MPC Accomplice Liability -accomplice liability exists when one has the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission

of a crime -very similar to common law, with one big difference: A can be convicted through accomplice liability if he agrees to aid or attempts to aid, EVEN IF he doesnt actually aid in the commission of the offense Attempting to Aid: -when A attempts to aid in the offense, he will be found guilty of attempt to aid even if he doesnt actually aid in the offense -this is a HUGE difference because in common law you can only be found guilty of complicity if you actually do aid or contribute to the offense Reckless or Negligence: in cases of recklessness or negligence when causing a particular result is an element of the crime, a person may be convicted if: (1) he was an accomplice in the conduct that caused the result; AND (2) He acted with the culpability, if any, regarding the result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense

Common Law Attempting to Aid -under common law, an actor CANNOT be guilty of an attempt to aid, BUT he CAN be guilty of aiding an attempt. -D will be guilty as an accomplice to attempt if D aids the principal in the attempt -Ex. Cop meets with D and tells D that if D will pay him money, he will purchase cocaine and sell it and repay D and also give D some of the profit. D paid the Cop and was immediately arrested. No cocaine was purchased. (1) For the Crime of Possession and Delivery of Cocaine -----Since D did not have intent to possess the cocaine, he cannot be a principal. -----Cop cannot be a principal because she never possessed the cocaine. ----AND since no offense was actually committed, D cannot be an accomplice either. -BUT if the cop had taken substantial steps/dangerous proximity toward buying the cocaine, D would be guilty of attempt under accomplice liability because the principal committed the attempt, and D aided in that attempt.

MPC Accomplice Defenses (same as CL but better stated)

Conspirator vs. Accomplice -Conspirator but not accomplice: (1) X and Y agree to commit a crime, but it is never carried out (2) X and Y agree to commit a crime, but X does not help in any way (CL)

-----D is not an accomplice in the commission of an offense if: (1) D is the victim of the offense (2) Ds conduct is inevitably incident to the commission of the offense OR (3) D terminates his participation before the crime is committed AND he (a) neutralizes his assistance OR (b) gives timely warning to the police of the impending offense, OR (c) attempts to prevent the commission of the crime.

-Accomplice but not conspirator (1) when no prior agreement; X and Y are walking down the street and they see a little old lady. X approaches and demands the lady give them her purse at gunpoint. X hands Y the purse so that Y can go through it while X keeps the gun on the old lady.

Why Pinkerton is Broader than Natural and Probable Consequences

Common Law Accomplice Liability -when the principal commits the actus reus of the offense, the accomplice will be found guilty as well through derivative liability if he meets actus reus, mens rea -P must actually do the actus reus of the crime Actus Reus: aids or encourages the principal OR fails to act in face of legal duty -D is guilty if he aids/encourages even if the crime wouldve occurred w/o his help -there is NO CAUSATION REQUIREMENT -however, even if Ds actions werent required they must actually aid or assist P -there will never be prox. cause argument for A b/c intervening acts will always be responsive -Mere Presence is Insufficient: when A is merely present and silent, not enough -A must actually do some act, omit a duty, or actually encourage to be liable -However, presence will be enough if there was prior conspiracy to commit crime Mens Rea: (1) purposely do the acts that aid or assist (2) with the intent that the primary party do the act charged (3) with the mental stated required for the commission of the crime as to the specific intent -not an accomplice if act aids the crime but there was no mens rea Unintentional Crimes: if A purposely aids or assists P AND has the needed mens rea then he can be convicted as an accomplice -ex: A tells P to get to airport fast. P goes through red light and kills someone. A not accomplice if only negligent to high probability of death. Innocent Agent/Instrumentality Doctrine: when actor uses another actor/agent who is not an accomplice to commit the crime, P is guilty even though he has no mens rea (ex. tricking police into killing someone) --even if instrumentality isnt totally innocent, instrumentality may be convicted of a crime but P will convicted of harsher crime because of worse mens rea -this may be done through use of a system as well (prosecutor knowingly presents false evidence to get person executed; 1st degree murder) Innocent Agent and Unintentional Crimes: if actor is reckless/negligent in manipulating other party, may be guilty EVEN IF it wasnt his intent that instrument act -actor will be guilty AS LONG AS crime charged has reckless/negligent MR Ex. telling husband youre being raped (2nd Deg. EI if knowing high prob, if not, IM)

Conviction of Principals Crimes Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine: A may be guilty of all of Ps crimes IF D is an accomplice to the substantive crime under certain circumstances: (1) D must be full accomplice to the primary offense -(purposely aid/encourage primary offense w/ intent crime committed, MR for primary crime) (2) AND P commits another offense which is reasonably foreseeable to A -A can be convicted for an offense without an actus reus or mens rea -this doctrine requires two crimes, but A only needs to meet requirements for first one

Defenses to Complicity Abandonment: a person who aids/encourages a substantive crime, but subsequently abandons can avoid accountability for Ps crime -BUT accomplice must (1) communicate withdrawal and (2) attempt to neutralize the effect of his prior assistance; motives for doing it dont matter -D is protected if he tries to prevent crime or gives police timely warning but if neither must at least neutralize complicity: must alert P that he is no longer helping and that P cant rely on his aid or encouragement Gebardis Rule: a person cannot be accomplice to their own victimization

Principal and Accomplice Defenses -as long as principal commits the actus reus, A and P will both be convicted according to their unique mens rea --this means that A can be convicted of harsher crime if he has a worse mens rea Example: A convinces a very drunk P to kill D. A has premed/delib, P has reckless; diff. crimes)
-Each will also be entitled to only defenses that pertain to them Examples: (1) Cop asks D where he can buy cocaine. D helps him. Cop has official duty immunity, D doesnt. (2) D knows necessity to break B out of jail. A helps in the escape but doesnt know of Bs necessity. D has necessity defense. A does not.

Common Law Conspiracy -an actor is guilty of conspiracy if (1) he purposely agrees AND (2) has the purpose of achieving the result OR the purpose to promote the conduct constituting the crime Actus Reus: the actus reus of conspiracy is a (1) genuine and bilateral agreement that (2) takes place before (not during, after) the crime Genuine/Bilateral Agreement: (1) both parties must genuinely agree to commit the crime and (2) both parties must intent to commit the crime -if only one party is genuine and the one proposing the crime, solicitation -the presence or inclusion of a third party can a non-genuine bilateral agreement which would not have otherwise been a conspiracy into a conspiracy -UC lacking intent agrees with Y, no conspiracy -(for situations regarding UCs and two other parties, see outline) Mens Rea: an actor is guilty of conspiracy if (1) he purposely agrees and: (2) RESULT CRIME: he has the purpose of achieving the result and; (2) CONDUCT CRIME: he has the purpose to engage in or promote the conduct constituting the crime and (3): BOTH: D has mens rea required as to other elements (ACs & specific intents) Unintentional Crimes: cannot conspire to commit unintentional crimes since conspiracy requires purposeful result; but can be convicted of actual crime under Pinkerton Doctrine -negligent homicide, extreme indifference, involuntary manslaughter Voluntary Manslaughter: if two people, in a heat of passion agree to kill a victim, they have conspired to commit voluntary manslaughter even if later one of them kills with a cool head FM: can be convicted of felony murder if you conspire to commit listed felony and the death was within scope, in furtherance, and reasonably foreseeable -cant conspire to commit FM though Strict Liability: you can be guilty of conspiracy to commit strict liability crimes

Conspiracy Defenses Impossibility: only a defense if it is purely legally impossible to commit conspiracy Abandonment: once agreement is made, withdrawal or abandonment of conspiracy will not be a defense to conspiracy charge, but it will cut off Pinkterton Liability for future crimes if he:(1) withdraws before the crime takes place (2) communicates withdrawal to co-conspirators -motive doesnt matter WHARTONS RULE: its not conspiracy for two ppl to agree to carry out offense that by definition requires at least two people (bigamy, incest, adultery) -Third Party Exception: if more than the minimum number of persons necessary to commit an offense agree to commit crime Whartons Rule doesnt apply ---this is especially true if the two people involved in the conspiracy ARE NOT the two people who will carry out the substantive offense -----X and Y agree that X will bribe Z. Here X & Y are guilty but Z isnt. GEBARDIS RULE: a person cannot be convicted of conspiracy to commit crime that victimizes themselves; thus neither party is guilty b/c no one to agree with -person cannot be prosecuted for violating statute that is in place to protect them

GUILTY OF CO-CONSPIRATORS CRIMES Pinkerton Doctrine: D is liable for all the crimes of his co-conspirators if: (1) crimes are within scope of conspiracy; (2) crimes are in furtherance of conspiracy; and (3) crimes are reasonably foreseeable to D -convicted through derivative liability 1. Scope of Conspiracy: determined in part by nature of the offense and the relationship of parties to one another --Wheel: dealing with common person, conspiracy doesnt necessarily require more than D and his contact; to be liable spokes must know of each others existence --Chain: conspiracy may be inferred absent direct knowledge if nature of the crime is such that each member of the chain knew that for conspiracy to be successful, there must be other parties involved (drug maker, drug distributor, drug retailer) 2. In Furtherance Of:

Solicitation -solicitation occurs when the actor intentionally invites, requests, commands, hires, or encourages another to commit a particular offense WITH the specific intent that other person commits the crime -must: (1) intentionally solicit the other person (2) with the intent the other person consummate the crime --it is complete upon communication of solicitation to other party One Genuine Party: when only one party is genuine, there is a unilateral conspiracy and no liability for conspiracy, however, if the genuine party is the one instigating agreement then its solicitation -soliciting party must be genuine.

When does Knowledge of Conspiracy Infer Purpose? -the court has held that the mens rea of conspiracy requires intent, so Ds knowledge that a conspiracy exists alone will not suffice -so when does mere knowledge infer purpose/intent?: (1) D advises other conspirators; especially regarding a good/service D sells (2) D has acquired a stake in the venture; for which he supplies goods/services (3) D, as supplier, does a disproportionate amount of business with other conspirators (4) D levies excessive charges for the services he supplies to the conspirators (5) D furnishes goods or services that do not have a legitimate use (6) knowledge alone may be enough is crime is grave enough under Lauria

Common Law Attempt Actus Reus: conviction of attempt requires either (1) a complete attempt or (2) an incomplete attempt in which Ds acts satisfy the dangerous proximity test -Dangerous Proximity Test: if an incomplete attempt (no last act), court will ask: (1) How close was D to committing the crime? and (2) How serious would crime have been? -Dangerous Proximity Test focuses on how far that the D has left to go -the more serious the crime, the less proximity will be required -this requires that D actually be really close to committing crime; (if no child there, not close) Mens Rea 1. RESULT CRIMES: (1) D must purposely engage in acts constituting the attempt (2) D must have purpose of achieving the result and (3) D must have mens rea otherwise required for the commission of the crime (specific intents, attendant circumstances) 2. CONDUCT CRIMES: (1) D must purposely engage in acts constituting the attempt and (2) D must have mens rea otherwise required for commission of the crime CAN BE CONVICTED OF ATTEMPT: 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, Vol. Mansl. CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF ATTEMPT: InVol. Mansl., Neg. Hom., Extreme Ind. Murder -there is no intent to bring about these crimes, they occur due to reckless/negligent behavior Felony Murder: cant be convicted of attempt -FM is a strict liability result crime, cant have intent to commit crime that doesnt have intent -intent to commit felony doesnt replace intent to kill Strict Liability: besides FM, D can be guilty of attempted SL so long as he has purpose of engaging in the conduct or bringing about the result (statutory rape, DUI) Defenses 1. Merger: D cannot be convicted of both the attempt and the crime -if D is convicted of the crime, cant be convicted of the attempt 2. Impossibility: only purely legal impossibility serves as a defense and its rare -Factual: Ds end constitutes a crime, but fails to complete the offense because of some factual circumstance unknown to him or beyond his control (shoots empty bed) -Hybrid: commission of offense is impossible due Ds mistake of fact regarding legal status some legal status (shoots dead person he thinks is alive) -PURELY LEGAL: when D engages in conduct he incorrectly thinks is illegal 3. Abandonment: if D abandons an INCOMPLETE attempt to commit a crime due to voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose (genuine change of heart) he wont be guilty for attempt -GENUINE CHANGE OF HEART: D must choose on his own to abandon his criminal course; external circumstances should not motivate his cause change of heart ---if external circumstances lead him to believe theres a higher probability hell be caught or that crime will not be successful, not entitled to the defense --wont work if he decides to just try again later --external consequences may motivate a feeling that life is sacred

MPC Attempt -criminal intent has two elements (1) purpose to commit the offense and (2) conduct constituting a substantial step towards its completion Actus Reus: if complete, move right to mens rea, if incomplete apply substantial step test Substantial Step Test: this test asks whether D has taken substantial steps towards the commission of the offense; focuses on how far D has gone -the following all constitute substantial steps: (1) lying in wait (2) enticing victim to go to place contemplated for commission of the crime (3) inspecting the place contemplated for commission of crime (4) unlawful entry of structure/vehicle where D wants crime to occur (5) possession of materials to used in crime, that are designed for unlawful use or have no legal purpose in this circumstance (6) soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime Mens Rea 1. Complete Attempt Conduct Crime: must purposely engage in conduct that would constitute the crime if circumstances were as he believed them to be 2. Complete Attempt Result Crime: when causing particular result is element of crime, he does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing the result OR with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part 3. Incomplete Attempt (R or C): purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in completion of the crime --Result Attempt: unlike CL, completed attempt for result crime is satisfied if D acts with purpose to cause result or has the belief that it will occur -ex. Bob wants to blow up building, knows people will die but doesnt want them to ***-CL: no attempted murder b/c he didnt want them to die; not acting purposely ***- MPC: attempted murder because he believed they would die and still acted Invol. Man, Extreme Ind., Neg Hom: you can be convicted of attempt for these unintentional murders if you were reckless/negligent in creating the risk and you believed that death would result, even if it wasnt your purpose (not in CL) FM: cant be convicted b/c you cant have purpose of committing FM and no FM in MPC Defenses 1. Merger: D cannot be convicted of both the crime and the attempt 2. Impossibility: only purely legal impossibility 3. Abandonment: D will allowed abandonment defense if (1) he abandons his effort to commit the crime or prevents it from being committed AND (2) his conduct manifests a complete and voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose -unlike CL, its possible for completed attempt but weve never see it RENUNCIATION of PURPOSE- renunciation is not voluntary if it is motivated by circumstances that increase the probability of detection or more difficult accomplishment; doesn't count if you decide youre going to wait until later

Common Law Insanity (Affirmative Defense) -common law uses MNaghten Test for insanity -D must show that mental illness and due to that mental illness (1) D did not know the nature/quality of his acts or (2) he did did not know that they were wrongful/illegal Cognitive Prong: D doesnt even understand what hes doing (killing dog not person); if this is satisfied, doesnt matter if he thought legal or moral Moral Prong: judged by Ds honest belief that his actions werent wrongful according to societys moral code -doesnt matter what Ds moral code is, to get defense he must have genuine belief that if everyone were in his position/knew what he knew, they wouldnt condemn his actions Legal Prong: if using legal prong, if D understands nature of act and knows its illegal then he cant use defense regardless of his moral beliefs Irresistible Impulse: if using this volitional element, D can get off for showing (1) he had irresistible/uncontrollable impulse (2) unable to choose between right and wrong or (3) he was destroyed such that actions were beyond his control -must be a quick action, CL test doesnt allow for brooding Sociopaths: CL exclude antisocial personality disorder people from defense -person lacks empathy but actions are calculated and manipulative; deterrable Deific Decrees -moral wrong: as long as he follows gods orders, hes likely to believe that society wouldnt condemn his actions if they knew what he knew -also evidence of not being able to choose between right and wrong [volitional] -legal wrong: might work if he believed Gods law higher than mans law and thus didnt think act was illegal

MPC Insanity (Affirmative Defense) -a person is not responsible for act, if at the time of the act, as the result of mental defect or disease, he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of this act OR to conform his conduct to requirements of law -MPC is easier than CL because: 1. Substantial Capacity-MPC doesnt require total incapacity, only substantial ability to understand; not an all or nothing test 2. Appreciate: once again, more flexible than CLs knowing all or nothing test 3. Conform Conduct: MPC adopts the volitional element automatically -Wrongfulness JDX: if D knew conduct was against law, he will succeed with defense if he can show substantial capacity to appreciate that his actions were morally wrong OR -he believes that society would approve conduct if it shared his perceptions of the circumstances motivating his actions -Legal Wrong JDX: if D knew that his conduct was morally wrong, he will succeed if he can show he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate it was against the law -D will succeed in defense if although he believes society would condemn his action, they would not criminally punish him if they saw the circumstances as he did Sociopaths: like CL, excluded from defense because they are manipulative and calculating and can still be deterred; shown by total lack of empathy Deific Decrees: same as common law

Dean Tickles his butthole with lettuce Common Law -does Dean realize that this is morally wrong to lettuce? MPC -does Dean lack the substantial capacity to realize the legal consequences of lettuce tickling?

Abandonment of Insanity Defense (Negative Defense) -in states that have abandoned the defense altogether, mental illness may still be used as evidence to defeat intentional and reckless crimes; depends on mens rea of crime charged Intentionally: like an MoF claim because D didnt think he was stabbing person Purposely: D did not purposely shoot a person, thought it was pumpkin Knowingly: D did not know it was cocaine, thought it was magic powder Recklessly: D did realize substantial risk because of insanity Negligence: Insanity never a defense Strict Liability: being nuts aint never an excuse for strict liability crimes

Necessity (Affirmative Defense) Common Law -To invoke the justification of necessity, (1) the act charged must have been done to prevent a significant evil (2) the harm D seeks to avert is greater than the harm that the statute seeks to prevent, and (3) D must have no adequate alternative 1. Necessity and Lesser Evil: [objective] harm D seeks to prevent by his conduct MUST be greater the harm he reasonably expects to avoid **-harm should be weighed against the harm reasonably foreseeable at the time 2. Reasonable Belief: D must actually believe his actions are necessary and Ds belief that a certain harm was to occur mustve been reasonable at the time **-even if harm was not imminent, as long as belief was reasonable and D genuinely had the belief then he will be given defense **-if belief was unreasonable, defense is not available 3. Imminence of Harm: actor must be seeking to avoid imminent harm; if there is time for D to take lawful route he must take it 4. Causal Element: D must reasonably believe that actions will prevent the harm D seeks to avoid -objective standard; how would reasonable person wouldve thought or reacted 5. Culpability: D will not be allowed defense if he was negligent/reckless in bring about the situation that required choice; doesnt matter MR of crime committed 6. Homicide: Necessity is never a defense for homicide or economic necessity MPC -almost an exact mirror of CL except that MPC doesnt have immanency requirement and it can be used as a defense to homicide Lesser Evil Analysis:[objective] harm sought to avoid less than harm caused Necessity/Genuine Belief:[subjective] D must believe his actions are necessary -within this requirement is understanding that no other options are available Culpability of Actor: like CL, defense is limited if D created the situation -but unlike CL, (1) if D was negligent in creating situation, can use defense for crimes with MR of reckless and above (2) if reckless, can use for crimes w/ MR of knowingly and above Homicide: can use as defense to intentional killing as long as it saves more lives -since no imminency requirement, economic necessity might be ok

Duress (Affirmative Defense) Common Law -an actor will allowed excuse if: (1) there is immediate threat of death/serious bodily harm to D or another (2) D has well-grounded fear that threat will be carried out; and (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape except through Threat: must be an unlawful threat of deadly force, no economic threats Immediate: threat must present, immediate, impending; veiled or ambiguous threat wont work Coercers Will: actor must be committing a crime to carry out coercers will Well-Grounded Fear: threat must be such that it would coerce person of reasonable firmness to act out of a reasonable fear that threat would be carried out (as if in actors situation) -assumption is person of reasonable firmness gets firmer as crime gets more serious -Actors Culpability: duress is not a defense if actor is reckless/negligent in creating situation Homicide: Not a defense to homicide, but is a defense to FM if it negates underlying felony MPC -duress is a defense to unlawful conduct by D if: (1) he was compelled to commit the offense by the use or threatened use of unlawful force by the coercer upon his or another person; and (2) a person of reasonable firmness in his situation wouldve been unable to resist coercion Threat: unlike CL, MPC goes beyond deadly threats, any unlawful threat to bodily integrity -allows defense to apply when coercer uses unlawful force and D commits a crime other than coercer told him to, like trying to escape from prison [can use both duress and necessity] Immediacy Requirement: MPC does not have immediacy requirement; so possibly D could bring a duress claim based on past use of force Reasonable Firmness: like CL, MPC provides that the threat must be such that a person of reasonable firmness would not have been able to resist -presumption is that reasonable person gets more firm as crime requested gets more serious Actors Culpability: if actor is negligent in bringing about situation he can use duress defense -duress DOES NOT apply if actor was RECKLESS in creating situation (different than necessity) Homicide: duress defense may be used in murder prosecutions; but it better be a really serious threat

Involuntary Intoxication (Affirmative, Negative Defense) Common Law -most courts hold that it can negate any element of a crime, including general intent or it can be invoked as an affirmative defense by calling it temporary insanity -can be used to defeat reckless/negligence mens rea and even voluntary actus reus -(1) coerced (2) unknown susceptibility (3) innocent mistake (4) unexpected effect MPC -pathological/involuntary intoxication is an affirmative defense if at the time of his conduct boozes causes D to lack requisite the needed MR -affirmative defense if booze causes D to understand wrong of conduct or reform it -can defeat both mens rea and actus reus

Voluntary Intoxication (Negative Defense) Common Law -a person is not guilty of an offense if his intoxication negates one or more specific intent elements of the offense; CANNOT DEFEAT GENERAL INTENT CRIMES -only applies to specific intent crimes and it only works if it actually negates the specific intent -Murder: 1st Degree- if causes no pre-med/delib, then 2nd degree intentional, all other murders GI -FM: will act as defense if underlying felony is SI and the booze negates the specific intent -Reckless Exception: getting drunk is per se reckless so it wont defeat any reckless MR crimes MPC -does not distinguish between specific/general intent crimes, but it will serve as a defense to criminal conduct if it negates an element of the offense; limited by recklessness exception -never a defense unless it negates an element of the offense AR/MR Recklessness Exception: voluntary intoxication wont negate an offense that has reckless MR Murder: CANNOT negate extreme indifference or voluntary manslaughter; reckless MRs

Common Law Self-Defense (Affirmative Defense) -A person is justified in using deadly force against another if (1) he reasonably believes that (2) such force is necessary to prevent (3) imminent or great bodily harm -One is never justified in using deadly force to repel non-deadly attack Aggressor Limitation: Aggressor of a specific conflict may never use deadly force in selfdefense UNLESS (1) communicates desire to withdraw and (2) he actually does withdraw -Non-deadly aggressor may get SD back if other person responds to his non-deadly force by threatening or actually using deadly force in response; deadly aggressor never regains Duty to Retreat: will not defeat SD unless (1) D actually knew of avenue or (2) knew of avenue but thought it wasnt completely safe -no duty to retreat from house or place of work Avoidance: CL will allow SD to a D who arms himself and walks into a dangerous situation as long as its normal routine and he doesnt provoke trouble -but D, may not leave safe-haven to enter a place he knows is dangerous or will provoke Reasonable Belief: D may use deadly if he has reasonable grounds to believe AND actually believes he is in danger of death or GBH (even if those beliefs are incorrect) -privilege of SD is based on reasonable appearances and not objective reality Necessity and Proportionality: person can not use force if he can protect himself by other means AND may not use force disproportional to threat that motivates force Innocent Bystanders: Ds right of SD transfer to unintended victims if he was not negligent or reckless with his use of deadly force; if reckless/negligent in use, manslaughter Imperfect Self-Defense: if D genuinely but unreasonably (recklessly/negligently) believes deadly force is necessary, guilty of manslaughter if victim dies -no liability if victim lives

MPC Self-Defense (Affirmative Defense) -A person is justified in using deadly force against another if (1) he believes that (2) such force is immediately necessary (3) to prevent death, serious bodily injury, rape, or kidnapping Reasonability: unlike CL, no reasonableness requirement -D is judged on circumstances as he believed them to be; however if D was reckless/negligent in that belief, he will be liable for his recklessness/negligence -also unlike CL, can be charged with any homicide with reckless/negligence MR -not automatically knocked down to manslaughter Immediately Necessary: unlike CL, threat itself need not be imminent, only that such that D must immediately act to prevent it Aggressor Limitation: like CL, SD is unavailable to the aggressor in a conflict -Unlike CL, no withdrawal requirement, gets it back if D provoked in a non-deadly way and other party took it to a deadly level (D starts fist fight, V pulls gun) Risk to Innocent Bystanders: unlike CL, if D justifiable uses force but uses it in a reckless/negligent manner in regard to safety of bystander, SD is still available with regard to the aggressor; but will still be liable for any crimes with reckless/negligent MR with regard to bystanders Death, Rape, Kidnapping: MPC allows D to use deadly force to defend against kidnapping and rape along with death or serious bodily harm Robbery: D may not use deadly force against someone he reasonably thinks is committing robbery; may only use it if necessary to prevent the crime Retreat: D may not use deadly force if he knows he can retreat safely -no duty to retreat from home or workplace unless he knows V works there too Avoidance: unlike CL, SD not available if D knows there is danger and enters, even if normal routine, unless he has a duty to go there and cannot otherwise avoid it

Defense of Others Common Law -person is justified in using force to protect third party from use of force to extent it looks necessary to D 1. Alter Ego Rule: if 3rd-party wouldve had right, D has right 2. Majority: turns on how much D has actually seen; if D knows 3P provoked but defends him later, no SD; but if D happens upon scene and knows no better, hes ok **-if D reasonably but wrongly kills V, possible 3P might be guilty under prox. cause analysis; unreasonable belief gets D manslaughter 3. Only have right to defend against UNLAWFUL use of force (no fetuses, cops) MPC -subject to retreat rules, D may intervene with deadly force if: (1) based on circumstances as he believe he doesnt use more force than 3P could use (2) based on circumstances as he believes them to be, 3P could use deadly force (3) he believes necessary to protect 1. RETREAT Requirement: only required to retreat if (1) he knows itll ensure 3Ps safety (2) D must attempt to secure retreat, if 3P would be required to retreat and D knows 3P could retreat completely safely (3) neither D nor 3P is required to retreat (Vs house/work) 2. MPC will hold D liable if reckless (aware he was assessing risk wrongly) or negligent (shouldve known he was assessing wrongly)

Defense of Property/Habitation Common Law Property: D may use NON-DEADLY force only to prevent dispossession of property -(1) only a right to retain possession, not title (2) may only act promptly (3) no right to repel person making claim of right if D knows/has reason to know claim is legitimate Habitation: [majority, MPC] may use deadly force if he has reasonable belief that V will commit a felony inside (see outline for Illinois, CA approach) MPC -makes no distinction between habitation and property Property: may use NON-DEADLY force if D actually believes (1) other persons interference with property is unlawful (2) intrusion affects Ds property or masters property; AND (3) non-deadly force is immediately necessary Limitations: must first ask request desistence (unless impossible to prevent harm) and may not knowingly expose trespasser to substantial risk of serious injury -D CAN USE DEADLY FORCE WHERE D BELIEVES: 1. V is attempting to commit arson, robbery, burglary, felonious theft/destruction or would expose D or others to great risk; and such force is immediately necessary to prevent and non-deadly force would him others to substantial danger of serious hurt 2. If reckless/negligent in his belief, liable for crimes with MR of reckless/negligence

Larceny -trespassory taking and carrying away of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner 1. trespassory: intentionally taking possession wrongly 2. taking: involves physically taking possession of the property, if only for a moment 3. carrying away: virtually any movement away from the place where possession was taken 4. of another: must take possession, not ownership, of someone elses property 5. intent to permanently deprive: actor must have had the intent to permanently someone of property that he knows belongs to another (intent to take and pay later, intent to take and abandon, intent to take and sell back all good enough) Concurrence Requirement: the intent to permanently deprive must concur with the taking of possession Continuing Trespass Doctrine: as long as there was a trespassory taking, the actor commits every moment he retains property; thus, if felonious intent ever forms, hes guilty of larceny Lost Property 1. Rights of the finder depend on two things: (1) possessory interest of owner at time it was found (2) finders state of mind when he takes possession of the property 2. Previous possessor retains constructive possession if there is a reasonable clue to ownership when discovered (would owner want this back, marks that would allow to find?) 3. When D picked up property, what was his intention? 3A. If he had intent to use it in any way for himself, trespassory; pretty much everything other than Im going to find the owner 3B. If D had pure intent when picked it up, not trespassory, not larceny 4. If trespassory taking, if intent to permanently deprive ever arises, larceny --BUT If owner/prior possessor has abandoned the property at the time D finds it he lacks necessary actus reus element of another Mislaid Property: analysis is the same but it starts at (3)

Title, Possession, Custody -title: ownership -possession: physical control -custody: physical control subject to lawful owners/possessors superior right to control -bailee: third party who gains lawful possession when he receives property from one actor to be delivered to another actor Title: a legal to and ownership of property; can only be conveyed by owners intent Possession: sufficient control over property to use it in a generally unrestricted manner Custody: physical control of property but right to use is significantly controlled Custody to Possession: when someone with custody uses property in a way contrary to purpose of the owner, he trespassorily takes possession Employer/Employee: when employer furnishes personal property to employee for use in employment relationship, employer retains constructive property Third Person to Employee for Employer: when person furnishes personal property to anothers employee so that he deliver it his to employer, employee has possession Breaking the Bulk: when bailee is trusted with container, he has lawful possession of the container but not the contents Possessor Inducing Theft: when owner of property, either by agent or himself, induces criminals to act or constructively aids in commission of illegal act by performing some essential portion of action intended by wrongdoer, not larceny because no trespass -owner must physically do something (say yes or help), simply observing wont do Rentals: when you rent something you are given possession, if someone rented you something b/c you said youd bring it back and you never intended to: larceny by trick -if you actually meant to bring it back when you received possession, not larceny Bailee/Employee: if youre hired to do a specific delivery (B), if youre not an employee of person asking you to deliver (B), if you are employee but arent given any restricting instructions (B) Presence of Possessor: if you are given property but possessor stays with you the whole time, you have custody, not possession

Embezzlement -Occurs when (1) D is in a trust relationship to rightful owner/possessor, (2) D obtains possession non-trespassorily and (3) AFTER securing lawful possession, D converts it to his own uses (intent to permanently deprive) 1. Trust Relationship: usually employer/employee but it may take other forms 2. Non-Trespassorily: D obtains possession that would otherwise be lawful **-D must have possession rather than custody for this to apply 3. Intent to Deprive: must occur after possession is secured Employees/Bailees: when employees or bailees take from employer in this manner, almost always embezzlement Larceny by Trick -same thing as false pretenses, but D gets possession and not title

Larceny by False Pretenses -A person who (1) knowingly or designedly (2) obtains TITLE and POSSESSION by (3) false pretenses (4) on which owner relied upon 1. Knowingly: D must know the statement is false and D must make it with specific intent of defrauding the other person 2. Title: for false pretenses, D must transfer title rather than just possession 3. Fraud/Misrepresentation: may be oral, written, or conduct (express/implied) will -Silence alone usually isnt enough ***Misrepresentation must be one of fact, NOT OPINION 4. Reliance: must be shown reasonable person wouldve relied on it & owner really did -Three situations where reliance not shown: (1) V knew it was false or didnt believe it (2) believed it but gave away after investigating (3) V gave it away based on representations that werent false -As long as even partly relied upon, its embezzlement

Felony Murder -MPC does not recognize F-M but does allow commission of felony to show a presumption of extreme indifference to human life -At common law, person is guilty of FM if he kills another person, even accidentally, during commission or attempted commission of a felony -if no specific felonies listed: (1) inherently dangerous and (2) merger rules can limit -if felonies listed, only limitation is whether the death was in furtherance of the felony -Res Gestae (time, distance, causation): begins when felony starts and it ends when D has reached a place apparent safety or rest -if still fleeing, then still during commission of -Agency Approach: FM does not apply if the person who causes death is a non-felon

Common Law Rape -intentional sexual penetration of a person forcibly and against victims will victims consent -Force and Resistance Requirement: resistance traditionally required to show absence of consent; also evidence that its against victims will -D must overcome victims resistance with either (1) actual force or (2)constructive force -resistance is defined as only amount of resistance victim is capable of exercising -(1) Actual force: physically overcoming the amount of resistance victim is capable of exercising; if V sedated, D only needs amount of force to push through the labia -(2) Constructive force: threat of imminent bodily harm that would cause reasonable person to fear GBH is she attempted to attempt or escape -must be an imminent threat of force -threat must be enough to prevent reasonable person from resisting for fear of harm -there must be both (1) subjective fear of force and (2) objective, outward threat MTS Rape -Any act of sexual penetration engaged in by D without what reasonable person would understand as (1) affirmative and (2) freely-given permission of victim to the specific act of penetration constitutes offense of sexual assault Affirmative/Freely Given Consent: both a no and a lack of yes enough to show rape -silence is not per se non-permission, court may find consent when combined with other indications to find that consent was given; reasonability standard Reasonable Person: consent is found when evidence (in whatever form) is sufficient to demonstrate that a reasonable person wouldve believed consent was given and D actually believed consent was given -focus and burden of proof are totally on D and his actions; neither Vs state of mind nor reasonability of her actions are relevant Force/Resistance Requirement: any force used, even only as much to perform the actual act of penetration, in the absence of affirmative and freely given consent -essentially eliminates the force/resistance requirement in the common law

Rape Issues Withdrawn Consent: [CL and MTS] a withdrawal of consent nullifies any earlier consent and subjects D to forcible rape charges if he persists in what is now non-consensual -under traditional CL probably not rape if initial penetration consented to Fraud in Factum: if lie causes the victim to misunderstand the nature of the crime itself, then there is no legally recognized consent; do they know theyre about to have sex Fraud in Inducement: if deception relates not to act done but some collateral manner, it does not nullify consent; did V know she was consenting to having sex? 1. husband/wife: impersonating husband probably F-in-F b/c consenting to marital sex is different than consenting to that devil sex 2. drunk person: line drawn on Vs awareness, if V knows sex is about to happen and can appreciate nature of the act, not rape --under MTS, it also depends on whether D knew or had reason to know that V was incapable of consenting Mistaken Consent: MoF as to consent is a defense to rape if: (1) V did not consent, but (2) a reasonable person wouldve though V consented, and (3) D actually thought V consented -reasonable: facts and circumstances show that Ds belief of consent was reasonable -good faith: D mustve actually believed V consented -there is a difference between evidence that shows consent and evidence that shows MoF (look to outline for this) Rape Shield Laws: evidence of Vs prior sexual history is usually inadmissible, except for three instances: (1) Vs prior history w/ D as evidence that V consented (2) physical evidence to explain injuries, semen, pregnancy, STDs (3) evidence showing motive to fabricate

Omissions -an omission, or failure to act will give only constitute an actus reus and give rise to liability when law imposes a duty to act and D is in breach of that duty 1. Statutory Duty: statutes may require a person to perform specified acts 2. Status: person has common law duty protect someone with whom he has a special relationship; typically based on dependency (spouses, parent-child, master-servant) 3. Contract: person may have an express contract to come to aid of another or such contract may be implied (babysitter has duty to protect her ward) 4. Voluntary Assumption: one who voluntary assumes care must continue to assist if subsequent omission would place V in worse position than if care never started at all -even if you dont start helping, if youre act is such that it prevents someone else from rescuing, you may have a duty to help (hes used this before) 5. Risk Creation: one who creates a risk of harm to another (even innocently) must thereafter act to prevent ensuing harm Proportionate Care Principle: in medical care cases, Court asks whether proposed treatment is proportionate in terms of benefits to be gained vs. burdens caused -Dr. owes no duty of treatment when patient has no meaningful chance of survival

Common Law Homicide -Homicide: killing of a human being with malice aforethought -A person acts with malice if unjustifiably, inexcusably, and without mitigating circumstances kills another human being with any of these four mental states: (1) intentional/knowing homicide (2) intent to cause grievous bodily harm (3) extreme recklessness (4) during the commission of a felony 1st Degree Murder: intentional killing of another with premeditation and deliberation Premeditated- to think about beforehand; long enough to afford reasonable man to subject the nature of his response to a second look Deliberate- to measure and evaluate the major facets of a choice or problem 2nd Degree Intentional Murder: intentional killing w/o premeditation/deliberation -when there was not an adequate time between motivating action and killing -may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter if not enough time to cool down 2nd Degree Extreme Indifference: D has a conscious awareness that he is creating a substantial to risk to human life and an awareness of a high probability of death -if no awareness to the high probability of death, then involuntary manslaughter

MPC Murder -A homicide constitutes murder if the killing is committed (1) purposely(2) knowingly or (3) recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life -Intentional murder would constitute either a purposeful or knowing murder 1. Purposely: actors desires the resultant death 2. Knowingly: actor knows or is practically certain death will result Extreme Indifference: D has a conscious awareness that he is endangering human life and also an awareness that a high probability of death will occur (reckless as to conduct and risk)

Common Law Manslaughter Voluntary Manslaughter: intentional killing of a human being, in the heat of passion, caused by adequate provocation, before a reasonable person would have time to cool down 1. Adequate Provocation: calculated to enflame the passions of a reasonable person and tends to cause reasonable person to lose self-control 1A. Accepted Provocations: [extreme assault or battery upon D, mutual combat, Ds illegal arrest, injury or serious abuse of Ds close relative, sudden discovery of adultery]-mere words not enough 2. Heat of Passion: interpretation as to whether D was subjectively in heat of passion, cant have cooled off MISDIRECTED RETALIATION: if D acts in heat of passion in response to adequate provocation but kills someone other than provoker, may not be entitled to heat of passion defense and crime not reduced to manslaughter Involuntary Manslaughter: a homicide is involuntary manslaughter if it is the result of (1) criminal negligence or (2) result of unlawful act not encompassed by F-M 1. if D consciously creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk but does not consciously realize a high probability of death 2. if D doesnt knowingly create substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life but he should

MPC Manslaughter -Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in two circumstances: (1) recklessness and (2) EMED Reckless Manslaughter: reckless conduct that results in the death of another -Different from reckless murder b/c while consciously creating substantial risk, no knowledge of high probability of death (extreme indifference) Extreme Mental or Emotional Distress: manslaughter if actor kills under the influence of extreme mental or emotional distress for which there is reasonable cause of excuse -1. Subjective Test: was D in a state of EMED? -2. Objective Test: was it reasonable for D to be in a state of EMED based on the facts? -2A. reasonableness determined from the viewpoint of a person in actors situation under circumstances as actor believes them to be; under totality of circumstances, can jury understand how a person might have had his reason overcome? -2B. reason cannot be so peculiar to D that it is unworthy of mitigating the crime -3. There is no cooling off rule; words are enough; no specific provocative act required -4. Can act as a defense against intentional murder if actions planned while under EMED but there would be a significant argument that person cant be under EMED for significant period of time
EMED vs. Heat of Passion: -CL: afraid of juries giving too much weight to Ds testimony, limit sufficient provocation -MPC: as long as D is in EMED, then it goes to jury because we trust them enough to weigh the facts

MPC Negligent Homicide -A criminally negligent homicide constitutes the lesser offense of negligent homicide under MPC -Equivalent of CL involuntary manslaughter -MPC precludes liability for manslaughter based on criminal negligence Substantive Limits on Death Penalty -D must prove the existence of a discriminatory purpose and a racially disproportionate impact when alleging EPC violation; cant look at it in the aggregate -To satisfy 8th and 14th Amendments, capital punishment is compared against three standards: (1) current standards of decency (2) punishment not excessive (3) serves legitimate purpose -For Felony Murder: you need to show that D: (1) was a major participant in the felony and (2) Ds mens rea was at least extreme indifference

Victim Impact Statements at Capital Sentencing -the 8th Amendment does not erect a bar per se against admission of victim impact statement -for jury to determine moral culpability/blameworthiness, it should have before it the specific harm caused by the D

Mistake of Fact (Negative Defense) Common Law -Mistake of fact is a defense to a crime if it negates the mens rea required for a crime -Depending on what mens rea the law requires, mistake may or may not have to be reasonable -If mens rea is intentional, then unreasonable mistake of fact will negate -If mens rea is negligence, then unreasonable mistake of fact will not negate 1. Legal Wrong Doctrine: person is guilty of crime, despite reasonable mistake of fact, if he would be guilty of a different, lesser crime if facts were as he thought 2. Moral Wrong Doctrine: person is guilty of crime, despite reasonable mistake of fact, if as facts were as he believed them to be, he would have committed immoral but legal act (judge decides if immoral) MPC -Mistake of fact is a defense if the mistake negates a mental state element required in statute -Must be a good faith (honest) mistake -Same legal wrong doctrine as CL, except punished at level of lesser crime

Mistake of Law (Negative Defense) Common Law and MPC -Ignorance to the law is no excuse; even reasonable mistake wont help -Unawareness of the law and incorrect interpretations are both mistakes of law -Three Exceptions: (1) Mistake of Law Negates Mens Rea: D is not guilty of crime if his mistake, reasonable or unreasonable negates an element of mens rea (very rare, usually only when offense itself requires knowledge and understanding of some law) [Cheek willfully violating tax code] (2) Reasonable Reliance on Official Statement: D is not guilty of crime if, at time of the offense, he reasonably relied on an official statement of the law, later determined to be erroneous -Must be obtained from person/public body with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of law -Must be an official statement and reliance on it must be reasonable (3) Lack of Notice: [violation of DPC] very rarely it is unconstitutional to punish person for a crime of which he was unaware of at the time of his conduct -Three requirements: (a) pure omission (b) no actual knowledge of law (c) no reason to know -If you work in job that is heavily, regularly regulated, you have reason to check often and know Causation: Proximate Cause MPC -treats causation as a culpability issue rather than a causation issue -Can D be said to have purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently caused the result? -D has not acted with requisite culpability and thus cannot be cause of harm, unless actual result, including the way it occurred, was not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have just bearing on actors liability or on gravity of the offense Common Law -A person who is an actual cause of resulting harm is not responsible for it unless he is also the proximate (legal) cause of the harm -Actual cause analysis identifies for potential legal liability, proximate cause makes the pick -Proximate cause is a foreseeability analysis at heart CL Analysis: key question: IS IT JUST TO HOLD THIS PERSON LIABLE? 1. Was there any an additional but-for cause that occurred after Ds conduct or omission, but before resulting social harm? (if no, D is direct cause and proximate cause) 2. Was intervening cause responsive or coincidental? ---if coincidental: tends to cut off chain of liability unless it was foreseeable ---if responsive: tends not to cut off chain of liability unless it was abnormal and unforeseeable ---[all normal/foreseeable: actions by V to avoid harm, rescue attempts, actions by EMTs] ADDITIONAL FACTORS 1. Intended Consequences Doctrine: if D intended a particular result or created a risk that result would occur and result happens in unexpected way, still liable if in zone of expectation 2. Free, Deliberate, Informed Human Intervention: D is not liable if a free, deliberate, and informed act of another human being is the intervening act 3. Apparent Safety Doctrine: Even if D creates dangerous situation, not responsible for ensuing result if V escapes Ds created situation and reaches safety, but later returns; prob not liable 4. Omissions: IAs that are omissions rarely supersede Ds earlier affirmative wrongful act; this rule is operative even if intervening actor has a duty to act 5. De Minimis Rule: law will generally not treat a very minor but-for cause as the proximate cause if there is a much more substantial cause to which liability can be attached

Causation: Actual Cause Cause-In-Fact: Conduct is the C-I-F if the result would not have occurred BUT FOR the conduct; or if the conduct was a substantial factor in causing the result More than One Actor: 1. Acceleration: if more than one actor act but only the first of which is sufficient to cause death, but second act causes sooner death, both are C-I-F 2. Obstructed Cause: actor tries to cause harm, but something intervenes to cause harm instead [A shoots X in stomach, wouldnt have killed him. B shoots X in head and B dies. If As shot didnt contribute to death, probably not guilty] 3. Substantial Factor: concurrent, sufficient, independent, and simultaneous causes occur, then both are guilty 4. Cooperative Acts: Conspirators work together to cause harm to victim, both are guilty -Two people attack someone and kill him, A hires hitman B to kill C 5. Combined, Non-Lethal Injuries that Result in Death: when two actors each perform an act that alone would not cause victims death, but together they do -both are but-for causes, so finding out which actors are guilty requires proximate cause analysis

Concurrence of the Elements -Prosecutor must prove that required mens rea and actus reus occurred simultaneously 1. Temporal Concurrence: lack of temporal occurrence when mens rea occurs before or after, but not during the commission of the actus reus

Constitutional Issues 1. Legality Principle: (1) statutory clarity (2) arbitrary enforcement (3) lenity doctrine th 2. Proportionality: 8 Amend. doesnt require strict proportionality btw prison time and crime 3. Ex Post Facto: cant punish conduct that was lawful at time of commission or increase punishment for act committed before law took effect 4. Due Process: courts are prohibited from enlarging scope of a criminal statute 5. Vagueness: (1) fails to provide notice to ordinary ppl as to what conduct is prohibited and (2) authorizes/encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement 6. Death Penalty: DP is unconstitutional if: (1) makes no measureable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment or (2) it is grossly disproportionate to the crime

Culpability Terms CLMPC MaliciouslyPurposely, Knowingly, Recklessly IntentionallyPurposely, Knowingly RecklesslyReckless NegligentlyNegligent Common Law: Intentionally- conscious object to cause result or virtually certain result would occur Malice- intentionally or recklessly Knowingly- pertains to AC; (1) is aware of act (2) correctly believe it exists (3) suspects that it exists and purposely avoids learning that suspicion is correct (willful blindness) Unjustified Risk Taking- must look to three factors: gravity of harm, probability it will occur and reason for proposed conduct Recklessness-conscious disregard for risk that conduct will cause a substantial and unjustifiable harm (subjective standard) Negligence- actor should be, but isnt aware that conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk (objective standard) MPC: Purposely- [conduct/result] conscious object to engage in conduct or cause the result [AC] subjective awareness of circumstances or a belief or hope that they exist Knowingly-[conduct/AC] aware that conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist [result] aware that result is practically certain to occur Recklessness- [conduct, result, AC] conscious disregard of substantial & unjustifiable risk that material element exists or will result from conduct; gross deviation from standard reasonable person would use in actors situation Negligence- a person acts negligently if he should be aware, but isnt that his conduct will create a substantial and unjustifiable risk of social harm; gross deviation from standard of a reasonable person

Elements of the Crime Actus Reus: (1) voluntary act or legal omission that (2) causes social harm; there can be no crime in absence of conduct and unless that conduct results in social harm *coerced acts are voluntary, possession is ok if a person know they have something bad and dont dispossess, only certain relationships cause a duty to act (status, K, etc.) *not every element need be voluntary (epileptic driver, getting drunk) *Proportionate Care Principle: asks whether proposed treatment is proportionate in terms of proposed gains vs. burdens caused Mens Rea: actus reus committed with evil mind or mental state set out by statute -General Intent: mens rea you have while actually committing the actus reus ***many CL jurisdictions will read in purposely/knowingly(?) if statute silent ***MPC will read in recklessly, knowingly, purposely -Specific Intent: an additional mens rea beyond that to commit actus reus **usually seen when (1) state must prove actor intends to commit future act (2) state must prove a special motive or purpose (3) state must prove actors awareness of an attendant circumstance Statutory Interpretation Common Law 1.No default rules, interpreting as close to legislative intent as possible is always the goal 2.Look to position of mens rea, location/use of punctuation 3. Unless statutory interpretation suggests otherwise, mens rea applies to all material elements of the crime (nature of forbidden conduct, attendant circumstances, result of conduct); if presence of AC is why conduct is illegal, can presume mens rea applies to that element 4.Sometimes different mens rea to each element; rape-(intentionally penetration, neg. consent) MPC 1. If no mens rea and not SL, read in recklessly, knowingly, purposely 2. Stated mens rea applies to all material elements unless other purpose plainly appears 3. If meaning is ambiguous, interpret to plain/ordinary meaning of the text 4. When a particular purpose is an element of an offense, element is established although such purpose is conditional, unless condition negatives harm/evil sought to be avoid by law

Willful Blindness Common Law: (1) actor has knowledge of high probability of some fact and (2) deliberately avoids finding out the truth MPC: [only relates to existing fact, not resulting conduct] when knowledge of a fact is element of offense, such knowledge is established if he is aware of high probability of its existence UNLESS he actually believes it

Strict Liability 1.Strong presumption against strict liability but CL embraces it more readily than the MPC 2.MPC abolishes SL except as to violations 3. If statute amended to make it SL, presumption is legislature wouldve expressly mentioned that offense was to be interpreted as strict liability 4.Even with strong presumption against SL, there are three exceptions in which court will apply it: (1) violations (2) public welfare offenses (3) statutory rape 5.Violation: an offense (not a crime) which involves no sentence other than a fine or a fine and a forfeiture and some other penalty 6.Public Welfare Offenses: offenses upheld b/c D should be on notice that his crime is so dangerous as to qualify as SL offense 6a. Three characteristics of PWOs: (1) minor punishment (2) conduct that is wrong only because it is prohibited, not wrongful in itself (3) single violation often endangers many people 6b. Common PWOs: minor violation of liquor laws, pure food laws, anti-narcotics laws, motor vehicle/traffic regulations, sanitary regulations, building and factory codes