ATTEMPT

Elements / Requirements Common Law Most jurisdictions: Person is guilty of criminal attempt when, with intent to commit a crime, the person engages in conduct (which constitutes a substantial step) toward commission of that crime, whether or not his intention is accomplished Mens Rea: (1) intentionally commit the acts that constitute the actus reus of an attempt (intentionally perform acts that bring her in proximity to commission of the substantitve offense); and (2) must perform these acts with the specific intention of committing the target crime (attempt is a specific-intent offense, even if the target offense is a general- intent crime) Attendant Circumstances: uncertain (some favor recklessness with regard to attendant circumstance is enough, others look to culpability required by underlying offense (if strict liability, then no mens rea regarding attendant circumstances is required)) Actus Reus: various tests (pgs. 398-402); some overt act is required Model Penal Code Elements: (1) purpose to commit the target offense; and (2) conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the target offense Mens Rea: not guilty unless it was her purpose (her conscious objective) to engage in the conduct or to cause the result that would constitute the substantive offense Attendant Circumstances: sufficient that the actor possessed the degree of culpability required to commit the target offense (if strict liability, then no mens rea regarding attendant circumstances is required) Actus Reus: actor must have done or omitted to do something that constitutes a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime. Punishment: at common law Punishment: crimes of an attempt was a misdemeanor; attempt, solicitation, and now an attempt to commit a conspiracy are offenses of the felony is graded a felony (but same grade and degree as the typically treated as a lessor offense attempted, solicited, or offense than the substantive that is the object of the crime) conspiracy (one exception: an attempt (or solicitation or Merges with target offense if conspiracy) to commit a felony the target offense is completed of the first degree constitutes a

Notes

 Tests: Last Act Test; Physical Proximity Test; Dangerous Proximity Test; Indispensable Element Test; Probable Desistance Test; Unequivocality Test Attempt to Aid: cannot attempt to aid (aid must actually have been used/useful) (one may aid in an attempt, and thereby be convicted of the attempt as an accomplice so long as the aid was useful)

Defenses

felony of the second degree) Attempt to Aid: a person may be convicted of a criminal attempt, although a crime was neither committed nor attempted by another, if (1) the purpose of her conduct is to aid another in the commission of the offense; and (2) such assistance would have made her an accomplice in the commission of the crime if the offense had been committed or attempted Factual Impossibility not a Factual Impossibilitynot a defense defense Inherent Factual Impossibilitymay be a defense Legal Impossibility is a Pure Legal Impossibility is defense a defense (result intended or desired must constitute a crime Hybrid Legal Impossibility Hybrid Legal Impossibility abolished in most states abolished in MPC Abandonment not a Renunciation/ common law defense (many Abandonment A person is courts still do not recognize the not guilty of an attempt if: (1) defense). In jurisdictions where she abandons her effort to it is recognized, it applies only if commit the crime or prevents it the defendant voluntarily and from being committed; and (2) completely renounces her her conduct manifests a criminal purpose (not complete complete and voluntary if merely postpones the renunciation of her criminal criminal endeavor till a better purpose opportunity presents itself and cannot be invoked once last act necessary to commit the offense has been performed or serious harm to the victim has already been caused).

CONSPIRACY
Elements / Requirements Common Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act or series of criminal acts, or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means (to do either an unlawful act or a lawful act by criminal or unlawful means) (formed the moment two or more persons agree that one of them will later commit an unlawful act) Overt Act: at common law, no conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy is required; in overt act jurisdictions, an overt act by any party to a conspiracy in furtherance may be statutorily required, but the act may be trivial and wholly preparatory to the commission of the target offenses, and is sufficient to prosecute every member of the conspiracy, including those that joined in the agreement after the act was committed) Mens Rea: criminal conspiracy does not occur unless two or more persons: (1) intend to agree and (2) intend that the object of their agreement be achieved (common law conspiracy is a specific-intent offense) Model Penal Code A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (a) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct that constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (b) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime Overt Act: MPC requires an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy for a conviction of conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor or a felony of the third degree (no requirement of an overt act for felonies of the first or second degrees) Mens Rea: person is not guilty of conspiracy unless the conspiratorial agreement was made with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the substantive offense (object must have been to bring about the prohibited result or to cause the prohibited conduct to occur (even if such purpose is not an element of the target offense))

Notes

Attendant Circumstances: state-by-state and crime-by- crime basis whether level of culpability regarding an attendant circumstance may be higher than is required by the underlying offense Punishment: conspiracy to commit a felony or misdemeanor was a misdemeanor; some states continue to treat all conspiracies as misdemeanors, but, more often, sanction for conspiracy is graded in relationship to the contemplated crime Does not Merge: crime of conspiracy does not merge into the attempted or completed offense that was the object of the conspiracy Third Party Guilt: intent (or purpose) may be inferred from knowledge if the person furnishing the service or instrumentality promotes the venture and has a stake in the outcome (such as furnishing the goods or services at a grossly inflated price), or when

Punishment: (as with other inchoate offenses) MPC grades conspiracy to commit any crime other than a felony in the first degree at the same level as the object of the conspiracy

Merges: MPC provides that a person may not be convicted and punished for both conspiracy and the object of the conspiracy or an attempt to commit the target offense, unless conspiratorial agreement involved commission of additional offenses not yet committed or attempted 4 Types of Agreement Fall Within Definition of Conspiracy: A person is guilty of conspiracy if she agrees to: 1. commit an offense 2. attempt to commit an offense 3. solicit another to commit an offense 4. aid another person in the planning or commission of the offense Third Party Guilt: provider of goods or services is not a part of a conspiracy is he is aware of, but fails to share in the criminal purpose

it is a grossly disproportionate share of his business (or a grossly disproportionate share of his business is from separate customers whose planned conduct is illegal) or if he provides goods and services for which there is no lawful use Corrupt Motive Doctrine applied in some jurisdictions Plurality Requirement: at least two people must possess the requisite mens rea of a conspiracy (intent to agree and the specific intent that the object of the agreement be achieved) Person does not need to know the identity, or even the existence of every other member of the conspiracy, nor must she participate in every detail or event of the conspiracy Issue is whether a single agreement or many distinct ones were formed; many courts treat the initial agreement between the parties as one that implicitly incorporated the later objectives A shared, single criminal objective is necessary, not just similar or parallel objectives between similarly situated people Whartons Rulean agreement by two persons to commit an offense that by definition requires the voluntary concerted criminal participation of two persons, cannot be prosecuted as a conspiracy. (does not apply if the two person involved in the conspiracy are not the two people necessarily involved in

No Corrupt-Motive Doctrine Unilateral approach to conspiracy (a person is guilty of conspiracy with another person if he agrees with such other person to commit an offense A person with multiple criminal objectives is guilty of only one conspiracy if the multiple objectives are: (1) part of the same agreement; or (2) part of a continuous conspiratorial relationship Guilty of conspiring with co- conspirators co-conspirators if he knew of that/those relationships (must not know their identities) MPC does not recognize Whartons Rule

Defenses

committing the substantive offense). Third-party exceptionif more than the minimum number of persons necessary to commit an offense agree to commit the crime, Whartons rule is not triggered Legislative-Exemption Rule a person may not be convicted of conspiracy to violate an offense if her conviction would frustrate a legislative purpose to exempt her from prosecution for the substantive crime Pinkerton Doctrineperson, simply because he is a party to a conspiracy, may be held responsible for the actions of his partners in crime. Party to a conspiracy is responsible for any criminal act committed by an associate if it: (1) falls within the scope of the conspiracy; and (2) is a foreseeable consequence of the unlawful agreement Impossibilityneither factual impossibility nor legal impossibility is a defense to a criminal conspiracy Abandonmentonce agreement is formed (and in some jurisdictions, once an overt act is performed) the conspiracy offense is complete and abandonment is not a defense (but by withdrawing, the person may avoid liability for subsequent crimes

Unless the legislature otherwise provides, a person may not be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a crime under the MPC if she would not be guilty of the consummated substantive offense: (1) under the law defining the crime; or (2) as an accomplice in its commission. In turn, a person is not guilty as an accomplice in the commission of an offense if she was the victim of the prohibited conduct, or if her conduct was inevitably incident to it commission MPC rejects the Pinkerton Doctrine

MPC does not recognize a defense of impossibility in conspiracy cases Abandonment is a defense to conspiracy if the conspirator renounces her criminal purpose and thwarts the success of the conspiracy under circumstances demonstrating a complete and voluntary renunciation of her criminal intent (she must also negate the

committed in furtherance of the danger of the group she joined) conspiracy; and once a person withdraws, the statute of limitations begins to run in her favor) To abandon, party is required to communicate withdrawal to each of her fellow co- conspirators

Hearsay evidence in trial for conspiracy is inadmissible, subject to two exceptions: 1. an out-of-court admission by a defendant may be introduced at the defendants trial through the hearsay testimony of the person to whom the defendant made the statement or who overheard the remarks 2. an out-of-court statement of a conspirator made while participating in the conspiracy may be introduced in evidence against any or all of her co- conspirators

COMPLICITY
Elements / Requirements Common Law Principal in the First Degree: person who, with requisite mens rea, (1) physically commits the acts that constitute the offense; or (2) commits the offense by use of an innocent instrumentality or innocent human actor Principal in the Second Degree: person who is guilty of an offense by reason of having intentionally assisted in the commission of the crime in the presence, either actual or constructive, of the principal in the first degree Accessory Before the Fact: differs from principal in the second degree in that he is not actually or constructively present when the crime is committed (often the person who solicits, counsels, or commands (short of coercing) the principal in the first degree to commit the offense Accessory After the Fact: person who, with knowledge of anothers guilt, intentionally assists the felon to avoid arrest, trial, or conviction (at common law this actor was also derivatively liable for the original felony, but today nearly all jurisdictions treat this as a separate, less serious offense than the felony committed by the principal in the first degree) Attempting to Aid: Person is not an accomplice unless his conduct (or omission) in fact assists in the commission of the offense (but any aid, no matter how trivial, suffices, and the aid may even be causally unnecessary to the commission of the offense). Model Penal Code Person is an accomplice in the commission of an offense if, with the requisite mens rea, he: (1) solicits his partner to commit the offense; (2) aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid his partner in the planning or commission of the offense; or (3) has a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, but makes no effort to do so Person may be an accomplice even if he did not in fact assist Attempting to Aid: Person may be held as an accomplice, even if his aid was ineffectual Person may be guilty of attempt, even if the principal did not carry out the crime or if

 Mens Rea: accomplice must possess: (1) intent to assist the primary party to engage in the conduct that forms the basis of the offense; and (2) the mental state required for the commission of the offense, as provided in the definition of the substantive crime (conviction of accomplice in commission of a crime of recklessness or negligence is permitted so long as the requisite mental states exist) Person is not an accomplice unless he shares the criminal intent of the principal; there must be community of purpose in the unlawful undertaking Attendant Circumstances: mens rea policies regarding the substantive offense should control the accomplices situation (accomplice must act with purpose of assisting the principal in the conduct that constitutes the offense and must have the level of culpability required as to the prohibited result, if any, of the offensehe should be deemed an accomplice if his culpability as to the attendant circumstances would be sufficient to convict him as a principal Innocent Instrumentality: person is the principal in the first degree if, with the mens rea required for the commission of the offense, he uses a non- human agent or a non-culpable

the principal did not take a substantial step towards carrying out the crime (and is therefore not guilty of attempt) if the would-be accomplices conduct would establish complicity if the crime had been carried out Mens Rea: person is an accomplice if he assists with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense (but knowing is not sufficient to infer purpose) (Recklessness and Negligence) A person is an accomplice in the commission of the offense 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 commission of the offense Attendant Circumstances: MPC does not address this issue Innocent Instrumentality: a person is legally accountable for the conduct of an innocent or irresponsible person if he: (1) has the mental state sufficient for commission of the

human agent to commit the crime

Notes

Defenses

At common law, accessory could not be convicted of a more serious offense, or a higher degree of the offense, than his principal (single exception was a higher degree of criminal homicide) Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine: (at common law and in most jurisdictions) a person encouraging or facilitating the commission of a crime may be held criminally liable not only for that crime, but for any other offense that was a natural and probable consequence of the crime aided and abetted At common law, accomplice could not be convicted of the crime until the principal was convicted and (with limited exception) could not be convicted of a more serious offense or degree of offense Legislative-Exemption Rule: a person may not be prosecuted as an accomplice in the commission of a crime if he is a member of the class of persons for whom the statute prohibiting the conduct was enacted to protect Abandonmentaccomplice can avoid accountability for the subsequent criminal acts of the primary party by abandoning the criminal endeavor, but the criminal must communicate his withdrawal to the principal and make a bona fide effort to neutralize the effect of his prior assistance

offense; and (2) causes the innocent or irresponsible person to engage in criminal conduct MPC rejects the Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine

Abandonmentperson is not an accomplice in the commission of a crime if he terminates his participation before the crime is committed and if he: (1) neutralizes his assistance; (2) gives timely warning to the police of the impending offense; or (3) in some other manner attempts to prevent the commission of the crime

 CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
Murder Elements / Requirements Common Law Murderkilling of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought Malice: 1. intention to kill a human being 2. intention to inflict grievous bodily injury on another 3. extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life (depraved heart murder) 4. intention to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of which the death results (felony murder) Model Penal Code Murderwhen the actor unjustifiably, inexcusably, and in the absence of a mitigating circumstance, kills another: (1) purposely or knowingly; or (2) recklessly, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life (kills intentionally or with extreme recklessness (i.e., depraved-heart murder)) Extreme recklessness (and thus, murder) is non-conclusively presumed if the homicide occurs while the actor is engaged in, or is an accomplice in, the commission or attempted commission of, or flight from, one of the dangerous felonies specified in the statute (MPCs version of Felony Murder Rule)

Notes

Intent to Killone who kills another human being without justification (e.g., self- defense), excuse (e.g., insanity), or mitigating circumstance (e.g., sudden heat of passion) is guilty of killing with malice aforethought and therefore guilty of common law murder Proving Intent to Kill: Natural-and-Probable Consequence Rule (intended the natural and probable (or foreseeable) consequences of her

actions); Deadly- Weapon Rule Wilful, Deliberate, Premeditated Killingalmost everywhere is a first degree murder - wilful= specific intent to kill - deliberate= free from influence of excitement or passion (cold- blooded) - premeditated= time to think the matter over (no specific time required, but there must have been time to think the matter over) Intent to Inflict Grievous Bodily Injurymalice aforethought is implied if person intends to cause grievous bodily injury (apprehension of danger to life, health, or limb) to another, but death results Extreme Recklessness (Depraved Heart Murder)malice aforethought is implied if a persons conduct manifests an extreme indifference to the value of human life (conduct demonstrating an abandoned and malignant heart); there is a wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of the defendants behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm A person kills recklessly

is she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life; when the risk of death is great and the justification for taking the risk is weak or non-existent, the actor is guilty of murder (she has acted with a depraved heart) In contrast, when a person should be, but is not aware, that her conduct is very risky (and unjustifiably so), where the risk-taking is inadvertent, this is criminal negligence and in these less culpable circumstances, a killing constitutes involuntary manslaughter Felony-Murder applies when a felon kills the victim intentionally, recklessly, negligently, or accidentally and unforeseeably (strict liability for death resulting from commission of a felony); intent to commit the felony constitutes the implied malice required for common law murder Felony-murder rule extends to accomplices in the commission of elonies Most modern statutes: death that results from the commission of a specifically listed felony constitutes first-degree murder (and death from an unspecified felony is a second-degree murder)

Manslaughter

Defenses Elements / Requirements

Limits on the rule: Inherently-Dangerous Felony Rule (many states limit the rule to homicides that occur during the commission of a felony dangerous to human life); Independent-Felony (or Merger) Limitation (felony-murder rule only applies if the predicate felony is independent of, or collateral to, the homicide) Killing by a Non-Felon: Agency Approach (felony-murder rule does not apply if the homicide is committed by someone other than a felon or those associated with him in the unlawful enterprise); Proximate Causation Approach (felon is liable for any death that is the proximate result of the felony (and a reasonable and foreseeable response to the felony), whether the shooter is a felon, or a third party) Under common law, death had to occur within a year and one day of the homicidal act Manslaughter unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought Three Types: 1. Voluntary Manslaughter intentional killing committed in a sudden heat of

Manslaughterperson is guilty of manslaughter if she: (1) recklessly kills another; or (2) kills another person under circumstances that would ordinarily constitute murder, but which homicide is committed as the result of extreme mental or emotional disturbance

2.

3.

passion as a for which there is a result of reasonable explanation adequate or excuse. provocation Involuntary Manslaughter (modern Criminally Negligent Homicide)an unintentional killing that is the result of an act, lawful in itself, but done in an unlawful manner, and without due caution and circumspection Misdemeanor- Manslaughter an unintentional killing that occurs during the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful act may constitute involuntary manslaughter if the unlawful act is a non-felony

Manslaughter: Provocation (Sudden Heat of Passion) Elements: 1. actor must have acted in heat of passion 2. passion must have been the result of adequate provocation 3. actor must not have had a reasonable opportunity to cool off 4. there must be a causal link between the provocation, the passion, and the homicide

Notes

Manslaughter: Provocation (Sudden Heat of Passion) Adequate Provocations: 1. aggravated assault or battery 2. mutual combat 3. commission of a serious crime against a close relative of the defendant 4. illegal arrest 5. observation of spousal adultery Inadequate Provocations: 1. a trivial battery 2. learning about (but not observing) adultery 3. observation of sexual unfaithfulness of a fianc or other unmarried sexual partner 4. words, no matter how insulting or offensive Provocation is sufficient to mitigate an intentional killing to manslaughter if the provocation would render any ordinarily prudent person for the time being incapable of that cool reflection that otherwise makes it murder or (pg. 537) Test the defendants reaction to the provocation by the standard of the ordinary person in the actors situation Manslaughter: Criminal Negligence involuntary manslaughter involves a

Reckless Homicide: conscious risk-taking that is unjustifiable and substantial (not extreme enough to merit reckless murder (defendant charged with reckless murder is entitled to a jury instruction regarding reckless manslaughter)) Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance: (intended to incorporate common law doctrines of heat of passion and diminished capacity) EMEDit is enough that the defendant experienced intense feelings, sufficient to cause loss of self- control, at the time of the homice Reasonableness of the explanation or excuse regarding the EMED is determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actors situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be Differences from Common Law Heat-of- Passion: - a specific provocative act is not required to trigger the EMED defense (all that must be proven is that the homicide occurred as a result of the EMED for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse - if there was a

gross deviation from the standard of care that reasonable people would exercise in the same situation; negligent when she should be aware that she is taking a substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life, but is not

provocation, it need not fall within any fixed category, and words , alone, can warrant a manslaughter instruction - there is no rigid cooling off period; no suddenness requirement A criminally negligent homicideinvoluntary manslaughter at common law constitutes the lesser offense of negligent homicide under the MPC

Negligent Homicide

Defenses Elements / Requirements

Notes Defenses

SELF DEFENSE
Elements / Requirements Common Law Non-aggressor is justified in using force upon another if he reasonably believes such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by the other person Deadly force is only justified in self-protection if the actor reasonably believes that its use is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful use of deadly force by the aggressor Components: - Necessitylimited to imminent threats only - Proportionality - Reasonable Belief subjectively believed that he needed to use force to repel an imminent unlawful attack (belief must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would have possessed - Non-Aggressor Some jurisdictions have a retreat rule, others do not (there is a Castle Exception in those jurisdictions that require retreat if the opportunity exists) Imperfect Self-Defense: 1) a nondeadly aggressor who is the victim of a deadly response must retreat to any known place of complete safety before using deadly force; if he fails to do so, his right of self-defense is considered imperfect 2) one who kills another because he unreasonably believes that factual circumstances justify the killing, is guilty of manslaughter, rather than murder Model Penal Code A person is justified in using force upon another person if he believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the exercise of unlawful force by the other individual on the present occasion Deadly force may not be used if the person knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating

Notes

Differences from Common Law: - Drafted in terms of the actors subjective belief in the need to use force; his belief need not be reasonable - immediately necessaryon the present occasion authorizes self- protective force sooner than may be allowed at common law Summary: - if D did not start the unlawful conflict, he may use deadly force against V if he believes that such force is immediately necessary on the present occasion to combat an unlawful deadly assault by V, assuming one of the

following circumstances exists: 1. D has retreated and V continues to pursue him 2. D knows of no safe place to retreat 3. Even if D could have retreated, if D is in his home or place of work, and V is not in his place of work If D did start the unlawful conflict but did so without the purpose of provoking a deadly conflict, D may still use deadly force in all the circumstances noted above (D may be prosecuted, however, for the initial unlawful assault or battery) D may not kill V in self- defense if he started the conflict with the intent to cause death or great bodily harm, unless he withdraws from the conflict. If he does, Ds privilege to kill is restored

 DURESS
Elements / Requirements Common Law Acquitted of any defense (except murder) if the criminal act was committed under the following circumstances: 1. another person threatened to kill or grievously injure the actor or a third party, particularly a near relative, unless she committed the offense 2. the actor reasonably believed that the threat was genuine 3. the threat was present, imminent, and impending at the time of the criminal act 4. there was no reasonable escape from the threat except through compliance with the demands of the coercer 5. the actor was not at fault in exposing herself to the threat Coercing party is responsible for the coerced victims conduct (as a principal in the first degree through innocent instrumentality) and may be convicted of the offenses committed Model Penal Code Durress is an affirmative defense to unlawful conduct by the defendant if: 1. she was compelled to commit the offense by the use, or threatened use, of unlawful force by the coercer upon her or another person, and 2. a person of reasonable firmness in her situation would have been unable to resist the coercion (abandons immanent deadly threat requirement) (defense may be used in murder prosecutions) (no requirement that imperiled person be the defendant or a member of her family) (like common law rule, the defense is limited to threats or use of unlawful forcedoes not apply to coercion arising from natural sources ) (like common law, MPC does not recognize the defense when any interest other than bodily integrity is threatened)

Notes

 NECESSITY
Elements / Requirements Common Law Model Penal Code Can be used where, as a result Persons conduct is justified if: of some natural (non-human) 1. he believes that his force or condition, he must onduct is necessary to choose between violating a avoid harm to himself or relatively minor offense, on the another one hand, and suffering (or 2. the harm to be avoided by allowing others to suffer) his conduct is greater substantial harm to person or than that sought to be property, on the other hand avoided by the law prohibiting his conduct 1. Actor must be faced 3. no legislative intent to with a clear and exclude the conduct in imminent danger such circumstances 2. Defendant must expect, plainly exists as a reasonable person, that his action will be (no immeninency effective in abating the requirement) danger he seeks to avoid, i.e., there must be a direct (person does not causal relationship automatically lose the defense between his action and because he was at fault in the harm to be averted creating the necessary 3. There must be no situation) effective legal way to avert the harm (defense is not limited to 4. Harm that the defendant emergencies created by will cause by violating natural forces; it is not limited the law must be less to physical harm to persons serious than the harm he or property; it may be seeks to avoid (lesser- employed in homicide harm principle) prosecutions) 5. Lawmakers must not have previously anticipated the choice of evils and determined the balance to be struck between the competing values in a manner in conflict with the defendants choice 6. Defendant must come to the situation with clean hands

Notes

 INTOXICATION
Elements / Requirements Common Law Voluntary Intoxication: - not a defense to general- intent crimes - is a defense to specific- intent crimes (person is not guilty of an offense if, as a result of the intoxication at the time of the crime, he was incapable of forming or did not in fact form, the specific intent required in the definition of the offense Involuntary Intoxication: - entitled to acquittal in all of the circumstances in which voluntary intoxication is a defense - (it seems that he should also be acquitted of any general-intent offense since intoxication was contracted in a nonculpable manner) Model Penal Code Three Types: 1. Self-Induced Intoxication 2. Pathological Intoxication 3. Involuntary Intoxication Any form of intoxication is a defense to criminal conduct if it negates an element of the offense Pathological intoxication and involuntary intoxication are affirmative defenses, if the intoxication causes the actor to suffer from a mental condition comparable to that which constitutes insanity under the MPC Single Exception: if a person due to self-induced intoxication is unaware of a risk of which he would have been aware had he been sober, such unawareness is immaterial in a prosecution for which recklessness establishes criminal liability

Notes