Criminal Law 640 Professor Faulk Fall 2010 Criminal Law Common Law/ Model Penal Code Comparisons

1. Actus Reus 2. Mens Rea 3. Causation (for result crimes) Actus Rea: (1) a voluntary act (2) that causes (3) social harm. Common Law Requires affirmative, Volitional movement; intention to commit a crime is insufficient to convict if there is no evidence of an act putting that intent into effect. Criminal actor expresses evil intent through act Conduct Crimes Result Crimes: prohibited result Attendant Circumstances: element must be present at the time and/or causes prohibited result Possession: Mere presence + Intent to posses + power to possess = conviction Mere presence possession Omission: Duty based on relationship statute contract voluntary assumption of care creations of peril control the conduct of others There is no duty to do what you are incapable of doing You must be aware of the circumstances before a duty exists Willful omissiondeath = murder Negligent omissiondeath = manslaughter Model Penal Code There must be a voluntary act or omission Conduct: physical activity (affirmative act), possession lists bodily movements that are involuntary Conduct + result + attendant circumstances

Possession: Possession is an act if: knowingly procured OR knowingly received the thing OR was aware of control for sufficient period of time Omission: Consistent with C/L Omission is expressly made sufficient by law defining offense A duty to perform the omitted acts is otherwise imposed by law

Mens Rea: guilty mind/culpability C/L Intentionally MPC- Purposeful A person "intentionally" causes the social It is the conscious object of the criminal actor harm of an offense if: (1) it is his desire (i.e., to bring about result his conscious object) to cause the social harm; or (2) he acts with knowledge that the social harm is virtually certain to occur as a result of his conduct.

C/L Criminal Negligence

gross deviation from the standard of reasonable care. A person is criminally negligent if he takes a substantial, unjustifiable risk of causing the social harm that constitutes the offense charged.

Three factors come into play when determining whether a reasonable person would have acted as the defendant did:
1. the gravity of harm that foreseeably would result from the defendants conduct; 2. the probability of such harm occurring; and 3. the burden to the defendant of desisting from the risky conduct.

MPC Criminal Negligence Criminal actor should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. (inadvertent) Failure to perceive the risk is a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person. Objective

Objective Standard: should have been aware CL Reckless proof that the defendant disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which he was aware. subjective fault, in that the defendant was in fact aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk

MPC Reckless The Criminal Actor is aware of and disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Advertent. Disregard for the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of a law-abiding citizen Subjective

C/L Knowingly MPC Knowing A person has "knowledge" of a material fact Practically certain that the result will occur. if he is aware of the fact or he correctly believes that it exists. Sometimes, knowledge of a material fact an attendant circumstance

 is a required element of an offense. "wilful blindness" or "deliberate ignorance," i.e., if the defendant 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.

If one is aware of high probability of existence of a particular fact, unless he actually believes it doesnt exist, he is still culpable If there is a high probability of existence, knowledge is established

CL: Willfulness has been held in different jurisdictions to be synonymous with other terms, e.g., "intentional," "an act done with a bad purpose," "an evil motive," or "a purpose to disobey the law." It means no more than that the person charged with the duty knows what he is doing. It does not mean that, in addition, he must suppose that he is breaking the law. Specific Intent: includes an intent or purpose to do some future act,

Model Penal Code ?

or to achieve some further consequence (i.e., a special motive for the conduct), beyond the conduct or result that constitutes the actus reus of the offense, * provides that the defendant must be aware of a statutory attendant circumstance, e.g., "receiving stolen property with knowledge that it is stolen."

MPC no longer recognizes the distinction between general and specific intent. Rather, it spells out what is required for each crime.

General Intent: definition does not contain any specific intent beyond that which relates to the actus reus itself.

(See above)

Strict Liability: usually public welfare crimes Common Law Malum prohibita Statutory rape, regulatory offenses 1. Cts look at legislative intent to determine meaning 2. Primary definition: dictionary for Model Penal Code does not recognize strict liability, except with respect to offenses graded as "violations." Must show some moral culpability.

meaning of words; common word usage 3. Statute absent other provision; did legislature intended to leave out? 4. Punishment with crime 5. Social Policy 6. Due Process/Principle of Legality No need to show culpable mental state (Transferred Intent)

Vs. criminal is punishing for guilty mind (M.R)

Causation: serves to show a criminal actor is responsible (singled out) and punished for exact level of moral culpability Actual Causation: But for Exclusions: 1. Physical conditions are not causes 2. Human acts having no bearing on later event 3. Substantial Factor Test: Rare with 2 or more culpable people and acts Proximate (Legal) Cause: who should be held morally responsible for harmful result 1. Foreseeablity + Fairness A. Sequential cause: intervening can be dependent or independent. Independent supercedes moral culpability and breaks the chain of causation B. Concurrent Causes: 2 equally culpable for single result= both are liable C. Intervening Causes: Response(reactions) does not break the chain unless abnormal and unforeseeable vs. Coincidences (unrelated) breaks unless they are foreseeable D. Responses breaks the chain of causation if are unforeseeable and abnormal; coincidences do not break the chain of causation if they are foreseeable. E. Apparent Safety Doctrine: A defendants unlawful act that puts a victim in danger may be found to be the proximate cause of resulting harm, unless the victim has a route to safety but instead puts herself in further harm, which causes the injury of death. MPC: Causation But for: ok Proximate: issues relating instead to the defendants culpability; in order to find the defendant is culpable, the social harm actually inflicted must not be "too remote or accidental in its occurrence from that which was designed, contemplated or risked. Criminal Homicide- common law homicide consists of the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being a) causal 1) Actual + Proximate b) Killing(actus reus) c) Another human being (result crime must achieve result of dead body)

MPC: if he unjustifiably and inexcusably takes the life of another human being Murder: unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought. Malice (M.R): Express: deliberate intention to unlawfully take away life of a fellow human (actual intention) Implied: Death is caused by an act which discloses abandoned state of mind = to actual intent. A) killing takes place w/intent to cause SBI, B) circumstances show heart devoid of social duty and fatally bent on mischief, C)commission of a felony Common Law 4 ways to satisfy mens rea requirement: Intent to kill Intent to commit serious bodily injury Extreme Recklessness/Depraved Heart (depraved heart) Intent to commit dangerous felony: BARRK Four limitations to F-M: 1)felony must be inherently dangerous look at elements in the abstract 2) the death must occur during the attempt or commission of, or immediately thereafter; causal connection to felony 3) the felony must be independent or have an independent felonious purpose no bootstrapping 4) the felon must have done the killing Agency approach; and all felons liable for the killing by one of co-conspirators Model Penal Code: A homicide is murder if the defendant intentionally takes a life, or if he acts with extreme recklessness 3 ways to prove Purposefully, knowingly (differs from willinglydid away with malice aforethought) Extreme Recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to human life (depraved heart, subjective view of recklessness)- includes F-M The Code also provides for felony-murder by setting forth that extreme recklessness (and, thus, murder) is presumed if the homicide occurs while the defendant is engaged in, or is an accomplice in, the commission, attempted commission, or flight from one of the dangerous felonies specified in the statute. During a dangerous felony extreme recklessness of act presumed if engaged in commission of robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, but felony murder is not adopted per se

Beginning of Life: fetus born and alive; some jurisdictions allow for non-medical killing of fetus Death must be shown to have occurred: cessation of the heart/ cessation of brain waves Criminal liability for the natural and probable consequences of unlawful acts Degrees of murder; The deliberation-Premeditation formula (only for punishment reasons)

Deliberation a cool mind that is capable of reflection, weighs pros & cons Premeditation The cool mind did in fact reflect before his act of killing, at least for a short period of time. Murder in the first degree: (capital - (NO DEGREES) Felony of first degree punishment) 1) purposely conscious object intent to kill + premeditated +deliberate 2) knowingly intent felony murder w/ BARRK 3) recklessly extreme indifference for human life torture, poison, lying in wait, bomb 4) F-M can rebut presumption of (scheme to kill) recklessness by showing that D had not shown extreme disregard for human life but was careless Murder in the 2nd degree (not result of deliberation and premeditation) 1) Depraved of heart/Extreme Recklessness 2) Intent to kill wout Prem. And Delib. 3) F-M w/non BARRK 4) Intent to cause SBI Premeditation No set time required, only that intention occurred at time of killing or beforehand decision overruled in so far as it suggests that premed and delib could come into existence at time of killing If there is assault by both parties and sudden emotion, it becomes voluntary manslaughter gives 6 circumstances used to determine premeditation o Want of provocation on part of dead o Conduct and statements of defendant before and after killing o Threats and declarations of defendant before and during course of occurrences giving rise to killing o Ill-will or previous difficulty between defendant and victim o Dealing of lethal blows after deceased rendered helpless o Evidence that the killing was brutal Manslaughter: Voluntary Manslaughter unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. 5. Mitigating circumstance such as adequate provocation-- sudden discovery of adultery - mutual combat - assault & battery - Ds illegal arrest - imperfect self-defense

in some juris. Diminished capacity words alone not adequate

an intentional homicide committed in "sudden heat of passion" as the result of "adequate provocation" mitigates the offense to voluntary manslaughter. Common Law: Manslaughter Voluntary: Heat of passion on adequate provocation Imperfect Self Defense (excessive force; initial aggressor or unreasonable belief) Diminished Capacity (intoxication) Objective test for sufficiency of provocation Subjective for Reasonable Person 4 for heat of passion requisites 1) Reasonable Provocation 2) Def. must have in fact been provoked; 3) Reasonable man so provoked would not have cooled off in the interval of time between provoked and delivery of fatal blow 4) Def. must not have in fact cooled off Words alone not enough Reasonable Provocation: 1. Actor has been violently assaulted by the deceased 2. attempt to arrest accused unlawfully 3. mutual combat unsought by accused 4. one spouse sees another committing adultery Inadequate Provocation: inadequate to completely justify or exonerate the actor but significant enough to have bearing on wrongful act Involuntary: no malice and unintentionally Criminal negligence or Recklessness Misdemeanor Manslaughter: unintended killing caused during the commission of a misdemeanor General intent felony Omission to act when there is a duty to act Should be aware CL: Battery- result crime 3 MPC Manslaughter No distinction between voluntary and involuntary recklesslyaware of the risk, but consciously disregards it; advertant; subjective; purposefully or knowingly, but committed under extreme mental disturbance (heat of passion)- allows a prolonged festering for
which there is a "reasonable explanation or excuse."

"determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendants situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be." No rigid cooling off period and words alone
can be used for jury instruction No Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule Words alone not enough

Negligent Homicide Committed negligentlyought to have been aware of the risk; inadvertent; objective

MPC: Battery

general intent 1. unlawful application of force (A.R.) 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in injury or offensive contact (causation required) must have intent to touch/injure (M.R.) intentionally, recklessness, criminal negligence CL: Attempted Battery Assault (specific intent) attempt to commit battery A.R present ability (gun must have bullets) intent to batter or injure M.R.

No battery only bodily injury- see assault

CL: Intentional Scaring Assault (specific intent) *victims state of mind

MPC: Simple Assault attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes Bodily Injury to another (Battery) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent SBI

acts in a threatening manner to put another in fear of immediate harm

Threatening conduct-AR Intent to scare or frighten the victim- MR Creation of reasonable apprehension of immediate physical harm

Aggravated Assault: attempts to cause SBI to another or causes such injury purposely, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life CL: Rape (general intent) 1) vaginal penetration 2) woman; not his wife 3) by force or threat of force 4) w/o consent (against her will) *unconscious or drugged, fraud in the factum v. fraud in inducement Statutory Rape: 12 years or younger MPC: Rape- purposely, knowingly, or recklessly 1.sexual intercourse 2. female; not his wife 3. he compels her to submit by force or by threat imminent death, SBI, extreme pain or kidnapping OR female is unconscious 6. female is less than 10 yrs old * not voluntary social companion = felony of the first degree Statutory Rape: does not recognize any strict liability crimes, and thus does not recognize statutory rape, although it does

punish sexual intercourse by a man with a female less than 10 years of age if he knew or should have known the females age CL: Burglary (specific) 6 1) Breaking: actual or constructive (fraud) 2) Entering 3) Of Another 4) Dwelling 5) At night: a period between sunset & sunrise during which there is not enough daylight to discern a mans face 6) w/ intent to commit a felony therein (M.R.) MPC: Burglary (no breaking; no felony but crime) Felony of 3rd degree: enters building or occupied structure (affirmative def-if building abandoned) purpose to commit a CRIME Felony of the second degree dwelling of another at nighttime- hour OR purposely, knowingly, recklessly inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily injury Theft: Larceny, False pretenses, embezzelment 1. takes (or exercises dominion and control) 2. over moveable property 3. of another 4. with the purpose 5. to deprive

Larceny: specific- crime against lawful possession (1) trespassory: with out consent (2) taking: dominion and control (3) and carrying away : asportation (4) of the personal property: (5) of another (6) with the intent to deprive him of it permanently. Look to see at time of taking
if there was fraudulant intent? Borrow?

Breaking the Bulk: lawful possession; but not lawful possession of contents By trick: Finders of lost Property: Reasonable Clue: 1.knowledge of owner or reason to believe owner could be found; 2. intent to keep for ones self- steal at time of taking Misdelivered Property: 1. if discovered at time =intent at taking = yes Due diligence

2. discovered later = no intent at taking = no * no evil intent if dont know at time is happening at time of taking Custody vs Possession Custody: of property if he has physical control over it, but his right to use it is substantially restricted= employee possession of property when he has sufficient control over it to use it in a reasonably unrestricted manner; lawful possession= Embezzelment Robbery: (1) trespassory (2) taking (3) and carrying away from (4) the personal property of (5) another with (6) the intent to steal the property. (7) with force or threat of force (8) from victims person, or in her presence

Robbery 6. inflicts SBI upon another 7. threatens another with or purposely puts him in fear of immediate SBI

Embezzelment:6 1. Conversion (someone elses property to own) 2. personal property 3. of another 4. in lawful possession 5. entrustment 6. with intent to steal False Pretenses: 6 1.False 2 representation 3knows is false 4victim in reliance 5part with title to property 6with intent to defraud

Incomplete crimes difficult to prove because of moral blame

Complete- does every act but does not achieve result Incomplete Attempt: intervening act stops from being complete CL: Attempt (all specific intent) MPC: Attempt Intentionally commits an act w the further Acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime he: intention to commit the target offense (MR) MR-Purposely engages in conduct that *attempted murder only MR is intent to kill would constitute the crime if attendant circumstances where as he believes them AR- An act beyond mere preparation to be into a zone of perpetration (AR)shifts the focus to what the defendant has already done. Incomplete attempt- has not reached final step or everything necessary to effectuate the crime Dangerous Proximity Test: Substantial Step Test: (Subjective Test): Did the actor come close to completing the focuses on what has already been done crime acting with culpability for the commission Probably desistance Test: of the crime Would the actor have desisted? step is strongly corroborative of the actors subjective criminal intent Equivocality Test: Is there another explanation for the behavior? Behavior standing alone speaks for its self must have culpability to commit a crime Six circumstances which shall not be held there can be no attempt of negligent homicide insufficient as a matter of law: Defenses: Abandonment lying in wait, searching for, following 1) Voluntary and Complete victim abandonment: CL-no reconnoitering the place contemplated Modern: yes unlawful entry 2) Involuntary-Never! possession of specially designed materials possession of materials at or near place of commission soliciting an agent to engage in conduct Legal Impossibility: Abandonment: (1) he abandons his effort to commit the crime or prevents it from being Pure Legal: a situation in which the defendant attempts to commit a crime but committed; and (2) his conduct manifests a complete and voluntary renunciation of his his actions would not constitute a crime criminal purpose. COMPLETE DEFENSE Legal Impossibility: The only defense No factual Impossibility Defense

Factual Impossibility: Is unaware of a fact that makes his crime impossible of execution (picking a pocket

that is empty) Never a defense Hybrid Impossibility: No hybrid defense Goal is illegal but Defendant makes a mistake of fact relating to a legal status relevant to the law- mistake is about a fact that has legal status ( shooting a dead man) Not a defense to attempt charge Solicitation CL: Solicitation (Specific Intent) MPC: Solicitation purpose is to promote or facilitate the commission the intent that the person commit the crime of a offense (MR) with such purpose, he commands, encourages or Asks, incites, invites, requests, commands or encourages- another to engage in conduct constituting crime * Merger: solicitation= moment they say yes= conspiracy, attempt or crime 1. No defense if solicitant does not respond. KEY: regardless of whether inducements prove successful, there is concern to protect citizens from being exposed to inducements to commit or join the commission of the crimes 2. majority rule: no defense to renunciation nor withdrawal. Affirmative defense if renounce or successfully prevent the crime.
requests another person to engage in conduct that would constitute the crime, an attempt to commit it, or would establish the other persons complicity in its commission or attempted commission

Renunciation:
completely and voluntarily renounces his criminal intent either persuades the solicited party not to commit the offense or otherwise prevents him from committing the crime

Conspiracy CL: Conspiracy (no merger) MPC: Conspiracy (merge) + overt act with purpose of promoting/facilitating MR- the intent to agree and the intent to commission of offense, commit an underlying offense agrees with such other person or persons AR- agreement between 2 or more persons that they or one or more of them will to act in concertsome jurisdictions engage in conduct which constitutes such require an Overt Act crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime KEY: protection of society from the All members of conspiracy need not

know each other For the individual to terminate his part in the conspiracy, must advise others of abandonment or inform law enforcement of the conspiracy Whartons Rule: an agreement between 2 Unilateral Theory: individual is liable if he people to commit a particular crime cannot be agrees with another person prosecuted as a conspiracy when the crime necessarily requires the participation of 2 persons for the completion Pinkerton Rule: once party has joined Rejection of Pinkerton: just being a member conspiracy, liability attaches for acts within of a conspiracy, with no other aiding, is not the scope and in furtherance of the enough to be convicted of substantive conspiracy. Also reasonably foreseeable crimemust use accomplice liability subsequent acts maybe included Some jurisdiction require actual action: No person can be convicted unless an mere preparation may be okaybut more overt act is done by him or co-conspirator than knowledge, promotion of venture Overt act may be mere preparation If tried in same trial, need two for Abandonment presumed if there is no conviction; if separate trials, can have just overt act one conspirator Abandonment: not only renounce his Abandonment: communicated his criminal purpose but to also thwart the withdrawal to each co-conspirator. success of the conspiracy Parties to a Crime (Accomplice Liability) : 1. AR -aid in perpetrating the crime 2. MR- a. intent to aid b. intent that the crime be committed CL: Accomplices Principal in the 1st Degree: The person who actually commits the crime, self or through innocent agent Principal in the 2nd Degree: Person is present (actual) when crime is committed by another Person who aided and abets in its commission but who takes no part in the actual commission of the felony Can be constructivea look out Must have same mens rea as principal To be found guilty Principal must be found guilty Accessory Before the Fact: MPC: Liability for Conduct of Others
his purpose is to promote or facilitate the commission of a the offense

danger of concerted activity and multiple party criminal offenses

Accomplice When: Aids/agrees/attempts to aid in planning or committing

 Commands, Aids and abets the commission of a crime Not present at the time of the crime merged with principal 2nd Accessory After the Fact: Aids criminal after crime committed Elements *Felony must be completed *Knowledge of felony *Aid the Felon for purpose of hindering apprehension or conviction * must not be the principle Individual and separate crime Conviction of a principal is not a condition precedent to the conviction of an accessory after the fact. Liable for all foreseeable consequences IF repents or countermands the acts before crime is committed then not guilty

Rejects foreseeable consequences doctrine liable for crimes which he intended to aid or encourage

Corporate Liability: agent acting with in scope of employment on behalf of corporations in furtherance of corporations business Vicarious Liability: can hold employer responsible for employees (AR)- Strict Liability=no MR Defenses: Justification Defense: Focus on the ACT; act is not longer considered UNLAWFUL Objective: sometimes more good than harm comes from breaking the law; life saving then criminal stigma is powerless to modify behavior; when faced with 2 evils, law should be flexible to embrace the lesser of 2 evils Self Defense: Good faith (subjective) Reasonable belief (objective) Imminent threat of death or SBI Defendant does not escalate the level of force Defendant is not initial aggressor Defense of Others: One may use reasonable force in defense of another subject to: Majority: one who intervenes in a struggle between strangers under the mistaken, but reasonable belief, that he is protecting another who he assumes is being unlawfully

beaten is thereby exonerate from criminal liability Minority: one who aids a 3rd party does so at his peril Defense of Habitation: Castle Doctrine: one is not bound to retreat from his house, even if he may do so with safety to avoid taking the life an assailant. He may stand his ground and kill aggressor if necessary. Privilege to take life of another if dweller reasonable believes that the threatened entry is for the purpose of committing a felony or inflicting great bodily harm upon occupant Allows for rule to be extended to social guests and servants Extended to Business premises English Rule: Retreat to the Wall Necessity: faces a difficult choice between abiding law & suffering great harm OR breaking the law and suffering lesser harm Necessity is probably no defense to murder Elements: 1) imminent threat of death or SBI- usually force of nature 2) actor reasonable believes action will abate harm 3) harm caused by actor is less than harm avoided (choice of evils) 4) no legal alternative exists 5) legislature has not spoken on the choice of evils 6) actor has clean hands Excuse: Focus on ACTOR. The act is still considered illegal but we EXCUSE the actor because of some condition 1. one more conditions exist personal to the actor 2. Rationale: reality of human frailty under certain conditions; allows jury to take into account Def. mental and physical deficiencies; excuse the act is wrong but not punishable Duress: (not a defense to murder) cannot trade higher act for lower act- not allowed to trade life at all Elements: 1. there be a threat that an accused or an innocent person be immediately killed or SBI 2. there be reasonable apprehension that the threat will be carried out and that apprehension continue throughout the commission of the offense 3. there is no reasonable opportunity to avoid committing the act 4. clean hands *required the Def. show a high level of courage- rarely successful for defense MPC: a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist the coercion.

Insanity: modern law: not an acquittal; governs actor at the time of the criminal act MNaghten Test: Majority Rule: Cognitive test. Elements: 1.The party must labor under a defect of reason from a disease of the mind (must be substantial definable condition) 2. The prevents him from understanding at the time of criminal act either, not both, of the below criteria: a. the nature and quality of the act b. knowledge as to the moral/legal wrongness of his actions Irresistible Impulse Test: Minority view; a volitional test that focuses on the defendants loss of control a. analysis focuses on whether the defendant had a the mental disease that prevented him from controlling his actions MPC TEST: Cognitive and Volitional Elements: As a result of a mental disease or defect: a. The person lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct b. the person lacks substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law Product or Durham Test: Insanity is a complex phenomenon. Jury can find def. not guilty by reason of insanity Excuses a criminal act that is the product of a mental disease Ignorance or Mistake Common Law Mistake of Law: Defendant is unaware of the existence of a law making his conduct illegal= no excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law Defendant makes a mistake concerning the legal effect of some collateral matter and that mistake results in his not understanding the full significance of his actions= available if this mistake prevents the requisite intent= must act with wrongful purpose Model Penal Code Mistake of Law: A defense if it negates the mental state required State of mind established constitutes defense Not available as a defense if would have been charged with another offense had the situation been as he supposed A belief that conduct is not offense is a defense when: Statute not known and has not been published prior to conduct alleged Reliance on official statement of law determined to be invalid or in error Mistake of Fact: Based on s subjective belief Mistake of age is no defenseno defense

Mistake of Fact: Defense only for specific intent crimes must lack mens rea for crime

 Must be an good faith mistake (subjective) for specific intent Must be good faith and reasonable(objective) for general intent (reckless and negligent) Mistake of age is no defense Mayberry Defense: reasonable mistake of fact is incompatible existence of wrongful intent; good faith consented or reasonable

if under 10

Intoxication Common Law Model Penal Code Voluntary Intoxication (failure of proof): Voluntary Intoxication: Not a defense but may be used if it negates Defense if it prevents an accuse from specific intent having the required state of mindbut not always a complete defense Inadmissible to negate general intentnegligence Does not negate recklessness or criminal negligence Involuntary Intoxication (Excuse): Involuntary Intoxication: 1. trick/involuntary Presence or threat of force/duress 2. coerced Defense if intentionally ingests a 3. unexpected by medical drug substance, but mistakenly believes that it 4. pathological intoxication (grossly is not intoxicating excessive considering amount drank)

Rusk v. state. Rape. Force and consent seem difficult to get. Nice to see rape laws are changing.