Common Law

Murder 1) Intent to kill OR know with practical certainty that death would ensue 2) Intent to cause s.b.h. OR knowledge of practical certainty that D will cause s.b.h. 3) Extreme Recklessness/depraved heart murder Disregard of a substantial risk which reflects a gross deviation Extreme indifference to human life 4) Intent to commit a felony Felony-Murder 1) Homicide must result in furtherance of the inherently dangerous felony 2) Underlying felony must have caused the death in order to support a felony murder conviction Voluntary Manslaughter (heat of passion) 1) D was provoked; 2) A reasonable person would have been provoked; 3) D had not cooled off before the murder; and 4) A reasonable person would not have cooled off before the murder

MPC
Murder 1) D purposefully caused death OR 2) D had knowledge that he would cause death OR 3) D acted extremely reckless in causing death

Manslaughter MPC recognizes recklessness as the mens rea requirement for manslaughter o Recklessness - knowledge of actual risk; disregard for that risk o The homicide would be murder but it was committed under extreme mental or emotional disturbance which there was a reasonable excuse (reasonable person standard)

Involuntary Manslaughter (killing w/o intent) 1) When a person should be aware of a substantial risk that could lead to harm, but lacks the implied malice can be satisfied by recklessness/negligence of D, or an omission of a legal duty EX: Arguing with someone at top of staircase, pushes them down in course of argument

Negligent Homicide Requires proof that D was negligent in the killing; the negligent act was the cause of the homicide

Model Penal Code Reforms - One of the main goals of the Model Penal Codes drafters was to reform the treatment of mens rea in American criminal law. The M.P.C.s approach to homicide draws on the mens rea terms and definitions in Section 2.02 and is marked by: (1) Abandoning the common law concept of malice aforethought in the definition of murder; and (2) Extensively revising the treatment of manslaughter. In this sense, the M.P.C. moves further from the common law approach than earlier statutory reforms. However, in another way, the M.P.C. signals a partial return to the common law approach by declining to divide murder into degrees. Three Forms of Criminal Homicide - The M.P.C. divides criminal homicide into three types: murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide (sections 210.1 210.4). Manslaughter: Two Alternative Mens Rea Terms - Under the M.P.C., there are two alternative mens rea terms for manslaughter: (1) A killing committed recklessly; or (2) A killing that would otherwise be murder, committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or A Killing Committed Recklessly - Defendant consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the death of another human being will result from his conduct. The conduct must be a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a law-abiding person. Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance - Defendant acts purposely, knowingly, or with extreme recklessness (i.e., committed murder), but under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. Reasonableness is be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendants situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be Negligent Homicide: Mens Rea - There has been controversy over whether negligence should ever be a basis of criminal liability, given the lack of any conscious awareness of risk-taking on the part of a negligent defendant. The drafters of the M.P.C., while deciding to keep negligence as a basis of criminal liability, agreed enough with the critics that they moved it into its own category of homicide with a lower level of culpability than manslaughter. Under the M.P.C., negligent homicide is a killing committed negligently, i.e., with criminal negligence.

The mens rea for criminal negligence requires that the defendant should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the death of another human being will result from his conduct. The conduct must be a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person Gross Deviation and the Stupid Defendant - As with the common law concept of criminal negligence, the M.P.C. requires proof of a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a reasonable person, thus establishing a higher standard than in the tort concept of negligence. Notice that the definition of negligence, like the definition of recklessness, requires proof that the defendant took a substantial and unjustifiable risk, but with the difference that negligence does not require proof that the defendant was aware of the risk thus, the stupid defendant, who may escape culpability under a recklessness standard, can be found guilty under a negligence standard.