Criminal Law Outline

Criminal jurisprudence Outline apologys of Punishment 1. Consequentialist hypothesis a. mapions argon mor everyy regenerate if and only(prenominal) if they result in desirable outcomes b. Rely on theory of utilitarianism to justify penalisement Forward expression effects of penalty. General disincentive, tripicularized deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation 2. Nonconsequentialist Theory c. Actions be virtuously impairment in themselves, regardless(prenominal) of the implications d. Theory of Retri just nowivism look back at the harm and calibrate the punishment to the saturnineence Theories of Punishment ) Incapacitation Incarceration to reach them harmless 2) Retri unlession collective condemnation of confederation bearing down. Just Deserts 3) Rehabilitation collapse the felon skills and values to view as them a constabulary- stay on citizen 4) General disincentive deter other guiltys from devoteting nuisances 5) peculiar(prenominal) Deterrence det er the punished illegal from future crimes Justifications for Punishment in Context 1. The font of doubting Thomas Dudley (Eng. 1884) Stranded at sea for 24 get along with, 2 men conspire and kill a one-third to eat. Charged with dispatch and sentenced to closing a. Necessity defence doesnt apply. lawfulnessfully cleansing a nonher to save yourself is only in reference to want and self- self-denial (violence towards yourself) Retri nonwithstandingive in nature 2. heap v Suite military man owned . 32 caliber pistol, non licensed as postulate by 1980 legislation. Sentenced to 30 days in jail b. Principle aim of the gun licensing law is general deterrence. Reduction of jail term would proclaim that premier time aversions would non result in jail for first time offenders and would keep back 30 days to be too harsh/abuse of discretion. Upheld to further ruler of general deterrence legislature intended commonplaces of ProofProsecution beyond a levelheaded doubt (st ate has high burden b/c unbiased until conjuren guilty) 1. Curley v US Judge essential ask if prosecution has introduced able proof much(prenominal) that a rational jury could decide that the prosecution has proven its case beyond a average doubt. If evidence plainhandedly permits a verdict of acquittal or guilt, decision is for the jury to make. excuse lawyers by the preponderance of the evidence. (self-defense, insanity, emergency) manage of Lenity When statutory mark is unclear, the ambiguity moldiness be adjudicate in favor of the Defendant.US v. Dauray Actus Reus Definition volunteer Act, social harm A get outing puzzle out that results in social harm, or an omission where at that place is a barter to number. 1. Thoughts do not constitute criminal do works 2. Actions compelled by the state do not constitute criminal dissembles 3. Criminal char defenderizations mustiness be voluntary 4. No liability for omission unless in that respect is a job to ac t 5. Status Crimes ar unconstitutional Cases Act, not thought 1) Pro lay out against thought crimes- recite v Dalton act was the writing of a baby molestation diary. Acquitted.From a deterrence perspective he should not be guilty from rehabilitation perspective maybe. Since regime is generally geargond to deterrence it was the right outcome 2) Hate crimes/speech- Wisconsin v Mitchell group of dingy men beats up young w forme boy a. Rule Statutes penalizing bigoted motivations (thoughts) argon confirm b. rationale these acts are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, so society has a grander interest in heavy them. Deterrence and retribution justify harsher penalties Voluntary, not nonvoluntary MPC 2. 01 Requirements of Voluntary Act 1) A psyche is not guilty of an hatred unless his liability is establish on contend which holds a voluntary act. (2) NOT voluntary Acts reflex/convulsion bodily movement during un assured brainiacness or rest period charter during hy pnosis bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or aim of the p intentiontarian, whether conscious or habitual 3) Acting below State Compulsion- Martin v State drunk on public lane b/c police brought him there c. Rule no voluntary act where state compelled the action. d. rationale stay the government from punishing the innocent 4) impulsive Acts- State v.Decina epileptic who knew of his source drives and kills children e. Rule an voluntary act john be voluntary when the individual(a) knew of its likelihood and failed to pr issuanceatively act f. Rationale it doesnt matter if a somebody is unconscious when the harm occurs as long as the act took place only be perform, during consciousness, there was bad thinking- here, foolhardiness or inadvertence in failure to pr make upt the harm. He purposefully put himself in a internet site that created a further peril. 5) Powell v Texas Powell superaerated with public boozing g.Rule Voluntary be name he cou ld deport observeed his appearance in public h. Rationale criminalizing voluntary behavior is cruel and unusual (8) this wasnt involuntary MPC 2. 01 Voluntary, involuntary, omission, receiveion * Involuntary Convulsion, piteous while unconscious or asleep, conduct during hypnosis, or a movement not a product of the effort or determination of the actor Voluntary defined by the negative * Omission liability for an omission on a lower floorsidenot rear unless the omission is made sufficient expressly in the language defining the offense, or a transaction to perform is imposed by law. Possession D must provoke been aware of possession for sufficient period to do been able 2 terminate it Status Crimes- Criminalizing a status violates 8th Amendment roughshod & Unusual 1) Robinson v California man with track marks charged with narcotics addition a. Rule/Rationale The act of using narcotics can be criminalized addiction cant. Criminal penalties may not be inflicted upon a indiv idual for INVOLUNTARY acts. 2) Powell v. Texas a chronic alcoholic was charged with being drunk in public b. Rule public drunkenness is not a status crime because it is PUBLIC. c.Rationale convicted of being D. I. P. not chronic alcoholic. willing act of choosing to drink without checking oneself from being in public is sufficiently proximate to the infrangible act of going out while drunk to give the state an ACT to punish. 3) Jones v metropolis of Los Angeles punished behavior on sidewalks 24-7 which homeless mess cant avoid. d. Rule it is unconstitutional to punish acts arising out of an involuntary status because these acts are in like manner necessarily involuntary. Omissions 1) Omission can be an actus reus where there is a legal tariff to act, and D was physically capable of acting. mens rea, causation, and concurrence clam up requisite) a. Contracts for care b. peculiar(prenominal) relationships c. Statutory duty d. D created the pretend of harm e. D voluntarily as sumed care (e sparely if others are prevented from giving care) 2) People v Beardsley man and woman get drunk over weekend, she surreptitiously takes morphia and slip bys after D gave her to roughlyone else to let her sleep it off f. Rule no legal duty existed because none of the 5 to a higher place were kick in. g. Rationale a legal duty is not the equal as a moral obligation acquaintances arent close enough relationally to create a legal duty without one of the above. ) earthywealth v Howard mother failed to prevent her daughters torture and score by a third troupe h. Rule parents comport a legal duty to protect their children- special relationship i. Rationale parents can be legitimately guided to act additionally, the omission was the direct cause of the death (medical rivuletimony). 4) leafy vegetablewealth v Pestinikas couple contracted to care for old man for $300/mo j. Rule failure to care for another is only a breach of a legal duty when the caregiver has chth onictaken the responsibility of care through contract or voluntarily k.Rationale the omission in state of affairs of duty cause harm D could have prevented. Mens Rea Definition The particular psychological state provided for in the translation of an offense. Rationale for Requiring Mens Rea Deterrence or Utilitarian Justification you cannot deter someone who does not have a guilty mind. Retributive Justification Just Deserts. You should not punish someone who is morally innocent. MPC v Common Law Equivalents of Mens Rea MPC 2. 02(2) Common Law Purposefully conscious object to devote Intent- natural and presumptive auses cogniseingly sensation substantial certainty Knowledge- aware of the particular, or correctly be pillowves it exists, including go forthful blindness Recklessly conscious disregard of foreseeable risk- subjective stock. Awareness. Concepts of recklessness and negligence are often embodied Negligently should have been aware of risk and disregard it- reaso nable person would have been awareNo characteristic b/n general, special role Distinction b/w general, specific function CL Uses the concept of mens rea in some terms Willfully, wickedly, maliciously, knowingly, spiritionally, negligently.No uniformity across states as to definitions MPC 4 mental states that are precisely defined. If no mental state is referenced in a statute, read in recklessly. Proving Intent, public law- natural and probable consequences doctrine 1. Regina v Cunningham Son in law stole gas meter to sell mother-in-law was heart-to-heart to coal gas. a. Malice delegacy (i) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that was in fact done or (ii) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (foresaw risk continued some(prenominal) way of lifes) 2.State v Fugate D vote outs and kills store owner after forcing him into basement. b. Intent can be derivered from attendant thoughtfulnesss and composite picture developed by evidence, inc luding instrummyent used to produce death and the manner of inflicting a fatal wound. c. Intent to kill may be presumed where the natural and probable consequence of a wrongful act is to produce death. 3. Foreseeability Issues If harm is so foreseeable as to almost be certain to occur, intent can be found. 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 positive intimacy are equally culpable. To act knowingly is not necessarily to act only with positive knowledge, but also to act with an awareness of the high probability of the existence of the fact in question. When such awareness is present, positive knowledge is not channeld. Transferred Intent only where harm is to people NOT property 1. Regina v Pembliton D threw stone at enemy, hit window kinda.Intent to h it 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. People v Scott D intended to shoot A and mutable B instead mens rea (intent) transfers. Society has a greater interest in deterring and punishing (retribution) people who kill than damage property. Common law Specific v General Intent remember 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 objective that is more than just shorting a match. * Intending to everlasting(a) the act- purposefully, knowingly * General intent statute requires intent to do the act, only. Might punish setting thrust out to instead of saying, setting fire to woodland flora. Drunk people are likely to get clear under a general intent statute because the attendant circumstance is ge neral. * Intending the act- negligent, reckless * People v Atkins flack to overdress voluntary intoxication to charge of Arson. * Court finds Arson as general intent crime. 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 ( unbending liability provision), a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently with respect to each material element of the offense 2. MPC 1. 13(9) element of offense signifys (i) such conduct or (ii) attendant mess or (iii) such a result of conduct as b. is included in the description of the forbidden conduct in the definition of the offense or c. stablishes the required kind of culpability d. negatives an excuse or confession for such conduct e. Negatives a defense under the statute of limitations 3. MPC 1. 13(10) Material element of an offense means an element that does not relate totally to the statute of limitations, jurisdiction, venue, or any other matter similarly unconnected with (i) the harm or evil, attendant to conduct, sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense, or (ii) the existence of a justification or excuse for such conduct Strict Liability Crimes Statute lacks mens rea component. MPC reads recklessness into any statute deficient a mens rea. * TRUE STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES regulatory crimes, crimes against the public offbeat, morality offenses (statutory lash out), felony dispatch. MPC 2. 05 recognizes only minor violations and violations away(p) the MPC where it is plain that the legislature intended to create strict 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 p enalties imposed are light 4. There is little stigma associated with the offense 5. It is a newly created crime Commonwealth v Barone Woman killed another in a car crash, appeals on grounds 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. misapprehension and Ignorance In general D chip ins a crime with a article of belief that turns out to be wrong. MPC what does the statute require for mens rea? Rationales for erroneous belief and Ignorance Defenses 1. Deterrence/Utilitarian Justification 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 Question 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 mistake defense? b. MPC 2. 4 No distinction b/w mistake 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 brooks mistake claim, P must prove that notwithstanding the mistake, D possessed requisite mens rea c. Common law iv. Mistake of fact 1. Specific intent honorable but undue mistake is a defense 2. General intent defense only if some(prenominal) honest and reasonable v. Mistake of law 3. No excuse, but three exceptions relied on formalised interp. f law, knowledge of illegality is an element of the crime, or no fair notice Common Law Cases Mistake of Fact 1. People v Navarro D took lumber, thinking it was abandoned. a. Larceny is a specific intent statute, so mistake of fact is a defense, if honest 2. Bell v State MINORITY VIEW no exculpation for mistake where, had the mistake of fact not been made, the conduct would still be illegal or immoral. b. Moral wrong test there is no vio lation of the culpability principle if the conduct is reprehensively punished without regard to mens rea- mistake of fact not a defense if the conduct is morally wrong. . take aim if reasonable ii. If reasonable, look at factual panorama. what is it that you (reasonably) thought you were doing? Insert candid response. iii. Evaluate morality of actors conduct. If morally wrong, it is sufficient to convict. c. Legal wrong test even if D can stray 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 slightly draw inting (and so never did actually return) 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 rendition of the law (Marrero) 2. Where knowledge that the conduct is prohibited is an element of the crime. Ign orance or mistake negates the mens rea. a. Cheek v US When statute requires willfulness, Subjective standard is to be used and shall be destined by the factfinder. Need not be reasonable. b. Bryan v US (Gun Trafficker) Knowingly requires proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the crime.Willfully requires knowledge of the specific regain they are fracture. However, ignorance of the law is no excuse knowledge that the conduct is unlawful is all that is required. 3. The prosecution of person lacking fair notice can violate due process c. Lambert- no fair notice. In order 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 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 mental state required for committee of the offense. * Mistake of law under MPC is a defense if the law provides that the state of mind conventional by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense * Relationship between various mistakes of fact and required mens rea levels Required Mens Rea Defense / D is not guilty if Purposely or knowingly whatsoever actual belief 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 apply MPC in RRH book burning example. Mistake can be a defense, but it has to be less than conscious 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. proximate cause? a. Is D the direct cause, such that it would be fair an d just to hold him presumable? i. Yes Then D has complete liability. ii.No proceed to interpose cause analysis a. Was there an intervening cause? If Dependent, D typically is proximate cause unless queer i. Yes 1. Was it dependent on Ds voluntary act? a. Yes next 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, likely. 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, killed 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. T hey were fighting in preceding of a road, so no. c. D is liable. Actual cause, and proximate cause, the latter through 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 dont 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 abnormal and unforeseeable 3. Henderson v Kibbe drunk guy robbed and left on snowy road 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 driving the truck that hit him 5. If Indep, it was foreseeable, so D is liable. vi. Dependent bu t 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 military posture behind the act Sexual Offenses MPC Rape 213. 1 Rape if * fix to submit by rack of threats of death, thoroughgoing pain, etc OR * You give V GHB, etc OR * V is unconscious OR * V is younger than age 10. Felony 2nd degree * NO MISTAKE OF AGE defense UNDER AGE 10 * There is a mistake of age defense between 10 and age of consent Rape Traditional no rape unless push up was used to overcome the victims resistance (No resistance, then no force, then no rape) rape determination based on victims actions. ) Hetero entropyrmal vaginal intercourse NO MENS REA 2) of a woman, not the mans wife 3) by force and 4) w ithout her consent consent is an element that she did not consent has to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution in order to convict (hard to prove) a. FORCE Whether Ds acts used sufficient force 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 attempt to run when she had the chance, so under the traditional get she could not have been raped. i.She state she was fearful, but unless D objectively manifested his intent to use physical force to accomplish his purpose, her submission will be read as consent because it couldnt have been reasonable without an objective manifestation. ii. DISSENT (now majority rule) this view requires too much resistance from the victim- and resisting victims get hurt more often. Modern force fate met by nonconsensual penetration- no need for resistance that requires force to overcome. Rape determination based on Ds actions, not Vs actions or chara cter. * Modern rape law is built around pregnant consent. It is gender neutral, includes the word coercion, includes more than vaginal intercourse, uses the term sexualityual transport instead of rape * Consent is an affirmative defense, not an element 1) Physical force or coercion 2) NO verbalized CONSENT ELEMENT 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. Physical force in excess of that inherent in the act of sexual penetration is not required for such penetration to be unlawful i.There is an inherent wrong in forced sexual intimacy- crime against a persons right to tick off her body. Rape is violating the celestial 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 John 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 mentally disabled person can be convicted of statutory rape with a person his mental equivalent- we dont care about mindset, only about the act. * Scholars think strict liability crimes dont mete out a deterrent purpose because they punish without regard to the actor s state of mind. * But I think this port of liability is a good 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 creditworthy- but then, people probably dont think of the punishments ahead of time, either.Homicide Common law 4 primary kinds of homicide. (** minority rule) Murder, 1st degree Murder, 2nd degree Voluntary Manslaughter Involuntary Manslaughter Murder The unlawful killing of a human being with bitchiness aforethought Manslaughter The unlawful killing of another human being without malice aforethought CL 4 conditions when malice aforethought is present 1. An intent to kill 2. Intent to commit serious bodily harm 3. An abandoned and cancerous heart or depraved heart 4. The felony carrying out 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. bankable Evidence when proof of absent depen ds on malice aforethought 1. Inferred from circumstantial evidence 2. Deadly tool rule Can infer intent to kill when D uses deadly weapon and aims it vital part of body 3. Natural and probable consequences rule Murder, 1st degree Murder involved * Premeditation and awkwardness * Premeditated intent to kill. Killer reflected upon and thought about the killing in advance * Deliberation. Refers to the quality of the impeachs thought process * Statutory felony murder. Lying in wait, poison, torture, etc. Murder, 2nd degree * unplanned intent to kill * Intent to cause great bodily harm** * Depraved heart/ extreme recklessness * All other felony murders Murder Cases * State v Brown Death of 4 y. o. resulting from debacle from father. charged with M1 * To be guilty of first degree murder, one must act with premeditation and deliberateness in addition to malice aforethought * Although premeditation can be formed in an instant, it must be done deliberately- with undisturbedness and re flection * State v Bingham Raped and smothered on highway To allow a decision of premeditation only because the act takes an appreciable amount of time obliterates the distinction b/w 1st and 2nd degree murder. Having the opportunity to deliberate is not evidence of deliberation. 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 lunacy wife by shooting her * good faith is not a legal defense to first degree murder Voluntary manslaughter Intent to kill plus reasonable irritation (always has to be reasonable provocation for charge of voluntary manslaughter- something akin to heat of passion. But for provocation, this person wouldnt be a killer) * incitement One who kills in response to legally adequate provocation is treated as having acted without malice aforethought, the mens rea required for murder * Intent to kill plus imperfect self d efense** (D might have over-defended themselves) * haggard 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 * sleuthing ones wife in the act of adultury * Mere Words Rule Mere nomenclature 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 series of provoking statements and circumstances. * Modern Reasonable Man. board must find * D actually acted in the heat of passion The heat of passion was arouse by an act or event that would have also provoked a reasonable person in the Ds shoes to lose self-control * D did not have sufficient time to cool off b/w provocative event and the killing * A reasonable pers on in Ds shoes would not have had sufficient time to cool * There must be a causal connection b/w the provocation, the passion, and the killing * People v Barry Husband strangled wife with phone cord after hearing that she was leaving 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 pull under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable bill and excuse. * the reasonableness 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. subjective * State v Dumlao Husband shoots mother in law after thinking that family members were endeavoring to cheat on him with his wife. Was a very in full individual * Intense mental or emotional disturbance is d istinguished from insanity in that it is to be dumb in relative terms as referring to a loss of self control due to acuate feelings * 3 part test for EMED Will be found in a person who has * No mental sickness or stain 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 uplift or similar emotion * Whether there is a reasonable explanation should be made 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 negligence * Can secure IM conviction through Criminal negligence ( make negligence or even recklessness) or Misdemeanor manslaughter (felony murder, junior) * MPC Equivalent 210. 3(1)(a) criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when it is act recklessly * Commonwealth v Welanski Night club burn down down and killed hundreds * Not required to prove that he caused the fire by some wanton or reckless conduct. Enough to prove that the deaths resulted from his wanton or reckless disregard of the goloshty of the patrons in the event of fire form any case. Depraved Heart Murder What When there is a killing but no proof of an 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 instant-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 l ife. D realized that his actions created a substantial and wild 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. Must 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 heartbreaking to human 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 relegating of a felony is considered murder in the second degree.In some states, killing during the fit out of certain statutorily proscribed crimes can elevate the murder to Murder 1 * train of intent to perform a felonious act is evidence of malice wh ich can be transferred to murder * People v Stamp (Ct. address CA 1969) Man dies of heart attack following the looting of his store. * A killing committed in either the mission of or an attempt to perpetrate robbery is murder of the first degree. Malice aforethought is presumed on the basis of the thrill of a felony inherently monstrous to human life. No intentional act is infallible other than the attempt to or the actual commission of the robbery itself. * Not circumscribed to deaths which are foreseeable.As long as 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 underlying felony is inherently solemn * 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 firearm by a convicted felon. * Felony is inherently dangerous when it is dangerous per se or by its cir cumstances 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 outstrip (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 related to an underlying felony as to justify an enhanced punishment for the killing is that the crime continues until the criminal has reached a place of temporary safety * the homicide is committed in the perpetration of a felony if the killing and the felony are parts of one continuous transaction. This escape rule serves public polity 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 do 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 Merger ism In some states FM does not apply if the underlying felony is an integral part of and included in the 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 own er 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 accomplice acting in furtherance of their common design. Lethal acts of 3rd persons not in furtherance of the felonious scheme do not count towards FM rule Attempts, Complicity, Conspiracy See chart Attempts Inchoate Conduct conduct which occurs after the mens rea has been formed but is shy of the completed act 1. Common Law Approach * Attempt to commit felonies = felonies attempt to commit misdemeanors = misdemeanors * generally punished less severely than completed offenses 2. MPC Approach * broadly speaking punishes crimes at the same level as the completed offense, except when the backside crime is a capital of the United States 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 offen se.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 described by the crime of murder 4. State v Hinkhouse (OR 1996) D had HIV, slept with multiple partners.Charged with act 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 b eing. 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 determining when mere formulation for an offense becomes 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 riding aroud looking for a person to rob. Arrested and charged with attempted robbery * crimp is drawn between acts which are remote and which are proximate and near to consummation. * Felonious intent alone(predicate) is not enough. There must be an overt 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 placement the means or measures necessary 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 to 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 abandonment. Majority of CL states do not recognize the defense of abandonment. nce D crosses line from preparation to attem pt 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 desertion 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 ungodliness Complicity One who intentionally assists another in the commission of a crime can be convicted of that offense as an accomplice intellectual 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 aidin g and attempting to aid are sufficient Cases Pace v State (IN 1967) man picks up hitch hiker he robs man in back seat at knife 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. Must have affirmative conduct State v Parker (MN 1969) Law student defeat in the back seat of his car by others he escapes, claims robbery and stolen car. person in antecedent 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 agreement between ii or more persons to commit a crime CL Elements of conclave Actus Reus 1. An ag reement 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 junto to commit Murder 1 * There must be an actual agreement between two or more conspirators. Unilateral agreements do not satisfy actus reus. * As it takes two to conspire, there can be no indictable conspiracy with a govt informer who secretly intends 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 con spiracy 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 disturbance is about a firm commitment to criminality Actus Reus 1. an agreement 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 renunciatio n of his criminal purpose Case 1. Pinkerton Doctrine Co-Conspirators can be held liable for ancillary crimes committed in promotional material of their agreement if they are (1) reasonably foreseeable and (2) are committed in furtherance of the conspiracy 2.US v Mothersill (FL 1996) Cop 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 the 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 defe nses 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 Excuse and why it matters 4. Justification this conduct is right and should be encouraged. v. The evidence for justification is equally available to both sides, but P has advantage of law enforcement resources. vi. Third party liability If Ds acts are justified, third parties are not criminally liable for helping, and may be liable for interfering. 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 int erfering (if they stopped an maniacal 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 impendent threat of unlawful force 3. And that the force used was necessary to repel and proportional to the threat 4. Must be subjectively and objectively reasonable, whether right in belief or not 5.PROVIDED if Ds defensive force caused death a. The harm avoided must be death or serious bodily injury (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. course if D fails to meet all these requirements he may have a partial defense x. MPC Self-defense 3. 04(1) 6. D reasonably? believed 7. Defensive 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 at least(prenominal) some of Ds physical characteristics, plus Ds knowledge of external circumstances and surroundings also at least some of Ds general knowledge and front 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 whatever 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 flyer 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 belief 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 unripened act at peril.Undercover police officers arresting someone. 13. MPC 3. 05 defender may act on reasonable appeara nces. 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 close at hand(predicate) unlawful entry 15. Modern CL Deadly force is permitted only when occupant 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. xvii. 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 defend yourself. 16. MPC 3. 06 Use of force is justified to prevent trespass, theft, etc or to retake property, BUT must ask intruder to desist (unless useless, dangerous), or harmful to property. Can use non-dangerous devices. 17. People v Brown What constitutes a hall? xviii. Reasonable expectations test whether th e 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 gracious disobedience (fake blood on IRS walls). ii. Hutchins necessity cannot justify cultivation of medical marijuana. Court says dont grow your 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 n ecessary to prevent iii. Imminent 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 Prosecutor would argue 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 menage 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 of 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. Similarities/Differences B/W CL and MPC i. Simi lar Both use a equilibrise 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 understand 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 fetter 1. Trad. CL i. D (without front fault- 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 recklessly put himself in a position where such a threat was probable if D was barely negligent in putting 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 connection a gang 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 explicit imminence requirement 7) Duress v Necessity 18. Necessity xix. Focuses 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 regrettable and deserves to be discouraged, but that special circumstances makes the conviction inappropriate and unfair 12. Conte nto-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 in voluntary 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 intoxicated) 15. Voluntary (Self Induced) 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 (pickings LSD thinking its advil) k. D unknowingly suffers from physiological/psychological that renders him abnormally subject 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 crime. 10) Insanity Defense 24. In question is Ds ability to resist the 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 disease 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 narrow 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, inability to control acts 21. A person is legally insane if, as the result of mental disease r defect, she acted with the irresistible and uncontrollable impulse, or if she lost(p) the power to choose between right and wrong, and to avoid doing the act in question, as her free execution was at the time destroyed. 22. Criticisms Too narrow- looks only at volition. xxx. Durham Test focuses on testimony of psychiatrists 23. An incriminate 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 tes timony, 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 + volitional 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. Appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct (cognitive) r. Or to accommodate his conduct to the requirements of the law (volitional) 26. The terms mental disease or defect do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or other anti-social conduct. 27. Appreciate wrongfulness is a m