Transferred Intent
When the defendant intended to harm one person, but actually causes harm to another person, the intent is transferred to the victim actually harmed. Defendant may also be prosecuted for attempt to harm the intended victim. However, cannot transfer intent between different crimes.
Standard of Proof
The prosecution must prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must also disprove every element of a defense beyond a reasonable doubt. (majority addresses insanity as such)
Exception: the Supreme Court has held that placing the burden of persuasion for insanity upon the defendant is not unconstitutional.
-- some states, D must prove defense of insanity by POTE.
-- FEDERAL law, D must prove insanity by C&C evidence.
Felony
A crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year.
Misdemeanor
A crime punishable by imprisonment for less than one year or by a fine only.
Malum Prohibitum
An act that is wrong only because it violates a statute (e.g., speeding)
Malum in se
An act that is inherently wrong or "evil" - an act that involves a general intent or moral turpitude
Elements of Crimes
(1) Mens Rea (guilty mind)
(2) Actus reus (guilty act)
(3) Concurrence in time
(4) Causation (actual and proximate)
(5) Harm
General Intent
An intent to do the proscribed actus reus. Negligence or recklessness will suffice. Can be inferred from the fact that the D engaged in the proscribed conduct.
General Intent Crimes
- Battery
- Rape
- Kidnapping
- False Imprisonment
- Involuntary manslaughter
- Depraved heart murder
Specific Intent
An intent to do the proscribed act as well as cause additional consequences for the actus reus of the crime to be complete. (cannot be inferred)
Specific Intent Crimes
- Attempt
- Solicitation
- Conspiracy
- Larceny
- Larceny by Trick
- False Pretenses
- Embezzlement
- Forgery
- Burglary
- Assault
- Robbery
- Intent to kill murder
- Voluntary Manslaughter
Malice
Intentional or reckless disregard of an obvious or known risk that the particular harmful result will occur.
Malicious Crimes
#NAME?
MPC Mens Rea
(1) Purposely
(2) Knowingly
(3) Recklessly
(4) Negligently
MPC Purposely
A conscious desire to engage in a certain conduct or to cause a certain result.
MPC Knowingly
A conscious awareness of a practical certainty that the result will occur.
Willful Blindness or deliberate ignorance: if the D is aware of a high probability of the existence of the fact in question, and he deliberately fails to investigate in order to avoid confirmation of the fact - most jurisdictions permit a finding of knowledge.
MPC Recklessly
Consciously aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain harm will occur because of his conduct, or that a certain circumstance would exist.
MPC Negligently
Should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain result would occur, or that a certain circumstance would exist.
Omission to Act
Criminal liability can be imposed for an omission to act where there is a legal duty to act and the D can physically perform the act.
Legal duty to act
(1) By statute
(2) By contract (to protect or care for others)
(3) Based on relationship (pre-existing dependency)
(4) Where a voluntary undertaking has begun. The duty to continue to act may be abandoned provided the imperiled person is not left in a worse condition.
(5) Where D created a risk of peril to another
Strict Liability
Conscious commission of an act prohibited by statute; no particular mental state required.
Concurrence
To create criminal liability, there must be a concurrence of the act and mental state except strict liability (no mental state) and vicarious liability (no act).
Homicide
The killing of another human being by the defendant
Murder
The unlawful killing of a human being by the defendant with malice aforethought.
Homicide - body
At common law, there must be a body for liability. Modernly, body not needed to prove guilt; can be proven by circumstantial evidence.
Homicide - death
Traditionally defined as end of cardiac and respiratory functions; modernly brain death is also accepted.
Homicide - human being
born alive, not already dead
To be the cause of the murder
The D must have either directly caused the death by his actions, be vicariously liable for the actions of a 3rd party that caused the death or have directly caused the death through an omission to act where the D is under a legal duty to act.
Murder causation
Where the D is being held liable for the death through his actions or omission to act, he must be the actual and proximate cause of the death
Vicarious Liability
Defendants who do not personally commit any acts sufficient to amount to actual cause may nonetheless be legally responsible for a killing in the following circumstances:
(1) Accomplice liability
(2) Co-Conspirator liability
(3) Felony Murder
Actual Cause
ACTUAL CAUSATION: the conduct must be a material factor in the chain of events
(1) But for test: "but for" D's act, the result would not have occurred as and when it did
(2) Substantial factor: two or more factors operate to achieve the result and all of them by themselves are material factors; all are liable as substantial factors
(3) Acceleration: when D's conduct speeds up an inevitable death, D considered actual cause
Proximate cause
Established by showing that the death was a natural and probable consequence of the actions (or inaction) of the D and there were no intervening acts that occurred between the D's acts and the killing that would break the chain of causation.
Superseding causes
DEPENDENT intervening cause will supersede the D;s act only when it is a totally abnormal response to the D's act.
INDEPENDENT intervening cause normally supersedes the D;s act except when the independent intervening force was foreseeable.
Year and a day
Common law, will not recognize a homicide unless the death resulted within a year and a day. Modernly the rule abolished or greatly expanded.
Eggshell skull theory
D takes the victim as he finds him. Extent of injury suffered is not required to be foreseeable.
Malice for Murder
(1) Intent to Kill
(2) Intent to Seriously Injure
(3) Depraved Heart
(4) Felony Murder Rule
Malice - Intent to Kill
Express or implied where D consciously desires to kill another person or makes the resulting death inevitable.
*Deadly weapon doctrine applies.
Malice - Intent to Seriously Injure
A conscious desire or practical certainty that the D's actions will result in the victim's injury.
*Deadly weapon doctrine applies.
Malice - Depraved Heart
D acts with reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life; wanton and willful disregard of human life.
Deadly Weapon Doctrine
An inference of intent to kill is raised through the intentional use of a deadly weapon in a lethal manner and the victim dies as a result. (if negating facts, may not infer intent to kill)
Felony Murder Rule
Where a killing occurs during the perpetration of an independent, inherently dangerous felony and is a foreseeable result, malice for murder is implied from the intent to commit the underlying felony.
MUST be causal connection between the commission of the felony and the homicide AND commission/attempt of underlying felony must be proven (no applicable defense).
FMR - Applicable Felonies
Traditionally, applicable felonies were burglary, arson, rape, robbery and kidnapping.
Modernly it is any felony that has life-threatening elements within its definition or is committed in a manner that presents a risk of death to its victims.
FMR - Course of the Felony
The course of the felony (res gestae) perpetration starts when the D has entered the zone of perpetration and continues until felons reach a zone of temporary safety.
FMR Co-felon liability - Common Law
At Common Law, all parties to the underlying felony were liable for any death that occurred during the perpetration of the felony, including committed by a non-felon
FMR Co-felon liability - Modern exceptions
Under the Redline rule, no liability to co-felons where a justified killing of a co-felony by a non-felon occurs.
Jurisdiction split regarding death of non-felon by 3P:
AGENCY THEORY: no liability for innocent victim when death not caused by an "agent" of the defendant.
PROXIMATE CAUSE THEORY: liability for death of an innocent party killed by non-felon if death is a direct consequence of the felony.
Some jurisdictions exempt a NON-VIOLENT co-felon from liability (not armed, no knowledge, no participation)
Voluntary Manslaughter
Murder mitigated by adequate provocation or other circumstances negating malice aforethought.
Voluntary Manslaughter mitigation
Facts sufficient for mitigation occur where the D can show
(1) he was adequately provoked,
(2) through imperfect self-defense,
(3) through coercion/duress or
(4) diminished capacity.
Heat of Passion provocation
Can be shown if
(1) there was adequate provocation;
(2) D was in fact provoked;
(3) a reasonable person would not have "cooled off" before killing;
(4) D did not in fact "cool off".
Some jurisdictions consider sudden revival of passions to be adequate provocation. (also applied if provoked, tries to kill A, but kills B in error)
Involuntary Manslaughter
An unintentional unlawful killing without malice resulting from
(1) criminal negligence,
(2) misdemeanor manslaughter, or
(3) intent to inflict slight injury.
IVM Criminal Negligence
Conduct that creates a high degree of risk of death or serious bodily injury; more than mere negligence, but not quite the degree of wanton conduct.
Should have been aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk
IVM Misdemeanor Manslaughter
An unintentional killing occurs during the commission (or attempt) of a non-inherently dangerous felony or malum in se crime that doesn't rise to the level of felony.
Degrees of Murder
Degrees of murder were not recognized at CL, but modernly most jurisdictions distinguish between 1st and 2nd degree based on the belief that not all murders are equally evil.
First Degree Murder
Includes
(1) Intent to kill with premeditation and deliberation
(2) Murder under special circumstances (certain FMR)
(3) Murder accomplished by lying in wait, poision, terrorism, torture, or murder of specifically defined victims (child, police)
Premeditation
The idea of killing was entertained prior to the act
Second Degree Murder
All other murders not included in 1st degree including felony murder where the felony is not specifically listed in an applicable first degree murder statute.
Aggravated Assault
Where D commits an assault with a dangerous weapon or acts with the intent to seriously injure or rape or murder the victim.
Rape
The unlawful sexual intercourse by a male with a female, without her consent. (slightest penetration will suffice)
CL, man cannot rape his wife and must be completed by force - no longer valid.
A reasonable good faith (objective) mistaken belief that V was consenting is valid defense, but not if consent obtained by threat or force or incapacitated and unable to give consent (mistake of fact)
Statutory Rape
Sexual intercourse with a female under the age specified by statute; strict liability
Larceny
The trespassory taking and carrying away of the tangible personal property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive.
Can be wrongful taking or delivery crime.
Wrongful taking is taking without permission or exceeding scope of consent.
Delivery crime is when D is delivered the property by mistake and knows of the mistake; becomes larceny when intent to keep is formed.
Larceny - Continuing trespass doctrine
Where a person wrongfully takes the property of another (or delivered by mistake), but forms the intent to permanently deprive after taking it, the trespass is said to have continued until the intent was formed and D is guilty of larceny.
*borrow car for a day & decide to keep
Larceny - Abandoned property/Finders
An owner maintains constructive possession of lost or mislaid property. If D finds the property, forms the intent to permanently deprive at the time of finding, and there is a clue as to ownership of the property, there is larceny.
Larceny by Trick
Taking possession (but not title) of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive by means of representation or promise known by the D to be false at the time of taking
Embezzlement
The fraudulent conversion or misappropriation of the property of another by one to whom it has been entrusted either by or for the owner, with the intent to defraud. (already has lawful possession)
False Pretenses
Knowingly obtaining title to the property of another by untrue representations of fact with the intent to defraud (specific intent)
Forgery
The fraudulent making of a false writing that has apparent legal significance, with the intent to defraud.
Creation of a new document, altering an existing one (include improper filling of form), or inducing someone to sign knowing the person does not know the significance. Alteration must be material - change legal meaning or effect.
IF forged instrument is accepted in exchange for money or goods, D will also be guilty of false pretenses.
Extortion
Larceny by threat of future force
Receiving Stolen Property
The receiving of stolen property, knowing it to be stolen, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
Conspiracy
An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime or perform a lawful act in an unlawful manner with the intent the crime be committed.
Conspiracy - Common Law
The crime was complete at the agreement and two guilty minds were required. Most modern jurisdictions include a requirement of an overt act as evidence of the agreement and many count the agreement itself as the overt act.
Conspiracy - MPC
Follows the unilateral approach and dispenses with the requirement that two people agree. (one may feign agreement)
Conspiracy - Agreement
The agreement can be express or implied from cooperative actions of the parties involved. (acting in concert)
Wharton Rule
Crimes which by definition require two perpetrators to complete, cannot be charged with conspiracy unless involves an additional person who is not essential to the definition of the crime.
Conspiracy - Co-conspirator Liability
Pinkerton rule: Any crime committed by one or more that is in furtherance of the conspiracy AND a reasonably foreseeable result, all conspirators may be liable.
Attempt
A specific intent to commit a crime with a significant overt act that goes beyond mere preparation and enters the zone of perpetration.
At CL, D was required to have performed the "last act", modernly must enter the zone of perpetration - substantial step. (merges into the completed crime)
Attempt - Factual Impossibility
is NO defense. D thinks he can commit crime, but factually cannot (picks empty pocket)
Attempt - Legal Impossibility
is a valid defense. D did what he intended and thought was a crime, but does not constitute a crime. (sold oregano instead of MJ)
Requirements for accomplice liability
Aiding or abetting a perpetrator in committing a crime and the intent that the crime be committed. Accomplice is held criminally liable for the crimes of the perpetrator plus all foreseeable crimes that occur as a consequence.
Intoxication Involuntary
Resulting from the use of force, immediate and direct duress or intoxicating substances used unknowingly is a complete defense if intoxication reached a level of insanity as defined by the jurisdiction or negates mental state.
Intoxication Voluntary
No defense to general intent and will not negate recklessness, negligence, or strict liability. May be valid defense for a specific intent crime if it negates the requisite mental state, but never when the intent was formed prior to intoxication.
Mistake of Fact
Ignorance or mistake as to matter of fact - will prevent liability if it shows that D lacked a mental state essential to commit the crime.
**Defense to SPECIFIC INTENT crime can be reasonable or unreasonable, provided it is in good faith.
**Defense to GENERAL INTENT crime must be reasonable and in good faith.
Mistake of Law
Generally no defense except:
(1) good faith reliance upon a statute later overruled
(2) reasonable reliance upon a judicial decision holding the conduct was not criminal
(3) Reliance upon an official interpretation of the law (excluding lawyer or self)
(4) Where some element of a crime involves knowledge or awareness of the law by the D
What is the definition of murder?
Unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.
What are the four states of mind that can result in malice aforethought?
1. Intent to kill. 2. Intent to inflict great bodily injury. 3. reckless indifference. and 4. intent to commit a felony.
What is the reckless indifference standard?
It is a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life. Also called the abandoned or depraved or malignant heart.
Use of a deadly weapon results in a permissive inference of intent to kill. What can be a deadly weapon?
Any instrument, or in limited circumstances, a part of the body that is used in a manner calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury. Example: driving a speedboat through a group of bathers or firing a bullet into a crowded room.
What is voluntary manslaughter?
It is a killing that would otherwise be murder but is distinguishable from murder by the existence of adequate provocation, i.e., heat of passion.
What are the elements to have adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter?
1. something causing sudden and intense passion such that an ordinary person would lose control, 2. the defendant did in fact, lose control, 3. there was not enough time to cool off, and 4. the defendant, in fact, did not cool off.
Under what two circumstances is adequate provocation most frequently found?
1. Being subject to serious battery or threat of deadly force and 2. finding your spouse in bed with another person.
Under common law, mere words were defined as not being adequate provocation. How do modern courts handle this?
modern courts tend to let the jury decide whether the nature of the words could result in adequate provocation.
What are the two elements for an imperfect self defense recognized in some states?
The defendant started the altercation and then unreasonably but honestly believed he had to use deadly force.
What are the two types of involuntary manslaughter?
1. Criminal negligence, also called recklessness under the Model Penal Code and 2. unlawful act manslaughter.
Does criminal negligence require greater deviation from the reasonable person standard under civil law?
Yes.
What are the two sub-categories of unlawful act manslaughter?
1. Misdemeanor manslaughter rule and 2. lesser felonies, i.e., felonies not included in felony murder.
Murder is always classified as second degree murder unless one of the following two facts exist?
1. deliberate and premeditated. 2. First Degree Felony Murder.
What does deliberate and premeditated mean when classifying a murder as first degree?
Deliberate means a decision made in a cool and dispassionate manner. Premeditated means some actual reflection on the idea of the killing, even if only for a very brief period.
What are the felonies most commonly listed for first degree felony murder?
barrk. B.A.R.R.K. 1. Burglary. 2. Arson. 3. Rape. 4. Robbery. and 5. Kidnapping.
Can states provide different elements for what is deemed to be first degree murder?
yes.
When felony murder doctrine is combined with conspiracy law, the scope of liability becomes very broad. Why?
If in the course of a conspiracy to commit a felony, a death is caused, all members of the conspiracy are liable for murder if the death was caused during the furtherance of the conspiracy and was a foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy.
Must the felony be independent of the killing for the felony murder rule to apply?
Yes. for example, the underlying felony cannot be manslaughter or aggravated battery.
For felony murder, the majority rule is that death must have been the foreseeable result of the felony and most courts find that most deaths were foreseeable. What is the minority rule?
the minority rule does not apply the foreseeability test but requires that the felony be malum in se.
For felony murder rule, the killing must take place during the commission of the felony. But does the fact that the felony was technically completed before the death occurred negate the felony murder doctrine?
No. if the bank guard dies 2 days later from your shotgun blast, you can still be liable under felony murder.
If you are fleeing from a felony and someone dies related to that fleeing, you are subject to the felony murder rule. When does that fleeing end for the purpose of ending the felony murder rule?
When you reach a place of temporary safety.
Can one felon be held liable for the murder of his co-felon by the police or a victim who fights back?
No under the majority rule.
Can a felon be liable for the killing of an innocent third party by the police or a victim of the crime fighting back?
Depends. Under the agency theory, the killing must have been done by the felon or his accomplice to have felony murder liability. Under the proximate cause theory, felons are liable for the deaths of innocent victims caused by someone other than the felon or his accomplice because they put into operation the events that caused the death.
Mens Rea (most likely three)
1. Actual Intent to do the act or cause the harm prohibited by the crime's definition = specific intent crime
2. Malice (maliciously) = can be established by intent or extremely reckless behavior. Mistake regarding a critical fact of crime must be reasonable to be a defense. Voluntary intoxication is not a recognized defense.***only two malice crimes: Murder and Arson
3. Recklessness = General intent crime. If made mistake, must be reasonable. Voluntary intoxication defense not a defense.
Important to know mens rea two different reasons:
1. May ask what mens rea is required
2. Two defenses that hinge on whether it's a specific intent crime or malice and recklessness:
a. Mistake of fact
b. Voluntary intoxication
Homicide: Murder
Murder: (CL) Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought =
a. intent to kill,
b. intent to cause serious bodily harm,
c. extreme indifference to the value of human life (depraved heart), OR
d. intent to commit a felony (felony murder)***felony must be independent of the murder.
Homicide: Manslaughter
Manslaughter: (CL) Unlawful killing of a human being
without
malice aforethought.
Two most common fact patterns:
(a) Involuntary Manslaughter:
Recklessly
causing the death of a person. If D was reckless then it's a
question of degree
for jury to determine if
murder or involuntary manslaughter.
b. Voluntary Manslaughter: Killing that takes place during the
heat of passion after sufficient provocation
(e.g., finding spouse in sex act with another, being physically assaulted).
Extreme emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable excuse.
Attempt
1. Attempt to commit x
2. State must establish two things
a.
specific intent
to commit that crime
b. behavior that got the D in close proximity (very near) the completed crime
(mere preparation not enough)
3. If D charged with attempt murder state must show intent to kill, can't use recklessness or intent to cause serious bodily harm, etc.
4. Majority rule for abandonment = once substantial step taken not a defense.
5. Defenses: Withdrawal requires a fully voluntary, complete renunciation. Legal possibility is a defense - not illegal); Factual impossibility is no defense
Recklessness Mens Rea
Prosecutor must prove:
(1) Extreme deviation from normal behavior
(2) Voluntary intoxication is not a valid defense
(3) If D made a mistake with regard to critical fact found in the definition of the crime it must be a reasonable mistake (e.g., manslaughter requires a reckless killing of a person, if D thinks he was shooting a deer, must have been reasonable)
Recklessly
A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a prohibited result will follow, and this
disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable
person would exercise in that situation.
Recklessness involves both objective
("unjustifiable risk") and subjective ("awareness") elements.
Unless the statute specifies a different degree of fault or is a strict liability offense, the defendant must have acted at least recklessly to be criminally liable. Reckless conduct satisfies a statute requiring wanton conduct.
Mens Rea: Knowing
Knows, believes, or substantially certain that the fact exists
Conspiracy
(1) Definitions: (CL) An agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act.
Majority rule:
An agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act plus some
overt act
in furtherance of that agreement; Mens rea = Specific Intent
(2) Co-conspirators are liable both for the crime of the conspiracy and all foreseeable substance offenses committed in furtherance of the conspiracy
(3) A withdrawal will get D off the hook for all substantive offenses that happen after the withdrawal but does nothing to get rid of the crime of conspiracy which is completed at the time of the agreement (CL).
(4) To have a successful withdrawal a person must voluntarily give it up and communicate it to all other participants in time for them to change their plans
(5) A D can be found guilty of both conspiracy and the substantive offense
(6) At common law required two guilty parties, thus feigning agreement or the other party being acquitted precludes a conviction of the remaining D. MPC changes that to unilateral approach.
Transferred Intent
Applies when the original intent was to commit a very similar crime.
Won't apply if the original intent was to do something legal in the first place.
Larceny
The intentional taking and carrying away of the personal property in the possession of another without consent with the intent to permanently deprive the other of the property.
Specific intent crime: Intent to take the property, and intent to carry it away
***Carrying away = slightest movement of property after in control by D is enough
***Intent to permanently deprive must exist at the time of the taking.
Embezzlement
Theft by a high-level employee from the employer or theft by a person in a position of trust (e.g., attorney, accountant, bank manager)
Larceny v. Embezzlement
If high level of employee with control over property for a large amount of time and there is a theft by that employee, then embezzlement is the answer
If low-level employee with control over property for a limited amount of time then larceny
False Pretenses
The D persuades the owner of property to convey title by false pretenses. ***TITLE is key.
Property Crimes
Specific Intent Crime
Prosecution must prove:
1. An actual intent (recklessness, etc. won't do it)
2. If D made a mistake with regard to fact defined in crime and thus didn't have intent, it doesn't make any difference if reasonable or not, it's a defense, not guilty
3. Voluntary intoxication is a defense, but D must have been so drunk to not know what he was doing
Malice Crimes
Reckless intent required:
Murder
Arson
Burden of Proof
Two rules to know:
1. The state must prove each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.***Each behavior, each mental state, and each result must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. If the defense is that one of the elements of the crime has not been established, the D only has to raise a reasonable doubt. For all other defenses, the state can if it wants to require the D to establish the defense with a preponderance of the evidence. For example, mental illness, entrapment, self-defense may require D to show with a preponderance of the evidence.
Double Jeopardy
D cannot be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense.
1. Jeopardy attaches at the first proceeding.**
In a jury trial not until the jury is sworn.
**In a bench trial it attaches when the first witness on the issue of the guilt of the D is sworn.
2. Assuming jeopardy has attached, are there exceptions that will allow the prosecutor to retry the D. **
The first trial ended in a hung jury;
*
D convicted, appeals and makes request for second trial that is granted;
**First trial ended in a mistrial which was not the result of the prosecutor's misconduct (aka mistrial by manifest necessity).
3. What is meant by same offense? Two crimes are not the same offense if each requires proof of a fact that the other does not. Crime 1 requires proof of facts abc, crime 2 requires proof of ab and x. Not the same. Each requires proof of fact that the other does not. Crime 1 requires proof of facts ab; crime 2 requires proof of ab and C. The same offense for purposes of double jeopardy. Crime 1 is a lesser-included offense.
Murder (Mens Rea)
Malice aforethought
Manslaughter (Mens Rea)
Recklessness
Heat of Passion
Rape
Recklessness***Voluntary intoxication is not a defense and if D claims it was a mistake, it has to be a reasonable one.
Three important defenses
1. Self Defense
2. Mistake of fact: Only a defense when the mistake negates intention. For specific intent crimes = always a defense. For malice or general intent = must be reasonable. Never a defense for strict liability crimes.
3. Voluntary intoxication�Available for specific intent crimes (arson & 1st degree murder)
Factual Impossibility
Not a defense to:
Conspiracy
Attempt
Legal Impossibility
Defense to:
Attempt
Specific Intent Crimes (and unique defense)
Students Can Always Fake A Laugh, Even For Ridiculous Bar Facts:
Solicitation
Conspiracy
Attempt
First degree murder
Assault
Larceny
Embezzlement
False pretenses
Robbery
Burglary
Forgery
Voluntary intoxication is a defense
MPC - Purposely
A person acts purposely when his conscious object is to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain resuIt.
MPC - Knowingly
A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is of a particular nature or that certain circumstances exist. Also, he is deemed to be aware of these circumstances when he is aware of a high probability that they exist and deliberately avoids learning the truth.
He acts knowingly with respect to the result of his conduct when he knows that his
conduct will necessarily or very likely cause a particular result. Knowing conduct
frequently satisfies a statute requiring wi1lful conduct (but note: some criminal
statutes define willfulness as requiring that the defendant act knowingly and intentionally/purposely).
MPC - Recklessly
A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a prohibited result will follow, and this disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in that situation.
Recklessness involves both objective
(" unjustifiable risk") and subjective ("awareness") elements.
Unless the statute specifies a different degree of fault or is a strict liability offense, the defendant must have act ed at least recklessly to be criminally liable. Reckless conduct satisfies a sta tute requiring wanton conduct
1st Degree Murder
First-degree murder: The intent to kill can be formed in an instant and a specific intent to kill can be inferred from firing a weapon at a vital part of a person's body.