MPC vs Common Law Difference Table PDF

Preview

Summary

MPC AND CL DIFFERENCE TABLE.
Highlighting the differences between model penal code and common law...

Description

Theft Offenses ▪ ▪

COMMON LAW: Larceny by trick, larceny by` trespass, embezzlement, and false pretenses MPC 223.1: All of the common law offenses are consolidated under one theft statute

LARCENY Common Law Elements 1. 2. 3. 4.

Trespassory taking -AR And carrying away - AR The property of another - AR With the intent to deprive the possessor of that property permanently - MR

MPC 223.1 Differences

Elements SEE LARCENY CONSOLIDATED THEFT STATUTE IN HANDOUT

BURGLARY Common Law Elements

MPC 221.1 Differences

Elements 1. Entering a building (or separately secured or occupied portion thereof) – AR 2. With the purpose to commit a crime therein (With intent to steal or commit some other specific offense/crime) – MR 3. (Unless the premises are open at the time to the public or D is licensed or privileged to enter)

5. Breaking and entering – AR 6. The dwelling house of another – AR 7. At nighttime – AR 8. With the intent to commit a felony – MR

ROBBERY Common Law Elements 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

MPC 222.1 Differences

Trespassory – AR • When Must Force Occur?: When actual taking occurs Taking – AR Carrying off (asportation) – AR Of personal property – AR Of another – AR • How Much Force?: Any With intent to deprive amount – however slight permanently – MR 7. D takes property from the person or presence of the V – AR 8. D accomplishes the taking by means of force or putting V in fear – AR

-

•

•

Elements (1) A person is guilty of robbery if, in the When Must Force be Used?: During taking, to course of committing a theft, he: (a) Inflicts serious bodily injury upon retain, or in an attempt another; or to escape (b) Threatens another with or purposely How Much Force?: At puts him in fear of immediate serious least threat/fear or bodily injury infliction of serious (c) Commits or threatens immediately to bodily injury commit any felony of the first or second degree An act shall be deemed “in the course of committing a theft” if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft or in flight after the attempt or commission

Common law: Any amount of force, however slight, is robbery MPC: can’t just be any amount force; has to rise to level of threat/fear or infliction of serious bodily injury All purse snatchings are larceny by trespass; some will count as robbery depending on whether and how much force is used Claim of right is no defense to robbery (if he believed in good faith that he had a right to the specific property and openly took it)

FIRST DEGREE V. NO EQUIVALENT Common Law

MPC

Elements

1st Degree:

•

Degrees: 1st and 2nd

Differences • Degrees: None; no degrees of murder

(1) Causing – AR 1st Degree (2) Death of Another Human ▪ Mens Rea: Intent to kill or being – AR inflict SBI (or virtually (3) Intentionally – MR certain) & killing was (4) Deliberately – MR (cool mind deliberate and that is capable of reflection) premeditated (5) With Premeditation – MR (premeditated =SI)deliberate premeditated malice **Definitions on page 45 (deliberate, premeditation, willfulness) -

Elements No MPC equiv. for 1st degree murder

level of culpability taken into account at sentencing

In MPC – culpability is taking into account at sentencing, not in classification (no degrees)

SECOND DEGREE V. MPC 210.2(A) (Excluding depraved indifference)

Common Law Elements

2nd Degree:

Differences Mens Rea: Purposely or Mens Rea: Malice knowingly Aforethought required: - Purpose to kill or either… knowledge that death will result (not enough to - Express Malice: intent to kill purposefully inflict only (deliberate intention to unlawful serious bodily injury) killing) - Implied Malice: Intent to cause SBI or Killing with depraved heart

MPC 210.2(a) Elements

MPC 210.2(a): (1) Causing – AR (Equiv. of 2nd degree murder) (2) Death of Another Human Being (1) Causing – AR – AR (2) Death of Another Human Being – AR (3) With either… (3) With either… (a) Intent to kill – MR OR (a) Purpose to kill – MR, OR (b) Intent to inflict serious bodily (b) Knowledge that death will result – injury – MR, OR MR (c) Knowledge of conduct engaged in, under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life – AR/MR - Key difference between 1st and 2nd degree common law murder is deliberation and premeditation 2nd degree = intent; 1st degree = intent + deliberation + premeditation

DEPRAVED HEART SECOND DEGREE MURDER V. MPC 210.2(B) Depraved Heart Murder Common Law (Depraved heart 2 nd degree) Elements Differences Mens Rea: Malice Mens Rea: Recklessly (1) Causing – AR aforethought (see above – this (2) Death of Another Human Being is implied malice) – AR - Utter disregard for (3) With either… value of human life - So blameworthy as to a. Intent to kill – MR OR render an actor as culpable as one whose b. Intent to inflict serious bodily conscious objective is to kill injury – MR, OR

MPC 210.2(b) Elements MPC 210.2(b): (1) Causing (AR) (2) Death of Another Human Being (AR) (3) Under circumstances manifesting “extreme indifference” to the value of human life. (see below for felony murder equivalent which presumes recklessness)

c. Knowledge of conduct engaged in, under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life – AR/MR -

MPC 210.2(b) is the equivalent of common law depraved heart murder (2nd degree) Unintentional BUT reckless killing under circumstances manifesting extreme indifferent to value of human life

FELONY MURDER V. MPC 210.2(1)(B) Common Law (Felony Murder) Elements Differences Homicide committed during the - Mens Rea: It is a way to W/MPC course of a qualifying felony - Just creates establish “malice aforethought” Presumption it  depends on jurisdiction on what – intentional commission of is included in “qualifying felony dangerous felony is enough (no counts a murder need for intent to kill etc. strict (CL says absolutely liability there) counts as murder)don’t require conviction - Lays out dangerous felonies

MPC 210.2(b) Elements MPC 210.2(b): (1) Causing (AR) (2) Death of Another Human Being (AR) (3) Under circumstances manifesting “extreme indifference” to the value of human life.  “Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice to commit… - Robbery, Rape, Sexual intercourse by force, Arson, Burglary, Kidnapping or Felonious escape

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER V. MPC 210.3(1)(B) Common Law – Voluntary Manslaughter

(1) (2) (3) (4)

MPC – Extreme Mental Emotional Disturbance (EMED) Manslaughter 210.3(1)(b) Elements Differences Elements MPC 210.3(1)(b): • Mens rea is still malice • “Cooling Off”: No Prima facie murder (Causing (AR); (1) Causing – AR PROVOCATION requirement the death of another human being (2) Death of Another Human Being – AR negates malice (IRRELEVANT TO (AR); intentionally (MR)), (3) With either… requirement MPC) (a) Purpose to kill – MR, OR • “Cooling Off”: A • Adequate plus a partial defense, the (b) Knowledge that death will result – reasonable person must Provocation: elements of which are… MR not have been able to cool Reasonableness more (4) Plus a partial defense, which exists if… subjective – “Shall be off and the D must not Adequate Provocation - “The murder is committed under the determined from the have actually cooled off Reasonable Provocation influence of “extreme mental or viewpoint of a person • Adequate Provocation: No Actual “Cooling Off” emotional disturbance” for which in the actor’s situation “Reasonable Cause” No Reasonable person would there is a “reasonable explanation under the circumstances approach is typically have “Cooled Off” or excuse…” as he believes them to objective - Category Reasonableness…determined from be” – Also, category approach also an **When murder gets viewpoint of a person in the actor’s approach is never used option(created categories bumped down to VM – VM situation under the circumstances • Provocation evidence of provocation and if is still intentional killing as he believes them to be one’s conduct falls into allows jury to find for manslaughter- not one of the categories, then required to have defense; if not, then too bad) - Common law: murder + provocation = voluntary manslaughter - An act that would otherwise count as murder but was done with provocation is therefore voluntary manslaughter - EMED applies to all types of homicide whereas heat of passion only applies to intentional homicides - EMED words alone may be adequate vs. heat of passion where they are not - EMED has no cooling time requirement and heat of passion does.

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER V. MPC 210.3(A) Common Law Elements (1) Causing – AR (2) Death of another human being (AR) (3) Either… a. Recklessly OR (MR) b. Grossly Negligently (MR)

Differences Mens Rea: Recklessly or negligently – criminal negligence is more than civil - SPECIFY which one is more applicable (some juris criminal neg is involuntary and sentences less, others it’s a separate thing (neg homicide)

•

MPC 210.3(a) & 210.4(1) Elements MPC 210.3(a) (1) Causing (AR) Under MPC, is (2) Death of Another Human Being (AR) negligent or reckless (3) Recklessly (MR) manslaughter MPC 210.4(1) (Negligently) Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide when it is committed negligently

ATTEMPT LIABILITY Common Law Elements AR: Behavior that is dangerously close to completing the targeted offense

Differences • Actus Reus: • Actus Reus: “Substantial Step” Dangerously close Test - MPC 5.01(1)(c)- examples • Renunciation Defense: on page 28 Some jurisdictions follow MPC renunciation, others do • Renunciation: not allow renunciation to Allowed under MPC disestablish an attempt 5.01(4) – MUST BE complete, voluntary, and properly motivated

MPC Elements MPC 5.01 MR- Purposefully -

D guilty of an attempt to cause a criminal result if he believes that the result will occur, even if it were not his conscious object to cause it o MPC 5.01-1-b

(1) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if acting with the kind of culpability otherwise MR: required for commission of the Attempt is a specific intent crime, crime he: a. Purposefully engages in conduct even if the substantive crime is a that would constitute the crime of general-intent offence attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be (factual Must be the same state of mind • DEFENSES impossibility) -Impossibility use required for conviction of target b. When causing a particular result is 5.01(1)(a) if attendant offense an element of the crime, does or circumstances were as he omits to do anything with the believed them to be Must also intend: prose of causing or with the belief - Mistake of law = legal that it will cause such result without impossibility = defense - To do the act further conduct on his part Mistake of fact = - To Accomplish the result c. Purposefully does or omits to do factual impossibility = - Under the same circumstances anything which, under the no defense (5.01(1)(a)) That would be required for conviction circumstances as he believes them of the targeted offense to be is an act or omission constitution a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime (5.01(2) examples) - MPC Attempt = criminal offenses that consist of conduct that would constitute target offense except that one element of AR is missing - MPC Substantial Step: o Lying in wait, searching or following the contemplated victim o Enticing the victim to come to the place contemplated for the commission of the crime o Reconnoitering (scoping out) the place contemplated for the commission of the crime (casing the joint) o Unlawful entry into a structure, vehicle, or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed o Possession of materials…specially designed for criminal use or that can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances o Possession, collection or fabrication of materials at or near the place contemplated for commission serving no lawful purpose

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY General Rule – not a distinct offense, if found to be accomplice you get charged with offense (ex: murder- hold D liable for crime someone else commits) - Fact that principle was acquitted is no defense - Knowledge that his conduct will encourage or assist in commission of crime but does not intend or desire for crime to come about = not an accomplice

1. 2. 3. 4.

Common Law Elements Aiding P’s offense; OR • Encouraging P’s offense; OR Omitting to perform legal duty to prevent P’s offense – AR Intent to promote or facilitate • P’s offense – MR

 Mere presence is not enough  Principal must KNOW A intends his • presence to be sign of encouragement or A is willing to aid P in offense if • called upon to do so But – doctrines extend accomplice liability - Natural and probable consequences – aider and abettor may also be liable for any offense that was natural and probable consequence of the crime aided and abetted

MPC Differences Actus Reus: (1) Aiding; (2) • Actus Reus: All common encouraging; or (3) omitting law forms &(1) to perform a legal duty to soliciting P to commit prevent P’s offense offense; (2) agreeing to aid P; and (3) Aiding an attempt?: Not attempting to aid P Liable • Aiding an Attempt?: Liable Mens Rea: Intent to - Mens Rea: Any mens rea promote or facilitate that is sufficient for the commission of that offense Abandonment: Some Jurisdictions hold that a 2.06 (6) A person is not person who provides accomplice in commission assistance to another for the of offense if: purpose of promoting or (a) He is the victim of the facilitating the offense, but offense who subsequently (b) His conduct is “inevitably abandons the criminal incident” to the commission of endeavor, can avoid the offense; accountability for the (c) He terminated his subsequent criminal acts of complicity prior to the the primary party commission of the offense and A (1) must (i) wholly deprives it of communicate his withdrawal to the effectiveness in the principal and (2) commission of the offense; attempt to neutralize OR (ii) Gives timely warning the effect of his prior to the police of impending assistance offenses, or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent the commission of the offense

Elements 2.06 (2)(a) a person is legally accountable for conduct of another person when acting with the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, he causes an innocent or responsible person to engage in such conduct (innocent agent) (3)(a)(i) Solicits such other person to commit it; OR (3)(a)(ii) Aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; OR (3)(a)(iii) Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effort to do so; OR with the purpose of promoting or facilitation the commission of the offense (3)(b) Or his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity (4) when causing a particular result is an element of an offense an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense, if he acts with the kind of culpability, if any, with respect to that result that is sufficient for commission of the offense

SELF-DEFENSE/DEFENSE OF OTHERS Common Law Elements 1. Accused must have had reasonable grounds of imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from assailant 2. D must actually believe he is in danger 3. D must not have been aggressor or provoked the conflict; AND 4. Force used must not have been unreasonable or excessive (force not more than exigency demanded) Duty to retreat before using deadly force except - Castle doctrine (in own home) - BUT must retreat from home if he was initial aggressor SOME jurisdictions have Stand your Ground Laws – person is justified in use of deadly force and doesn’t need to retreat if reasonably believes force necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury (extends castle rule to everywhere you have a right to be including public space)

• •

MPC Differences Belief that attack is imminent • and force is necessary: Must be honest and • reasonable; o If not reasonable, • partial defense (imperfect) still available- will result in D being convicted of Voluntary • Manslaughter instead of Murder

MPC = 3.04(2)(b) and 3.09(2) Belief can be honest & unreasonable but If your mistaken belief is recklessly formed then you can be convicted under 210.3(1)(a) [Reckless Manslaughter] If your mistaken belief is negligently formed then you can be convicted under 210.4 [Negligent Manslaughter]

Elements MPC 3.04 (1) Use of force IS justifiable when actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself against unlawful force by the other person (serious bodily harm, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat) (2) (b) not justified if: (i) actor provoked use of force against himself (ii) actor can avoid force by retreating IF one of complete safety is available Exceptions: (2)(b)(ii)(1)-need NOT retreat from home or work unless initial aggressor 3.05(Defense of others) – D would be justified under 3.04 under the circumstances as D believes them to be, the person he is protected would be justified to use force D believes that his intervention is necessary 3.11 Deadly Force Definition 3.09(2): MPC version of imperfect defense

3.04 can only use self defense if (1)immediately necessary, (2) you didn’t provoke, (3) you didn’t avoid completely safe retreat 3.09 – self defense not available as defense for D who is reckless or negligent in having honest belief that deadly force is necessa ry

NECESSITY Common Law 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Elements D honestly believed his crime was necessary to avoid harm/evil to himself or another D’s conduct is the “lesser evil” (objective test) No law provides exception for D’s specific situation Legislative purpose does not exclude necessity defense D was not at fault in causing the situation (clean hands doctrine)

•

MPC Elements Belief that Crime was • Belief that Crime was Necessary: Must be honest Necessary: Only honest and reasonable

•

D Was at Fault for Causing Situation: No defense

•

Must “Choice of Evils” be Imminent?: Yes

•

•

•

Defense to Intentional Homicide?: No

Differences between Necessity and Duress: 1. Source of threat of harm a. Necessity = natural forces b. Duress = 3rd p. bad actor 2. Free will a. Necessity = D retained b. Duress = D’s free will overcome 3. Whose idea was the offense a. Necessity = D came up with b. Duress = D told what to do 4. Crime done to promote general welfare? a. Necessity = Yes b. Duress = No

D was at fault for causing situation: Defense sometimes No defense if reckless or negligent and offense only requires reckless or negligent mens rea

Must “Choice of Evils” be Imminent?: No, but imminence may be considered to establish recklessness or negligence when D was at fault for creating situation • Defense to Intentional Homicide?: Yes

Elements 3.02 Justification: Choice of Evils 1. Conduct that the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a injury or evil to another is justifiable provided that -D’s conduct is the lesser evil -No law provides exception for D’s specific situation -Legislative purpose does not plainly exclude necessity defense 2.– Actor can’t recklessly or negligently bring out situation (clean hands doctrine) – if reckless or negligence is the mens rea of the crime

DURESS Common Law Elements 1. D faced threat of unlawful force (to D or another) if he did not commit the offense 2. Person of reasona...