DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents Model Penal Code Part I. General Provisions Article 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents Model Penal Code Part I. General Provisions Article 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS MODEL PENAL CODE PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1. PRELIMINARY Section 1.01. Title and Effective Date ..................................... 1.02. Purposes; Principles of Construction ......................... 1.03. Territorial Applicability ..................................... 1.04. Classes of Crimes; Violations ................................. 1.05. All Offenses Defined by Statute; Application of General Pro- vibions of the Code .......................................... 1.06. Time Limitations ............................................ ,107. Method of Prosecution "/heyi Conduct Constitutes IMore Than One Offense ............................................... 1.08. When Prosecution Barred by Former Prosecution for the Same Offense .................................................... 1.09. W en Prosecution Barred by Former Prosecution for Different Offense .................................................... 1.10. Former Prosecution in Another Jurisdiction: When a Bar ...... 1.11. Former Prosecution Before Court Lacking Jurisdiction or When Fraudently Procured by the Defendant ...................... 1.12. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt; Affirmative Defenses; Burden of Proving Fact When Not an Element of an Offense; Pre- sumptions ................................................. 1.13. General Definitions .......................................... ARTICLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LIABILITY 2.01. Requirement of Voluntary Act; Omission as Basis of Liability; Possession as an Act ....................................... TABLE OF CONTLNTS (Continued) Section 2.02. General Requircments of Culpability .......................... 2.03. Causal Relationship Between Conduct ard Result; Divergence Between Result Designed or Contemplated and Actual Result or Between Probable and Actual Result .................... 2.04 Ignorance or Mistake ......................................... 2.05 When Culpability Requirements Are Inapplicable to Violations and to Offenses Defined by Other Statutes; Effect of Absolute Liability in Reducing Grade of Offense to Violation .......... 2.06. Liability for Conduct of Another; Complicity ................. 2.07. Liability of Corp'rations, Unincorporated Associations and Per- sons Acting, or Under a Duty to Act, in Their Behalf ....... 2.03 Intoxication .................................................. Z09. Duress ...................................................... 2.10. M ilitary Orders ............................................. 2.11. Consent ..................................................... 2.12. De Minimis Infractions ....................................... 2.13. Entrapment .................................................. ARTICLE 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTIFICATION 3.01. Justification an Affirmative Defense: Civil Renedies Unaffected 3.02. Justification Generally: Choice of Evils ....................... 3.03. Execution of Public Duty .................................... 3.04. Use of Force in Self-Protection ............................... 3.05. Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons ............. 3.06. Use of Force for the Protection of Property .................. 3.07. Use of Force in Law Enforcement ............................ 3.03. Use of Force by Persons With Special Responsibility for Care, Discipline or Safety of Others .............................. 3.09. Mistake of Law as to Unlawfulness of Force or Legality of Arrest; Reckless or Negligent Use of Otherwise Justifiable Force; Reckless or Negligent Injury or Risk of Injury to Innocent Persons .......................................... 3.10. Justification ir. Property Crime .............................. 3.11. Definitions ................................................... TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ARTICLE 4. RESPONSIBILITY Section 4.01. Mental Disease or Defect Excluding Responsibility ............ 4.02. Evidence of Mental Disease or Defect Admissible When Relevant to Element of the Offense; [Miental Disease or Defect Impairing Capacity as Ground for 1litigation of Punishment in Capital Cases] .................................................... 4.03. MNental Disease or Defect Excluding Resp,,nsibility Is Affirmative Defense; Requirement of Notice; Fnrm of Verdict and Judg- zent When Finding of Irresponsibility Is made ............. 4.04. M\ental Disease or Defect Excluding Fitness to Proceed ...... 4.05. Psychiatric Examination of Defendant With Respect to .fental Disease or Defect ....................................... 4.06 Determination of Fitness to Proceed; Effect of Finding of %in- fitness; Proceedings if Fitness Is Regaine, [; Post-Commitment Hearings] ................................................. 4.07. Determination of Irresponsibility on Basis of Report; Access to Defendant by Psychiatrist of His Own Choice; Form of Expert Testimony When Issue of Responsibility Is Tried ...... 4.08. Legal Effect of Acquittal on the Ground of Mental Disease or Defect Excluding Responsibility; Commitment; Relerse or Discharge ................................................. 4.09. Statements for Purposes of Examination or Treatment Inad- missible Except on Issue of Mienad Condition ................ 4.10. Immaturity Excluding Criminal Conviction; Transfer of Pro- ceedings to Juvenile Court ................................ ARTICLE 5. INCHOATE CRIMES 5.01. Criminal Attempt ............................................ 5.02. Criminal Solicitation ......................................... 5.03. Criminal Conspiracy ......................................... 5.04. Incapacity, Irresponsibility or Immunity of Party to Solicitation or Conspiracy ............................................. 5.05. Grading of Criminal Attempt, Solicitation and Conspiracy; Miti- gation in Cases of Lesser Danger; Multiple Convictions Barred 5.06. Possessing Instruments of Crime; Weapons ................... 5.07. Prohibited Offensive Weapons ............................... (xi) TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ARTICLE 6. AUTHORIZED DISPOSITION OF OFFENDERS Section Page 6.01. Degrees of Felonies ........................................ 91 6.02. Sentence in Accordance With Code; Authorized Dispositions .... 91 6.03. Fines ........................................................ 93 6.04. Penalties Against Corporations and Unincorporated Associations; Forfeiture of Corporate Charter or Revocation of Certificate Authorizing Foreign Corporation to Do Business in the State 94 6.05. Young Adult Offenders ...................................... 95 6.06. Sentence of Imprisonment for Felony; Ordinary Terni ........ 97 6.06. (Alternate) Sentence of Imprisonment for Felony; Ordinary Term s ..................................................... 98 6.07. Sentence of Imprisonment for Felony; Extended Terms ......... 99 6.08. Sentence of Imprisonment for Misdemeanors and Petty Misdc- meanors; Ordinary Terms .................................. 10 6.09. Sentence of Imprisonment for Misdemeanors and Petty Misde- meanors; Extended Terms ................................ 100 6.10. First Release of All Offenders on Parole; S-''tence of Imprison- ment Includes Separate Parole Term; Length of Parole Term; Length of Recommitment and Reparole After Revocation of Parole; Final Unconditional Release ........................ 102 6.11. Place of Imprisonment ....................................... 103 6.12. Reduction of Conviction by Court to Lessor Degree of Felony or to Misdemeanor ............................................ 104 6.13. Civil Commitment in Lieu of Prosecutm.t or of Sentence ....... 104 ARTICLE 7. AUTHORITY OF COURT IN SENTENCING 7.01. Criteria for Withholding Sentence of Imprisonment and for Placing Defendant on Probation ............................ 106 7.2. Criteria for Imposing Fines ................................... I'S 7.03. Criteria for Sentence of Extended Tern of Imprisonment; Felonies ................................................... 109 7.04. Criteria for Sentence of Extended Term of Imprisonment; Mis- demeanors and Petty Misdemeanors .......................... 111 (xii) TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 7.05. Former Conviction in Another Jurisdiction; Definition and Proof of Conviction; Scatence Taking into Ac.ount Admitted Crimes Bars Subsequcnt Conviction for Such Crimes ................ 113 7.06. Multiple Sentences; Concurrent and Consecutive Terms ......... 114 7.07. Procedure on Sentence; Pro-sentence Investigation and Report; Remand for Psychiatric Examination; Transmission of Retords to Dcpartrment of Correction ................................ 117 7.08. Commitment for Observation; Sentence of Imprisonment for Felony Deemed Tentative for Period of One Year; Re-sentence on Petition of Commissioner of Correction ............... 120 7.09. Credit for Time of Detention Prior to Sentence; Credit fc. Im- prisonment-Unler Earlier Sentence for the Same Crime ....... 122 PART II. DEFINITION- OF SPECIFIC CRIMES OFFENSES AGAINST EXYSTENCE OR- STABILITY OF THE STATE Reporter's Note ...... ..... ........................... 13 OFFENSES INVOLVING DANGER TO THE PERSON ARTICLE 210. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE 210.0. Definitions ............. ..................................... 124 210.1. Criminal Homicide ........................................... 125 210.2. M urder ...................................................... 125 210.3. Manslaughter ................................................ 126 210.4. Negligent Homicide .......................................... 126 210.5. Causing or Aiding Suicide .................................... 127
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mens Rea in Minnesota and the Model Penal Code Ted Sampsell-Jones William Mitchell College of Law, [email protected]
    Mitchell Hamline School of Law Mitchell Hamline Open Access Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Mitchell Hamline Events Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward 2013 Mens Rea in Minnesota and the Model Penal Code Ted Sampsell-Jones William Mitchell College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/symposium-minnesota- criminal-code Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Sampsell-Jones, Ted, "Mens Rea in Minnesota and the Model Penal Code" (2013). Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward. Paper 4. http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/symposium-minnesota-criminal-code/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mitchell Hamline Events at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DRAFT Mens Rea in Minnesota and the Model Penal Code Ted Sampsell-Jones I. Introduction When Minnesota engaged in the great reform and recodification effort that led to the Criminal Code of 1963, it was part of a nationwide reform movement. That movement was spurred in large part by the American Law Institute and its Model Penal Code. The Minnesota drafters were influenced by the MPC, and at least in some areas, adopted MPC recommendations. The MPC’s most significant innovation was in the law of mens rea—the body of law concerning the mental state or “guilty mind” necessary for criminal liability.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______
    No. 19-373 __________________________________________________ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ________________ JAMES WALKER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent. ________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ________________ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND BRIEF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ________________ EMILY HUGHES DANIEL T. HANSMEIER Co-Chair Amicus Counsel of Record Committee 500 State Avenue NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Suite 201 FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE Kansas City, KS 66101 474 Boyd Law Building (913) 551-6712 University of Iowa [email protected] College of Law Iowa City, IA 52242 Counsel for Amicus Curiae ________________________________________________ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 21, 24, 33.1, and 37(b), the National Association for Public Defense (NAPD) moves this Court for leave to file the attached amicus brief in support of petitioners. The NAPD is an association of more than 14,000 professionals who deliver the right to counsel throughout all U.S. states and territories. NAPD members include attorneys, investigators, social workers, administrators, and other support staff who are responsible for executing the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, including regularly researching and providing advice to indigent clients in state and federal criminal cases. NAPD’s members are the advocates in jails, in courtrooms, and in communities and are experts in not only theoretical best practices, but also in the practical, day-to-day delivery of indigent defense representation. Their collective expertise represents state, county, and federal systems through full-time, contract, and assigned counsel delivery mechanisms, dedicated juvenile, capital and appellate offices, and through a diversity of traditional and holistic practice models.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Against Property
    9 CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Is Alvarez guilty of false pretenses as a Learning Objectives result of his false claim of having received the Congressional Medal of 1. Know the elements of larceny. Honor? 2. Understand embezzlement and the difference between larceny and embezzlement. Xavier Alvarez won a seat on the Three Valley Water Dis- trict Board of Directors in 2007. On July 23, 2007, at 3. State the elements of false pretenses and the a joint meeting with a neighboring water district board, distinction between false pretenses and lar- newly seated Director Alvarez arose and introduced him- ceny by trick. self, stating “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired 4. Explain the purpose of theft statutes. in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Con- gressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by 5. List the elements of receiving stolen property the same guy. I’m still around.” Alvarez has never been and the purpose of making it a crime to receive awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, nor has he stolen property. spent a single day as a marine or in the service of any 6. Define forgery and uttering. other branch of the United States armed forces. The summer before his election to the water district board, 7. Know the elements of robbery and the differ- a woman informed the FBI about Alvarez’s propensity for ence between robbery and larceny. making false claims about his military past. Alvarez told her that he won the Medal of Honor for rescuing the Amer- 8.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Model Penal Code: a Brief Overview
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 7-27-2007 The American Model Penal Code: A Brief Overview Paul H. Robinson University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Markus D. Dubber University at Buffalo Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Criminal Law Commons Repository Citation Robinson, Paul H. and Dubber, Markus D., "The American Model Penal Code: A Brief Overview" (2007). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 131. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/131 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE AMERICAN MODEL PENAL CODE: A BRIEF OVERVIEW Paul H. Robinson* and Markus D. Dubber** Ifthere can be said to be an ':A.merican criminal code, "the ModelPenal Code is it. Nonetheless, there remains an enormous diversity among the fifty-two American penal codes, including some that have never adopted a modern code format or structure. Yet, even within the minority of states without a modern code, the Model Penal Code has great influence, as courts regularly relyupon it to fashionthe law that the state'scriminal code failsto provide. In this essay we provide a briefintroduction to this historic document, its origins, and its content. INTRODUCTION Within the United States, there are fifty-two American criminal codes, with the federal criminal code overlaying the codes of each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Penal Code 5.05 Brief
    § 5.05. Grading of Criminal Attempt, Solicitation and..., Model Penal Code § 5.05 Uniform Laws Annotated Model Penal Code (Refs & Annos) Part I. General Provisions Article 5. Inchoate Crimes Model Penal Code § 5.05 § 5.05. Grading of Criminal Attempt, Solicitation and Conspiracy; Mitigation in Cases of Lesser Danger; Multiple Convictions Barred. Currentness (1) Grading. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, attempt, solicitation and conspiracy are crimes of the same grade and degree as the most serious offense that is attempted or solicited or is an object of the conspiracy. An attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit a [capital crime or a] felony of the first degree is a felony of the second degree, (2) Mitigation. If the particular conduct charged to constitute a criminal attempt, solicitation or conspiracy is SO inherently unlikely to result or culminate in the commission of a crime that neither such conduct nor the actor presents a public danger warranting the grading of such offense under this Section, the Court shall exercise its power under Section 6.12 to enter judgment and impose sentence for a crime of lower grade or degree or, in extreme cases, may dismiss the prosecution. (3) Multiple Convictions. A person may not be convicted of more than one offense defined by this Article for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in the commission of the same crime. Editors' Notes EXPLANATORY NOTE Subsection (1) establishes the general principle that attempt, solicitation and conspiracy are crimes of the same grade and degree as the most serious substantive offense that is their object.
    [Show full text]
  • Conditional Intent and Mens Rea
    Legal Theory, 10 (2004), 273–310. Printed in the United States of America Published by Cambridge University Press 0361-6843/04 $12.00+00 CONDITIONAL INTENT AND MENS REA Gideon Yaffe* University of Southern California There are many categories of action to which specific acts belong only if performed with some particular intention. Our commonsense concepts of types of action are sensitive to intent—think of the difference between lying and telling an untruth, for instance—but the law is replete with clear and unambiguous examples. Assault with intent to kill and possession of an illegal drug with intent to distribute are both much more serious crimes than mere assault and mere possession. A person is guilty of a crime of attempt— attempted murder, for instance, or attempted rape—only if that person had the intention to perform a crime. Under the federal carjacking law, an act of hijacking an automobile counts as carjacking only if performed with the intention to kill or inflict serious bodily harm on the driver of the car.1 In all of these cases, the question of whether or not a particular defendant had the precise intention necessary for the crime can make a huge difference, often a difference of years in prison, but sometimes literally a difference of life or death; sometimes whether the crime is one for which the death penalty can be given turns solely on the question of whether or not the actor had the relevant intention. Now, we ordinarily recognize a distinction between a conditional inten- tion to act, which we might express with the words “I intend to A if X,” and an unconditional intention to perform the same action.
    [Show full text]
  • The Validity of Criminal Adultery Prohibitions After Lawrence V. Texas
    VIATOR_NOTE_FINAL.DOC 4/15/2006 12:03 PM The Validity of Criminal Adultery Prohibitions After Lawrence v. Texas “[O]ur Massachusetts magistracy . have not been bold to put in force the extremity of our righteous law against her. The penalty thereof is death. But in their great mercy and tenderness of heart they have doomed Mistress Prynne to stand only a space of three hours on the platform of the pillory, and then and thereafter, for the remainder of her natural life to wear a mark of shame upon her bosom.”1 I. INTRODUCTION Although Nathaniel Hawthorne has forever immortalized the crime of adultery as an icon of Massachusetts’ Puritan heritage, most are surprised to learn that adultery is still a crime in the Commonwealth – a felony, in fact, carrying a maximum sentence of three years in state prison.2 The most recent successful prosecution under this statute took place just over twenty years ago in Commonwealth v. Stowell.3 Despite admission by the Supreme Judicial Court that the crime had “fallen into a very comprehensive desuetude,” the court upheld the conviction, explaining that the statute remained a judicially enforceable expression of public policy.4 Criminal statutes originally enacted in most states reflected the colonial understanding of adultery as primarily an offense against morality and, to a somewhat lesser extent, as an injury to the innocent spouse.5 Although many states have since repealed or modified these statutes, there are currently twenty- three states that continue to recognize adultery as a crime.6 Generally, modern 1. NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE, THE SCARLET LETTER 59 (Bantam Classic ed., Bantam Books 1986) (1850).
    [Show full text]
  • The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American Criminal Law
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 60 Issue 2 Article 1 2008 The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American Criminal Law John F. Decker DePaul University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John F. Decker, The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American Criminal Law, 60 S. C. L. Rev. 239 (2008). This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Decker: The Mental State Requirement for Accomplice Liability in American THE MENTAL STATE REQUIREMENT FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW JOHN F. DECKER* 1. INTROD U CTION .......................................................................................... 239 II. A FACIAL REVIEW OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE ................................. 244 A. Category I Statutes: "Specific Intent". .............................................. 245 B. Category II Statutes: "Statutorily PrescribedMental State" ........ 247 C. Category III Statutes: "Naturaland Probable Consequences........ 249 D. Statutes Requiring "Knowledge" Rather than "Intent" ................... 250 E. Statutes Lacking Any Mental State Requirement ............................... 251 F. Statutes Allowing for a Defense for the Victim of a Crime ................ 253 G. Statutes with Incidental Party Provisions.........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Herbert Wechsler, the Model Penal Code, and the Uses of Revenge Anders Walker Saint Louis University School of Law
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Saint Louis University School of Law Research: Scholarship Commons Saint Louis University School of Law Scholarship Commons All Faculty Scholarship 2009 American Oresteia: Herbert Wechsler, the Model Penal Code, and the Uses of Revenge Anders Walker Saint Louis University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/faculty Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Walker, Anders, American Oresteia: Herbert Wechsler, the Model Penal Code, and the Uses of Revenge. Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 2009, p. 1018, 2009. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. AMERICAN ORESTEIA HERBERT WECHSLER , THE MODEL PENAL CODE , & THE USES OF REVENGE ANDERS WALKER ABSTRACT The American Law Institute recently revised the Model Penal Code’s sentencing provisions, calling for a renewed commitment to proportionality based on the gravity of offenses, the “blameworthiness” of offenders, and the “harms done to crime victims.” Already, detractors have criticized this move, arguing that it replaces the Code’s original commitment to rehabilitation with a more punitive attention to retribution. Yet, missing from such calumny is an awareness of retribution’s subtle yet significant role in both the drafting and enactment of the first Model Penal Code (MPC). This article recovers that role by focusing on the retributive views of its first Reporter, Columbia Law Professor Herbert Wechsler.
    [Show full text]
  • Default Culpability Requirements: the Model Penal Code and Beyond
    12-22-2020 Default Culpability Requirements: The Model Penal Code and Beyond Scott England Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_facultyscholarship Part of the Criminal Law Commons Articles SCOTT ENGLAND* Default Culpability Requirements: The Model Penal Code and Beyond Introduction ........................................................................................ 44 I. The Model Penal Code’s Default Culpability Provision ......... 48 A. Overview of Section 2.02(3) ............................................ 48 B. Strengths of Section 2.02(3) ............................................ 52 C. Shortcomings of Section 2.02(3) ..................................... 54 1. Failing to Anticipate Absolute Liability for Serious Criminal Offenses ......................................... 54 2. Silence About Default Culpability Requirements for Grading Provisions ............................................... 56 II. Default Culpability Provisions in Model Penal Code States .. 58 A. States Without Default Culpability Provisions ................ 59 B. States Fail to Require Culpability for Each Offense Element ............................................................................ 60 C. States Read in Culpability Levels Other than Recklessness .................................................................... 66 D. States Permit Absolute Liability Based on Legislative Intent ................................................................................ 70 E. States Fail to Require Culpability for
    [Show full text]
  • Attempt: an Abbreviated Overview of Federal Criminal Law
    Attempt: An Abbreviated Overview of Federal Criminal Law Updated May 13, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R42002 Attempt: An Abbreviated Overview of Federal Criminal Law Summary Attempt is the incomplete form of some other underlying offense. Unlike state law, federal law does not feature a general attempt statute. Instead, federal law outlaws the attempt to commit a number of federal underlying offenses on an individual basis. Occasionally, federal law treats attempt-like conduct as an underlying offense; outlawing possession of drugs with intent to traffic, for instance. One way or another, it is a federal crime to attempt to commit nearly all of the most frequently occurring federal offenses. Attempt consists of two elements. One is the intent to commit the underlying offense. The other is taking some substantial step, beyond mere preparation, collaborative of the intent to commit the underlying offense. The line between mere preparation and a substantial step can be hard to identify. Some suggest that the more egregious the underlying offense, the sooner preparation will become a substantial step. Defenses are few and rarely recognized. Impossibility to complete an attempted offense offers no real obstacle to conviction. Abandonment of the effort once the substantial-step line has been crossed is no defense. Entrapment may be a valid defense when the government has induced commission of the crime and the defendant lacks predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. The penalties for attempt and for the underlying offense are almost always the same. The United States Sentencing Guidelines may operate to mitigate the sentences imposed for attempts to commit the most severely punished underlying offenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosemond, Mens Rea, and the Elements of Complicity
    KINPORTS FOR PRINT (DO NOT DELETE) 10/30/2018 9:14 AM Rosemond, Mens Rea, and the Elements of Complicity KIT KINPORTS* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................134 II. COMPLICITY THEORY...............................................................................135 III. SECTION 924(C) AND ROSEMOND..............................................................139 IV. PURE CONDUCT CRIMES ..........................................................................143 A. Interpreting § 924(c)......................................................................144 B. Assessing the Mens Rea Implications ............................................145 C. Inferring Purpose from Knowledge ...............................................153 V. CONDUCT PLUS CIRCUMSTANCE CRIMES .................................................156 A. Interpreting § 924(c)......................................................................157 B. Assessing the Mens Rea Implications ............................................161 VI. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................169 * © 2015 Kit Kinports. Professor of Law and Polisher Family Distinguished Faculty Scholar, Penn State Law. I am very grateful to Steve Garvey and faculty workshop participants at DePaul University College of Law for their helpful feedback. 133 KINPORTS FOR PRINT (DO NOT DELETE) 10/30/2018 9:14 AM I. INTRODUCTION The criminal statutes governing accomplice
    [Show full text]