W6 Flashcards
CL Duress Requires:
immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury,
fear that threat will be carried out,
no reasonable opportunity to escape threatened harm
CL Duress cannot be a defense:
to homicide, or if actor was at fault for threat,
or if there was a reaosnable means of escape
MPC Duress Statute # & Definition
NOTE: necessity vs. duress
necessity = no actus reus
duress = negates required mens rea
2.09 = actor was compelled to commit the offense b/c the use or threatened use of unlawful force by the coercer upon the actor’s person.
CL Voluntary Intoxication is not a defense to ______
general intent crimes
CL Voluntary intoxication is a defense to ____ if ∆ was ______
- specific intent crime
- incapable of forming or did not form specific intent required in definition of offense
Forms of involuntary intoxication
- coerced intoxication
- pathological intoxication
- intoxication by innocent mistake
- unexpected intoxication resulting form ingestion of medically prescribed drug.
Insanity is an affirmative defense (burden on the ∆ to prove)
what are the 5 major insanity tests
- M’Naghten Rule (CL Standard)
- didn’t know what they were doing when committed the act OR knew what they were doing, didn’t know it was wrong
- Federal test
- M’Naghten + “Severe” (must have severe mental defect)
- Irresistible Impulse
- added volitional
- Durham or “purpose” test
- but for mental disease, ∆ would not have committed a crime
- MPC (4.01)
- incorporates above 4, changed “know” to “appreciate”
Inchoate definition
being only partly in existence or operation
3 main types of inchoate crimes
attempt, solicitation, conspiracy
capacity to form criminal intent age rule
under 7 - not capable
7-14 - rebuttable presumption of incapacity
above 14 - capable
CL Attempt Test (2)
- actor must intentionally commit the act(s) that constitute the actus reus of an attempt.
- actor must preform acts w/ specific intention of committing the target offense.
MPC Criminal Attempt Statute #
5.01
CL Intent.
A person “intentionally” causes the social harm of an offense if: (2)
- it is his desire (conscious object) to cause social harm OR
- he acts w/ knowledge that the social harm is virtually certain to occur as a result of his conduct.
CL Impossibility example
Pure legal impossibility.
ex. driving after drinking coffee. actor believes caffeine causes DUI
Which approach is the majority for impossibility?
MPC approach is the majority.
for the MPC, you need to apply the “believes them to be” (in 5.01(1)(a)) or “with the belief that it will cause” (in 5.01(1)(b)) or “as he believes them to be” (in 5.01(1)(c)) language as relevant.
This captures times that completing an offense is literally impossible because of the person’s mistaken belief about some element of the crime (e.g., it turns out that “Bekka” is really an adult, male law-enforcement officer).
Entrapment defense works only if: (2)
- criminal plan originated with government, AND
- ∆ was not predisposed to the crime.
Because attempt is a specific intent crime, it requires ______
intent as to conduct and result
MPC requires purpose as to ______ elements
conduct
MPC requires purpose or belief as to ______ elements for crimes that require proof of a result
result
