Mens Rea

CASE
State v. Fugate
(Intent MR)

D argues
Did not intend to shoot the old man
when robbing the store

P argues
You shot him in the head at point
blank range
Clearly that shows intent
Voluntary intoxication is no defense
Arson is a general intent crime

Outcome(s)
Intent can be presumed where death
is natural and probable
consequences of the act
Arson is general intent therefore no
intoxication defense
Specific intent crimes are going to
have phrases like with the intent
for the purpose of
Her statements to the neighbor
Violation of DP to convict someone
evidenced her knowledge
without evidence of guilt
Dissent: mother consciously
refrained from seeking medical
help to protect another from
criminal charges
Statute only says you have to
We presume someone in the industry
knowingly do the act, not also
is aware of the regulations
know that you are violating a law Dissentyou are convicting
someone of SL even though
statute has knowing MR
Knowingly in the statute does not
Knowingly modifies the whole
modify the last words of another
sentence
MPC rule is that MR modifies all
material elements
D purposefully avoided actual
Willful blindness is no excuse
knowledge
Dissentshould follow MPC, high
probability=intent
Wanton or reckless conduct may
Knowing facts that would cause a RM
consist of intentional disregard for
to know the danger is = to
high probable consequences
knowing the danger
I was threatened with a firearm, how Does not matter if not loaded.
was I sposed to know it wasnt
Congress intent was to stop
loaded
people from pointing guns at one
another
We found your kid doing homework Reckless disregard can be shown
next to a plate of crack and a
through conduct that subjects a
bottle of heroine
child to risk/danger
You left a baby and a 2 year old
Criminal negligence is based on the
alone while you went drinking with
totality of the circumstances
candles and cigarette buds
everywhere
SL is okay in public welfare ofenses

People v. Atkins
(Intent MR)

I could not have intended to start a

fire because I was very drunk
Arson is a specific intent crime

Fabritz v. Traurig
(Knowledge MR)

Didnt know that the child needed

immediate medical attention
Treated her to the best of my
knowledge

US v. International Minerals
(knowledge MR)

Statute says whoever knowingly

ships hazardous materials

Congress really meant I had to know
facts and law

Flores v. US
(knowledge)

State v. Cushman
(recklessness)

Statute says knowingly use ID of

another
I picked a random #, I didnt know it
was anothers #
Did know of cars secret
compartment but I didnt know for
sure they put MJ in there
I did not willfully block the doors so
people could not exit in event of a
fire
When I pointed the antique gun at
you, I knew it wasnt loaded

Jones v. Commonwealth
(recklessness)

I know I deal drugs but I didnt

willfully fail to provide for my child

State v. Gof
(Negligence)

I know I left my kids alone but it

wasnt criminal negligence like the

statute requires

US v. Cordoba
(SL)
Staples v. US
(SL)

I didnt know that this gun was

altered

The statute doesn't require MR

We do not want to criminalize a
broad range of innocent conduct
A gun is a dangerous item. He should
(MR required)
be on notice of the regulations
Dissentthis is a semiauto gun, not

US v. Jewell
(knowledge)
Commonwealth v. Welansky
(recklessness)

State v. Miller
(SL)

My friend spiked my cofee. I didnt

know I was drunk

There is no MR requirement in the

statute

regular. They are dangerous and

the statute doesnt require MR.
Statute made to keep drunks of
road.
If we allowed defense ppl would
claim that they thought they were
not afected by their liquor
Dissentthis should have gone to
jury

Accomplice Liability
CASE
State v. Gladstone

Columbine Article

US v. Garguilo

People v. Poplar

State v. Formella

D argues
P argues
I was just giving the guy
Without that map, no sale.
directions to a house where
You were aiding and
MJ could be bought. I didn't
abetting the sale
have any stake in the
purchase

Outcome(s)
Must prove
connection/association for
there to be AL
Dissentthe statute says
directly or indirectly
contributes to commission
of crime. Does not require
intent or connection
I just sold the kids the guns. I The kid made statements that
did not know that they were
might clue you in to his
going to shoot up a school
purpose.
I was just around when they
Exactly! You had a conscious Knowledge + presence not
were counterfeiting.
and intelligent awareness of
enough for AL
what was going on
You need action to forward
crime
Dissentpresence of a friend
= encouragement therefore
AL
I just met these guys and we You knew the gun was there
Criminal intent is presumed
decided to break into this
and you knew they took it
from his actions with
store. I didnt know they
with them.
knowledge of wrongful
were going to shoot
purpose.
You also acted as lookout
someone.
Death was foreseeable result
given the circumstances
(w/i scope)
Yes I agreed to lookout while You did not voice your
Uncommunicated withdrawal
they stole tests but I
withdrawal and you still
is not enough.
withdrew
provided assistance and
You must undermine
would have benefited had
encouragement you gave
you been successful

Regina v. Tyrell

People v. Duty

How can I be guilty of a crime You encouraged this man to

I cannot myself commit!
have sex with you knowing
you were underage.
Therefore AL
I didnt know for sure that he Substantial evidence to infer
had committed arson so I
reasonable finding of guilty
cant be AAF

You cannot be guilty of AL if

you are the protected class
of the statute.
Evidence provided rational
basis that D knew
Can infer knowledge from
circumstances

Intent to Kill Murder

CASE
Keeler v. Superior Court

D argues
I killed a fetus which is not a human
being according to the statute

P argues
Science has progressed and this fetus
could have been born viable at the
time it was killed

I only told her jump in the river. She

chose to jump I didnt kill her
I didnt deliberate and premeditate the
killing

She had a well grounded fear that death

would result if she didnt jump
Appreciable time should not be
determinative. D engaged in PD

CASE
State v. Thompson

D argues
I didn't intend to kill the pastor. I only
wanted the $ and to leave.

People v. Geiger

No 2nd murder because no malice

P argues
You hit him once he was already not a
threat
You took a pipe into the church with you
You hit your wife and then drove her
around for hours without taking her to
hospital

State v. Myers
Austin v. United States
(enough time for PD?)

Outcome(s)
DP doesn't allow us to punish someone
w/no law
Dissentwe need not freeze meaning of
words to what they meant during CL
Ds conduct allowed jury to correctly infer
that he intended death to result
Regardless of time, you must show that D
did PD
DissentDs actions clearly show PD (tak
toe on thigh, drowning her)

Intent to SBI

Depraved Heart Murder

CASE
People v. Knoller

D argues
I was only aware that death might result.
I did not consciously disregard human
life

Brinkley v. State

I shot gun at floor. I didnt intend for it to

bounce of bed and hit gf

State v. Hemphill

Baby was choking so I shook her. I didnt

intend to kill her

Outcome(s)
Severity of injuries= sufficient proof of
specific intent to inflict SBI
Malice inferred when act has strong
likelihood that harm will occur
Evidence for jury to find injuries were
reasonably calculated to cause death
and death resulted from wounds

P argues
Implied malice only requires awareness
that death could result

Outcome(s)
Conviction for 2nd murder requires prof D
acted w/ conscious disregard of danger
to human life
ACsubjective knowledge
SCobjective knowledge
You shot in a very small room with an iron His acts implied indiference to human
bed in it. High probability that death
life
could result
Shaking the baby so hard implies malice D acted with reckless disregard of
consequences. Enough for DHM
Dissentactions did not rise to level of
criminal negligence. No evidence of
malice

Felony Murder
CASE
People v. Howard
(inherently dangerous)
Barnett v. State
(merger doctrine)
People v. Johnson
(temporary safety)

State v. Maudlin
(continuing transaction)

D argues
I was just fleeing from police and hit
someone. I shouldnt be charged with
murder
Using car to facilitate intentional
discharge of gun not independent of
homicidal act of shooting victim
Death was not in commission of felony
I reached place of temp safety when I
drove into residential neighborhood
without being pursued
I just sold them the H. Its not my fault he
overdosed and died

P argues
Fleeing from police is inherently
dangerous
FM is a death resulting from ANY felony

It is not a subjective but objective belief

of temporary safety and that
neighborhood was not objectively
temp safety
Selling them H establishes connection
between you and deceased for FM

Outcome(s)
Fleeing is not inherently dangerous so no
FM
Looked at in the abstract
Merger Doctrinethe underlying felony is
not distinct from the death
We are abandoning the merger doctrine!
Objective standardwhether robber
actually reached place of temp safety,
not whether thought they had
Objective standardmust be direct
causal relationship between felony and
homicide.
Felony (sale H) was completed upon final

Jackson v. State
(accidental hostage killing)

It was the police officer that shot the

hostage, not me

You were still in commission of felony

when someone died as result

People v. Aaron
(abolish FM)

Voluntary Manslaughter
CASE
D argues
P argues
Girouard v. State
I was adequately provoked. Cant be VM because not
(provocation categories)
She stood on me and
one of the four CL
called me names
categories
People v. Cassasa
She rejected me which
This was not a killing from
(extreme emotional
caused extreme
emotional disturbance.
disturbance)
emotional disturbance
You were angry she
wouldn't date you
People v. Williams
We didnt know the child
You had a duty as parents
(negligence manslaughter)
would die
to bring your child to a
doctor when the
We were afraid they would
symptoms were so bad
take child from us
People v. Nelson
I didnt know I was violating You were on notice because
(misdemeanor
the law, cant read
you had made plans to fix
manslaughter)
fire escape

sale.
Ds act produced the intervening cause of
victim death
Thus death is not remote and is
foreseeable
In MI, to convict murder must prove
intent to kill/SBI.
Malice issue ALWAYS submitted to jury

Outcome(s)
Words alone are never
enough for adequate
provocation
Extreme emotional
disturbance is valid but
court agrees that malice
was the cause here
Such ordinary/simple
negligence is enough to
uphold manslaughter
conviction
The lack of fire escape
directly caused deaths
Dissentto be guilty of MM
you should at least know
of underlying
midemeanor

Involuntary Manslaughter
CASE
D argues
P argues
Outcome(s)
Commonwealth v. Root
I was not cause of victims But for your agreeing to car The second act superseded
death. He decided to pull
race, he would be alive
the original act, thus no
in front of truck
proximate cause
Dissentactions are but for
cause
Brackett v. Peters
I didnt kill the woman. It
You raped her which put
Unintended consequences,
(intervening cause)
was the nursing home
her in the nursing home.
if foreseeable, are enough

that let her choke on her

food

Her death was

foreseeable

to establish causation

Rape
CASE
MTS

People v. Iniguez
(fear of force)
State v. Boslinger
(power relationship)

Commonwealth v. Fischer
(objective belief)
Commonwealth v.
Berkowitz
(no extra force needed)

D argues
I thought she consented.
She did not try to fight
and when she said
enough, immediately
stopped
She didnt fight back
I did exactly what I said I
was going to do; I just
had an ulterior purpose

P argues
I did not freely give my
consent

Outcome(s)
The unwanted touching of
rape is force itself

I was so scared I didnt

know what to do

Reasonable that she

genuinely feared
immediate force
This was fraud in
inducement and therefore
no crime

The boys would not have

consented had they
known
The boys had no way to not
consent
She had agreed before and I was telling him no and he The legislature hasn't said
she wasn't fighting back
still continued
subjective belief is
defense
All her actions said she
I told him I didn't want
You need some force other
consented. She didn't
backup and refused to sit
than the act of sex for it
fight
on bed with him
to be rape.

Solicitation
CASE
Dickerson v. Richmond
People v. Gordon

D argues
I was just standing on the corner
waving at passing cars
I asked but I backed out

P argues
Your actions can infer solicitation of
prostitution
Doesnt matter

D argues
I had to know they were feds to
knowingly assault feds
I didnt know they were illegally selling
the morphine
We were just shooting randomly. We
couldnt have conspired to kill
specific people
The guilty statements were made after
the acts were already done

P argues
You only have to knowingly assault
group x. if x =feds tough luck
It was pretty obvious they werent
using that quantity for legal reasons
You had a common design to kill other
gang members and we can infer
from actions your agreement
Those statements were evidence of a
conspiracy

Outcome(s)
Must prove BRD that specific intent to
engage in prostitution
Solicitation is complete when the
asking is done

Conspiracy
CASE
US v. Feola
Direct Sales v. US
(intent through knowledge)
People v. McChristian

Krulewitch v. US

Pinkerton v. US

Cant be guilty because I was in prison

at the time he committed the acts

State v. St. Christopher

(MPC only need 1 for conspiracy)
US v. Bruno

My cousin never intended to kill

mother so no conspiracy
I did not know the ids of the other ppl.
How could I have conspired with
them?

Outcome(s)
Federal conspiracy statute doesnt
require extra MR proof
Intent inferred through knowledge ok
DS had stake in criminal enterprise
To be guilty, must prove knowledge of
presence in car and intent to kill
them
Statements were not made in
furtherance of the conspiracy, not
allowed at trial
He was committing acts that were part So long as acts are in furtherance of
of your conspiracy
conspiracy, you are guilty of them
too
Dissentcongress did not say L for
anothers crimes
It was still an agreement to commit a
MPC says you only need one
crime.
You could still conspire with them
You all shared one criminal enterprise
without knowing who they were
and success of one link afected
success of others

Attempt
CASE
US v. Lee
(substantial step)

D argues
P argues
I never talked to the daughters so how You sent materials to the mother of
can I be guilty of attempted
yourself and asked her to send you
enticement of minor
materials

Outcome(s)
Your actions suffice for substantial step
for attempt conviction
Dissenthe never booked ticket.
Actions no more than general talk.
No SS
You did this last time and went about
Cannot infer future conduct from past
enticing exact same way
conduct. No SS
Dissentstate says enticement=SS.
We should not question
You would have had you not been
Conduct went beyond mere
caught
preparation
Dissentno SS to defraud insurance.
They could have changed their mind
You scoped out the bottles. You did
D not dangerously proximate to
enough for attempt
completing crime so NG
The murder statute includes knowingly For attempted murder, must establish
as a MR
D acted intentionally (knowingly not
enough)
Jury correct bc he acted knowingly and

Walters v. Maas
(past vs. future conduct)

I never attempted to rape, sodomize

this girl

People v. Mahboubian

We hadnt made SS to defraud

insurance company yet

People v. Brown
(dangerous proximity)
State v. Casey
(intentional MR for attempted murder)

I couldnt steal bottles because friends

wouldnt help me
I cant be convicted of attempted

murder based on knowing MR

People v. Staples

Self-Defense
CASE
US v. Peterson
(no defense if escalate to DF)
People v. Goetz
(DF if reasonable belief)
Bechtel v. State
(BWS yes defense)
State v. Norman
(BWS no defense)

Commonwealth v. Shafer
(wife shoots on stairs)

I abandoned my criminal enterprise

Yes, but you had already attempted to

break into the bank by that time

D argues
P argues
Outcome(s)
I was just defending my
You werent threatened with DF Peterson was primary
property. They threatened me
and you shot at the guy when
aggressor when he turned to
first too
he was leaving
DF. No defense allowed
Ive been mugged before
These boys showed no
May use DF if reasonably
evidence of intent to use DF
believes DF imminent
I was in reasonable fear for my The threat was not imminent.
BWS testimony allowed
life given past beatings
He was sleeping
because goes to
reasonableness of belief
BWS abused horrifically for
He was sleeping. You were not No defense. He was sleeping.
years. If I hadnt killed him,
in imminent fear for your life.
We cannot allow women to
he would have killed me
kill their husbands while they
sleep
I already ran to the basement
You can only use DF if you have You were not in imminent
in attempt to retreat
no other means
danger for your life. You did
not warn him of DF

Defense of Others/Property
CASE
D argues
P argues
State v. Ceballos
People are trying to steal my
You cannot use a spring gun.
belongings. I should be able
Their force is indiscriminate
to protect them
Necessity
CASE
D argues
P argues
Nelson v. State
I needed to get my truck out of There were other ways than
the mud
criminal trespass. People
ofered to give you rides or
take you to a phone
US v. Bailey
We had to escape because we Once you escaped you should
would have been killed by
have gone to the police
guards had we not

State v. Warshow

intentional
Once you have reached stage of
advancement of attempt,
abandonment no defense

The nuclear reactor will harm

There was no immediate
everyone. Risk of malfunction
emergency

Outcome(s)
DF allowed only for forcible
atrocious felonies
Burglary is not F/A/F
Outcome(s)
Necessity only works when no
lawful alternatives
You can only claim D/N until the
emergency is gone
Dissentthe emergency was
still there. Had they turned
themselves in, they would
have been back in the
problem.
The legislature has determined
acceptable risk and the

high

danger is not imminent

Dissentqs of reasonableness
and credibility are for the jury

Duress
CASE
State v. Metcalf

D argues
I had to sell MJ, they were
threatening my family

P argues
Outcome(s)
You cant claim duress on behalf Yes you can. CL gives you
of others
defense for those you have
duty to protect

Impossibility
CASE
Commonwealth v. Henley

D argues
P argues
I cant be guilty of attempted Not legal impossibility. Factual
theft because the necklace
impossibility. Still guilty
wasn't stolen (legal
impossibility)
I cannot be guilty because he You didnt know he was dead
was already dead
when you shot him
I cant be guilty because it was You didn't know it was sugar.
sugar not drugs
You thought was drugs you
hid it in your tv

Outcome(s)
Impossibility (F or L) no
defense if completed
ofense could have occurred
as D believed
You believed he was alive so
guilty
Infer intent through persons
actions
In this case, no infer through
actions

D argues
I was intoxicated and I
thought the girl was a
prostitute

P argues
The MF was not a reasonable
one

People v. Marrero
(ML)

I thought that the statute

included correctional
officers when it says peace
officers

He was not acting under an

official interpretation
therefore no MPC defense

US v. Cheek
(ML)

Statute says willfully evade

Ignorance of the law is no
taxes. I honestly thought
excuse
that taxes are against my
rights therefore I was not
willfully evading taxes
I did not know I was supposed Ignorance of the law is no
to register and I had no way
excuse
of knowing

Outcome(s)
Subjective belief is one factor.
Belief must be reasonable
and honest
DissentD charged with
assault with intent to rape
(SI crime) and therefore
drunk negates intent
If we ruled for D, the
exception would swallow
the rule. No defense
because he was not relying
on any official
interpretation.
ACbelief must be objectively
reasonable
SCstatute specifically
unreasonable belief a
defense
A law which punishes conduct
which would normally be
innocent is too severe.
DP says NG when you were
not notified and no way to
know
Totality of circumstances, he
was not in America, colonel

People v. Dlugash
(hybrid legal)
US v. Oviedo
(infer intent from
circumstances)
Mistake
Case
US v. Short
(MF)

Lambert v. California
(ML)

US v. Clegg
(ML)

I was relying on Army Colonel Army Colonel is not a correct

arms that it was ok to
official for official

export these guns

interpretation excuse

high rank. Reasonable to

rely on his orders.
Dissentcolonel did not say
that the conduct was lawful