plus reasonable discomfort (always has to be reasonable provocation for charge of voluntary manslaughter- something akin to awake of passion. But for provocation, this person wouldnt be a killer) * Provocation One who kills in response to licitly adequate provocation is treated as having acted without malice aforethought, the mens rea required for murder * Intent to kill plus imperfect self defense** (D might have over-defended themselves) * Diminished Capacity 3 ways to determine if D is entitled to provocation defense * Common law categorical defense.If kill in response to * Aggravated Assault or battery * The observation of a serious crime against a close relative * Illegal arrest * Mutual combat * Catching ones wife in the act of adultury * Mere Words Rule Mere lyric are never enough to constitute legally adequate provocation * People v Ambro H stabbed wife after verbal goading and revealing that she was in an affair * Mere words are usually not enough. Exception to which is when there is a serial publication of provoking statements and circumstances. * Modern Reasonable Man. Jury must find * D actually acted in the heat of passion The heat of passion was fire by an act or event that would have also kindle a reasonable person in the Ds shoes to lose self-restraint * D did not have sufficient time to cool off b/w provocative event and the killing * A reasonable person in Ds shoes would not have had sufficient time to cool * There must be a causative connection b/w the provocation, the passion, and the killing * People v Barry save strangled wife with phone cord after hearing that she was deviation him * Court considers the whole course of provocation over time, not just in the moments leading up to the murder * MPC Extreme mental or Emotional Disturbance test * MPC 210. 3(b) A homicide that would otherwise be murder may be considered manslaughter when it is committed under the influence of extreme mental or aroused d isturbance for which there is reasonable explanation and excuse. * the grounds of such excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actors situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be. innate * State v Dumlao Husband shoots mother in law after thinking that family members were decideing to cheat on him with his wife. Was a very doubtful individual * Intense mental or emotional disturbance is high-and-mighty from insanity in that it is to be understood in relative terms as referring to a pass of self control due to lifelike feelings * 3 part test for EMED Will be found in a person who has * No mental malady or desolate Is exposed to an extremely unusual and overwhelming stress * Has extreme emotional reaction to it, as a result of which there is a loss self control in reason is overborn by intense feelings, such as passion, anger distress, grief excessive agitation or similar emotion * Whether there is a reasonable explanation should be ma de by viewing the subjective internal situation in which the D found himself and the external circumstances as he perceived them to be at the time, no matter how inaccurate that perception may have been, and assessing from that standpoint whether the explanation for his emotional disturbance was reasonableInvoluntary manslaughter Cause death with criminal heedlessness * Can secure IM disapprobation through Criminal negligence (gross negligence or even recklessness) or infringement manslaughter (felony murder, junior) * MPC Equivalent 210. 3(1)(a) criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when it is committed recklessly * Commonwealth v Welanski dark club burned down and killed hundreds * Not required to prove that he caused the fire by some wanton or reckless conduct. rich to prove that the deaths resulted from his wanton or reckless disregard of the safety of the patrons in the event of fire form any case. Depraved Heart Murder What When there is a killing but no proof of a n intent to kill, the law may imply malice. One of these situations is when the individual who kills acts with an abandoned and malignant heart * Homicide involving depraved heart can be punished as a certify-degree murder gross negligence or simple recklessness can only be punished as involuntary manslaughter * Rule Malice will be implied in a homicide case if it can be shown that the D acted with gross negligence and an extreme indifference to human life. D realized that his actions created a pregnant and unjustified risk of death and yet went ahead and committed the actions anyways * People v Knoller (Supreme Ct.CA 2007) Dog mauled woman to death. D charged with Murder 2 * Abandoned and malignant heart is equated with Ds awareness of the risk created by his/her own behavior. mustiness act with conscious disregard of the danger to human life * Phillips test Malice is implied when the killing is proximately caused by an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to hum an life, which act was deliberately performed by a person with conscious disregard for life. Conscious disregard of human life is required, but is not subjective standard. Felony Murder * Killing during the focusingsing of a felony is considered murder in the morsel degree.In some states, killing during the commission of certain statutorily proscribed crimes can elevate the murder to Murder 1 * Level of intent to perform a felonious act is evidence of malice which can be transferred to murder * People v Stamp (Ct. Appeal CA 1969) Man dies of heart attack following the looting of his store. * A killing committed in either the perpetration of or an onslaught to perpetrate robbery is murder of the first degree. Malice aforethought is presumed on the basis of the commission of a felony inherently dangerous to human life. No intentional act is essential other than the attempt to or the actual commission of the robbery itself. * Not restrain to deaths which are foreseeable.As long a s the homicide is the direct causal result of the robbery, FM applies * Inherently Dangerous Felony Limitation For the FM Rule to apply, some jurisdictions require that the underlie felony is inherently dangerous * Hines v State (GA 2003) While hunting, D mistook friend for a turkey and shot him. convicted of FM based on the underlying crime of possession of a piece of music by a convicted felon. * Felony is inherently dangerous when it is dangerous per se or by its circumstances creates a foreseeable risk of death. foreseeable risk of death when person was drinking, hunting * The Res Gestae Requirement The felony and the homicide be close in time and distance (temporal and geographic proximity).There must be a causal connection between the felony and the homicide * People v Bodely (Ct of Appeal CA 1995) Escape from a robbery. Got in car, ran over victim. * The test used in FM cases to determine whether a killing is so closely tie in to an underlying felony as to justify an enha nced punishment for the killing is that the crime continues until the criminal has reached a place of short safety * the homicide is committed in the perpetration of a felony if the killing and the felony are parts of one dogging transaction. This break loose rule serves public policy considerations of deterrence * King v Commonwealth (Ct of appeals of VA 1988) accidental death of co-felon during commission of a felony.D charged with FM 2nd Murder after crashing plane that had marijuana in it. * death must be a consequence of the felony and not just a coincidence * Only acts causing death which are committed by those involved in the felony can be the basis for a conviction * The act causing death must result from some effort to further the felony before malice can be imputed to the act * There must be some act attributable to the felons which causes death * The amalgamation Doctrine In some states FM does not apply if the underlying felony is an integral part of and included in t he fact of the homicide * People v smith (CA 1984) Beating of a child which resulted in death.Claims FM should not apply * The ostensible purpose of the FM rule is not to deter the underlying felony, but instead to deter the accidental or negligent killings that may occur in the course of committing that felony * The Agency Rule FM rule does not apply to killings by third parties * State v Canola (Supreme Ct. of NJ 1977) During robbery of jewelry store, co-felon shot and killed by owner of store. Other felon charged with FM. * Felon is not liable for the death of a co-felon. For D to be guilty of murder under FM rule the act of killing must be committed by D or his companion acting in furtherance of their common design. deadly acts of 3rd persons not in furtherance of the felonious scheme do not count towards FM rule Attempts, Complicity, Conspiracy See map Attempts Inchoate use up conduct which occurs after the mens rea has been formed but is faint of the holy act 1. Common L aw Approach * Attempt to commit felonies = felonies attempt to commit misdemeanors = misdemeanors * generally punished less severely than correct offenses 2. MPC Approach * Generally punishes crimes at the same level as the completed offense, except when the butt end crime is a capital offense or a felony of the first degree (then treated as second degree felony) Mens Rea of Attempts * Common law * Requires specific intent to commit the targeted offense.True even when the target crime does not require specific intent * MPC 5. 01 * D must purposely engage in conduct (substantial step) which would constitute crime if the attendant circumstances were believed as D perceived them to be. Cases 3. People v Harris (IL 1978) D charged with murder even though he did not intend murder * Attempted murder is not proved by showing that D intended to do great bodily harm or that he acted in reckless disregard for human life- Intent is needed. Attempted murder requires intent to bring about that result set forth by the crime of murder 4. State v Hinkhouse (OR 1996) D had HIV, slept with ternary partners.Charged with attempted murder * A person is guilty of attempting to commit a crime when the person intentionally engages in conduct which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the crime * A person commits attempted murder when he or she attempts, without justification or excuse, intentionally to cause the death of another human being. To act intentionally is to act with a conscious objective to cause the result or to engage in the conduct so described. Actus Reus of Attempts * Common Law * No single test for find out when mere dressing for an offense passs an attempt * Focus is on how much, or how little, is needed to be done to complete the target offense * MPC Conduct must amount to a substantial step toward culmination of the commission of the targeted offense * Focus is on what D has already done and whether the acts are corroborative of criminal purpose Cases 5. People v Rizzo (NY 1927) D was sit aroud looking for a person to rob. Arrested and charged with attempted robbery * cable television service is drawn between acts which are remote and which are proximate and close together(p) to consummation. * Felonious intent alone is not enough. There must be an tangible act shown to establish an attempt. * Proximity approach A crime is attempted if D did an act tending to the commission of this robbery. Because they had not found or reached the presence of the person they intended to rob, not guilty 6. People v Staples (CA 1970) Attempted burglary of a bank vault. Acts beyond mere preparation is enough to convict of attempted robbery * Preparation consists of devising or arranging the means or measures unavoidable for the commission of the offense the attempt is the direct movement toward the commission of the crime after preparations are made * The act must reach far enough toward the accomplishment of the desire result t o amount to commencement * Where intent to commit the substantive offense is clearly established, acts done toward the commission of the crime may constitute an attempt where the same acts would be held insufficient to constitute an attempt if the intent with which they were done is equivocal and not clearly proved. Defenses to Attempt * Common Law * No renunciation. Majority of CL states do not recognize the defense of abandonment. nce D crosses line from preparation to attempt there is no turning back * Impossibility * Legal Impossibility- when no law makes the conduct a crime is a defense * No factual impossibility . * MPC * Renunciation MPC 5. 01(4) allows a D to introduce evidence of apostasy in circumstances where * renunciation is voluntary and complete * No Impossibility Defense of Impossibility * You cannot commit a crime which is impossible to commit * US v Thomas- cannot rape a corpse. Group Criminality Complicity One who intentionally assists another in the commission of a crime can be convicted of that offense as an companion Mental State necessary to render one an accomplice Common Law Act with the same mens rea as the principle AND the intent to aid * MPC act with the same mens rea as principle AND the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense Types of acts necessary to render on as an accomplice * CL any form of aid to the principle is sufficient, but a failed attempt to aid is not * MPC 2. 06 both aiding and attempting to aid are sufficient Cases Pace v State (IN 1967) man picks up hitch trampler he robs man in back seat at stab point and driver is held as an accomplice * Negative acquiescence is not enough to constitute a person guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime. moldiness have affirmative conduct State v Parker (MN 1969) Law student beaten in the back seat of his car by others he escapes, claims robbery and stolen car. person in front seat held as accomplice * Aid by inaction is possible.If proof shows that a person is present at commission of a crime without disapproving or opposing it, jury may infer accomplice liability in connection with the attendant circumstances and thereby reach the conclusion that he assented to commission of the crime * Evidence of subsequent acts may also prove participation in the criminal acts- running from police Conspiracy An proportionateness between two or more persons to commit a crime CL Elements of faction Actus Reus 1. An compact between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act AND an overt act * State v Pacheco (WA 1994) PI and employee who was a cop. PI goes to FBI w/ info on employee about illegalities. Set up a sting where cop agreed to kill someone.Charged with conspiracy to commit Murder 1 * There must be an actual agreement between two or more conspirators. one-party agreements do not satisfy actus reus. * As it takes two to conspire, there can be no indictable conspiracy with a govt informer who on the Q.T. intend s to frustrate the conspiracy. Mens Rea 1. Specific intent to agree AND 2. specific intent that the object of agreement shall be achieved * D cannot be charged of conspiracy alone. Must be conspiracy to commit crime X * No Merger. Can be charged and convicted of both conspiracy and the crime itself * No abandonment defense unless the intent to abandon was communicated expressly to co-cons CasePeople v Swain (CA 1996) drive-by shooting resulted in the death of a boy. Man charged in conspiracy to commit 2nd degree implied malice murder * To sustain a conviction for conspiracy to commit a particular offense, the prosecution must show not only that the conspirators intended to agree but also that they intended to commit the elements of that offense * A conviction of conspiracy to commit murder requires a finding of intent to kill, and cannot be based on a theory of implied malice MPC 5. 03 Elements of conspiracy Main concern is about a firm commitment to ill-doing Actus Reus 1. an agre ement or agreement to aid in the commission of a crime AND sometimes an overt act Mens Rea 1.Purpose of promoting or facilitating the agreement AND the result MPC Characteristics 1. D cannot be charged with conspiracy alone must be conspiracy to commit crime X 2. Conspiracy merges with the target offense. D cannot be charged with both conspiracy and crime 3. For abandonment to apply, D must thwart the success of the conspiracy and must manifest complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose Case 1. Pinkerton Doctrine Co-Conspirators can be held liable for ancillary crimes committed in promotion of their agreement if they are (1) reasonably foreseeable and (2) are committed in furtherance of the conspiracy 2.US v Mothersill (FL 1996) hook blown up by pipe bomb that was intended for someone else * Each party to a continuing conspiracy may be vicariously liable for substantive criminal offenses committed by a co-conspirator during the course and in the furtherance of th e conspiracy * Liability will not lie where the crime did not fall within the scope of the unlawful project or which was not reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement * Deadly force and violence are more than peripheral possibilities so Pinkerton applies Criminal Law Defenses 1) Case-in-chief defenses v. Affirmative defenses 1. Case-in-chief negates one of the elements i. Ex mistake, which negates the mens rea 2. Affirmative defenses apply even when there is clear proof of all the elements of the crime D gets off for some other reason. ii. Ex justification, excuse, necessity, duress 2) Burdens of Proof 3. D has the burden of proof for affirmative defenses. Standard varies iii.Majority D must prove by a preponderance of the evidence iv. Minority some states require proof beyond a reasonable doubt 3) Justification v justify and wherefore it matters 4. Justification this conduct is right and should be encouraged. v. The evidence for justifica tion is equally available to both sides, but P has advantage of law enforcement resources. vi. ordinal party liability If Ds acts are justified, third parties are not criminally liable for helping, and may be liable for fussy. 5. Excuse this conduct is wrong and should be discouraged. vii. The evidence for excuse is within Ds control because it is about him. viii.Third party liability when D asserts an excuse, third parties ARE liable for helping D, and are NOT liable for interfering (if they stopped an insane person from hurting someone else, for example. ) Justification 6. D says, I did no wrong. Perhaps D did the right thing under the circumstances. 7. Ex Self-defense ix. CL Self-defense 1. D must have an honest and reasonable belief that 2. He was threatened with an imminent threat of unlawful force 3. And that the force used was necessary to repel and relative to the threat 4. Must be subjectively and objectively reasonable, whether right in belief or not 5.PROVIDED if Ds d efensive force caused death a. The harm avoided must be death or serious bodily daub (proportionality requirement) b. In some juris, D must try to retreat (majority rule no duty to retreat) c. If D is the initial aggressor, additional requirements apply d. NOTE if D fails to ensure all these requirements he may have a partial defense x. MPC Self-defense 3. 04(1) 6. D reasonably? believed 7. justificatory force was immediately necessary to protect D against 8. Unlawful force by V on the present occasion 9. Provided if Ds defensive force= deadly force e.The harm avoided must be death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse by force or threat f. D must try to retreat (except from his dwelling) if he knows thats completely safe way to avoid Vs force g. D has no defense if he, with purpose to cause death or serious bodily injury, provoked Vs force in same encounter 4) Reasonableness standards in context of self-defense 8. Objective reasonableness usually includes a t least some of Ds physical characteristics, plus Ds knowledge of external circumstances and surroundings also at least some of Ds general knowledge and prior experiences. (Pure objectivity is no focus on D at all- hypothetical reasonable person) 9.Subjective reasonableness can include unique physical, mental, psychological characteristics 10. Purely subjective standard some(prenominal) D actually believed, even if it was completely unreasonable by any standard actual belief is also a requirement under objective and subjective reasonableness standards xi. Goetz they call it an objective reasonableness standard but they take into account Ds past experiences and perceptions- so not a purely objective standard. (And considering the proportionality requirement where Ds acts in self-defense caused death, we must ask if being outnumbered and cornered justifies the first shot or two, but not after they retreated) xii. Simon man paranoid that Asians will attack him.Defense must try to show that this is reasonable by making racial slurs, statistics. Simon would be convicted under pure objective standard as well as objective reasonableness standard, because even considering his experiences his paranoia is unreasonable, and were not willing to go to the subjective standard. 11. Imperfect self-defense When Ds belief about the circumstances permitting defensive force is unreasonable? Three competing rules xiii. CL if D kills based on an unreasonable belief in the necessity to kill, or in the existence of a deadly threat, or if D was the initial non-deadly force aggressor, Ds liability is mitigated from murder down to manslaughter (a partial excuse) xiv. MPC 3. 9 If Ds belief is reckless, he is guilty of a recklessness offense (manslaughter or assault) If D was negligent, it was negligent Homicide or assault. xv. The all-or-nothing rule at common law, in MN, and in many states, if all self-defense requirements are not met theres no defense or mitigation at all- if Ds belie f is not reasonable, you cannot raise self-defense in MN. 5) Defense of another 12. CL Act at Peril Rule defender of another stands in the shoes of the person being defended he/she therefore takes the risk that, despite all reasonable appearances, the person being defended was NOT justified (eg, the person was resisting lawful arrest) xvi. People v Young act at peril.Undercover police officers arresting someone. 13. MPC 3. 05 defender may act on reasonable appearances. Moreover, even if Ds belief is NOT reasonable, MPC only makes D liable for a crime of recklessness or negligence 6) Defense of habitation 14. Trad CL D could use any force necessary if he reasonably believed the force was necessary to prevent an imminent unlawful entry 15. Modern CL Deadly force is permitted only when occupier reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent unlawful entry and the intruder intends to commit a felony or cause injury to the occupant or another occupant in the dwelling. xv ii. Problem you dont know what they intend to do.But if they have a weapon or are screaming that they will kill you, youre safe in defending yourself. 16. MPC 3. 06 Use of force is justified to prevent trespass, theft, etc or to recapture property, BUT must ask trespasser to desist (unless useless, dangerous), or denigratory to property. Can use non-dangerous devices. 17. People v Brown What constitutes a house? xviii. Reasonable expectations test whether the nature of a structures composition is such that a reasonable person would expect some protection from unauthorized intrusions Necessity 1. Justification defense. Often used where people protested laws by breaking law, but not usually successful there more likely to be successful where D acted in the interests of the general welfare. . Schoon there can be no necessity defense to indirect civil disobedience (fake blood on IRS walls). ii. Hutchins necessity cannot justify cultivation of medical marijuana. Court says dont grow y our own, wait for legislature to legalize it. 2. Generally sometimes the greater good is better served by breaking the law than by obeying it. Applies where the harm caused by breaking the law is less than the harm avoided by the action. (CL determines this from objective perspective, MPC, subjective) 3. Common Law Elements Objective standard i. D reasonably (if Ds belief was unreasonable there is not defense or mitigation) believed ii.Ds criminal act was necessary to prevent iii. close at hand(predicate) harm (the harm cannot have been created by the D) greater than the law which was charged was designed to prevent iv. There was no express or implied legislative preclusion of the necessity defense here 10. In context of Dudley prosecuting officer would moot Dudley created the harm, and so couldnt use the defense 11. Defense would argue that murder was lesser than all four men dying- but would have to be MPC, not CL, b/c CL allows no justification for death of an innocent. 4. MPC 3. 02(1) Approach to Necessity Subjective standard i. D believed ii. Ds criminal act was necessary to prevent iii.Harm (this can include harm threatened by another person as well as nature, and the harm need not be imminent) greater than the charged criminal behavior the law was designed to prevent iv. PROVIDED The harm sought to be avoided is greater than greater than the harm incurred there is not express or implied legislative preclusion of the necessity defense 1. Ask about the following MPC provides some middle ground- recklessness or negligence. Applies throughout category of ADs. That is, if you believe but your belief is unfounded, it may be reckless, and you can be charged with a reckless act instead of the full blown crime that you thought you had a defense from. v. 3. 2(2) If D is reckless or negligent in creating the situation or in appraising the necessity, D is liable for any applicable crime of recklessness (e. g. manslaughter) or negligence 5. Necessity in context o f Dudley to make it more clear i. No necessity defense because killing an innocent is never justified, applying CL. MPC might have allowed him that excuse. Even through the MPC, if were evaluating the recklessness or negligence of his subjective belief, were still moving towards objective, because under negligence we care about the reasonable person. In recklessness, we care about the law abiding person. The difference is not obvious. 6. standardizedities/Differences B/W CL and MPC i. Similar Both use a balancing of the harms ii.Different Under MPC there is no imminence requirement CL suggests that necessity is not a defense to homicide b/c it can never constitute the greater good to kill an innocent person Excuse Defenses 1. D says, I did wrong, but I should not be punished. 2. D is not morally blameworthy, and/or not deterrable and/or not dangerous. 3. Ex duress, insanity, some self-defense claims 3 Categories of excuse defenses 1. Involuntary Actions i. Actions caused by Ds body , but which are not the product of her mind (sleep walking, involuntary intoxicaiton) 2. Actions related to Cognitive Deficiencies ii. Actions which are caused by an actor who does not show the nature of her conduct and whether it is right/wrong, legal/illegal 3.Actions relating to Volitional Deficiencies iii. Actions which are voluntary, but which are taken by an actor durance 1. Trad. CL i. D (without prior blot- theres a defense if D was at fault in getting into that situation) was coerced to commit the charged criminal act. ii. By an actual or reasonably (if Ds belief was unreasonable there is no defense or mitigation) believed threat of imminent unlawful death or great bodily harm to D or a near relative if D did not commit the crime (this defense only excuses the specific criminal act demanded by the threatener, and never excuses homicide) and iii. D had no (legal) way to escape the threat. 2. MPC 2. 09 Duress i.D, without prior fault (there is no duress defense if D reckle ssly put himself in a position where such a threat was probable if D was merely negligent in position himself in that position, he is guilty of any applicable crime of negligence if no such negligence crime applies, D has no liability), was coerced to commit the charged criminal act (this can include acts not demanded by threatener, + homicide) ii. By threat of unlawful force against his person or the person of another iii. That a person of reasonable firmness in Ds position (PORF) would have been unable to resist. 1. Example of putting yourself in a situation where duress is likely is joining a caboodle 2.If you are under duress and you are told to commit one crime and you have to commit another crime to get there, duress can be a defense to that crime, too- assault on the way to a robbery iv. Distinct from CL in that duress is not limited to situations involving threats of death or serious bodily harm No overt imminence requirement 7) Duress v Necessity 18. Necessity xix. Focus es on the consequences of the harming action and the concrete alternatives facing D xx. Assumes that D acts in a way that the law seems to approve and encourage (and is therefore justified) 19. Duress xxi. Focuses on the way in which the choice is made and the extent to which it reflects the free will of the actor xxii.Assumes that D acts in a way that is too bad and deserves to be discouraged, but that special circumstances makes the conviction inappropriate and unsportsmanlike 12. Contento-Pachon swallows cocaine, raises defense of duress. Court looks at the immediacy and escapability of the threat. D just has to meet preponderance standard- just needs to raise a question for the jury, no need to actually prove duress. 8) Intoxication Voluntary and Involuntary 20. CL Voluntary Intoxication xxiii. Whether D can argue voluntary intoxication depends on whether or not the crime they are charged with is a general or specific intent crime 13. Inadmissible when general intent b/c it is only intent to do the actus reus 14.Admissible for specific intent crimes but D must still show that b/c intoxicated, she lacked the specific intent required for commission of the crime 21. CL Involuntary Intoxication xxiv. Some jurisdictions allow evidence of involuntary intoxication to be admitted to negate either specific or general intent xxv. Most jurisdictions allow involuntary intoxication to be the basis for temporary insanity Some jurisdiction only allow only this second use of involuntary intoxication defense to stand if it caused the D to become temporarily insane 22. MPC 2. 08(4-5) xxvi. Distinguishes 3 types of intoxication. Any form of intoxication is a defense if it negates an element of the offense.Mens rea is broadly applied (except in the case of recklessness- a person acts recklessly as to an element of the crime if, as the result of the self-induced intoxication, he was not conscious of a risk of which he otherwise would have been aware had he not been intoxicat ed) 15. Voluntary (Self bring on) Intoxication 16. Pathological Intoxication 17. Involuntary (Non self-induced) Intoxication h. Pathological and involuntary are affirmative defenses if the intoxication causes D to suffer from a mental condition comparable to that which constitutes insanity under MPC 2. 08(4) xxvii. Commonwealth v Smith Intoxication produced by mixing of prescription drugs and alcohol is not involuntary even if without knowledge of synergistic effects. 18. 4 situations which I. I. admissible i.Intoxication caused by fault of another (force, duress, fraud, contrivance) j. Caused by innocent mistake of D (taking LSD thinking its advil) k. D unknowingly suffers from physiological/psychological that renders him abnormally susceptible to legal intoxicant l. Unexpected results from medically prescribed drug 9) Competence to Stand Trial 23. In question is Ds ability to understand the legal proceedings as they are taking place, not about Ds competence at the time of the cri me. 10) Insanity Defense 24. In question is Ds ability to resist the neural impulse for crime, know right from wrong questions Ds ability based on the time of the incident itself. 25. Tests xxviii.MNaghten Rule a right/wrong test- looks at COGNITION focus is on Ds mental state 19. A person is legally insane if, at the time of committing the act, he was laboring under such a defect of reason, from unhealthiness of the mind, as m. Not to know the nature and quality of the act OR n. If he did know it, that he didnt know it was wrong. 20. Criticisms o. too set looks only at cognition p. Does wrong mean legally wrong? Morally wrong? Morally wrong according to D personally, or society? Courts split. xxix. Irresistible impulse test focus is on volition, unfitness to control acts 21. A person is legally insane if, as the result of mental sickness r defect, she acted with the irresistible and uncontrollable impulse, or if she deep in thought(p) the power to choose between right and wron g, and to avoid doing the act in question, as her free agency was at the time destroyed. 22. Criticisms Too narrow- looks only at volition. xxx. Durham Test focuses on testimony of psychiatrists 23. An accused is not criminally responsible if the unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect. Mental disease or defect is any abnormal condition of the kind which substantially affects mental or emotional process and substantially impairs behavior control. 24. Criticisms Focuses too much on expert testimony, to the point where the role of the jury is usurped- rubber-stamping an expert. xxxi. MPC 4. 1 combination of MNaughten and Durham- cognitive + willing 25. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to q. evaluate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct (cognitive) r. Or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law (volitional) 26. The ter ms mental disease or defect do not include an constipation manifested only by repeated criminal or other anti-social conduct. 27. Appreciate wrongfulness is a m