This lesson, which assumes students are familiar with the basic requirement that every material element have a state of mind, addresses the state of mind that applies to each element when one or more states of mind are contained in an MPC criminal statute.
This lesson looks at the treatment of mistakes of fact and law as they relate to elements of offenses under the Model Penal Code.
This is an advanced lesson that demonstrates how the Model Penal Code rules of construction treat mistakes with regard to elements of defenses.
This lesson explains how the MPC deals with the maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse." It addresses the general rule that a defendant need not know his or her conduct is criminal and looks at the exceptions to that general rule found in MPC § 2.04(3)(b).
This exercise provides an overview of the concept of causation. Factual cause is distinguished from legal cause, and causation in general from mens rea and attempt. Specific issues covered include simultaneous causes, different victim, different manner, and different injury.
This is a basic lesson covering the common law doctrine of concurrence. At common law, crimes required not only an actus reus and a mens rea but concurrence of the two.
This lesson focuses on the distinctions between justification and excuse defenses. Many of the major legal scholars and commentators have distinguished justification and excuse defenses. However, the modern view often blurs the distinction. This lesson points out the principal theoretical distinctions as well as the areas of substantial confusion or controversy with respect to classification, both at common law and under the Model Penal Code. The lesson also describes those circumstances in which classification one way or the other makes a difference.
Excuses I provides a general introduction to excuse defenses by placing them within the larger context of the analysis of criminal liability. More specifically, Excuses I covers duress, entrapment, and mistake (or "ignorance"). Insanity and infancy are covered in Excuses II.
Excuses II covers the excuses of insanity and infancy. As in Excuses I, the connection between these defenses and other issues in the analysis of criminal liability is emphasized. Excuses II is a freestanding exercise and provides a general introduction to the concept of an excuse. Still, it's probably best used in conjunction with Excuses I.
This is a lesson dealing with the basic justification defense of self-defense. Understanding the basics of self-defense is essential to understanding many or all of the justification defenses. The purpose of this lesson is to present very simply the elements of self-defense.
The focus of this lesson is on battered women, but there are others who might be identified as qualifying for a defense on the same theory. Included could be battered husbands, elderly parents, children, and so forth. Thus, this lesson will explore a number of the issues involved in the invocation of self-defense by such persons and to allow the student to test his or her understanding of how the defense works in such circumstances. The lesson explores when and how the defense can be invoked in various scenarios involving abused persons, and also considers the use of experts and jury instructions.
This lesson covers the subject of defense of others. In many respects an actor's right to defend another parallels his or her right to defend himself or herself. However, there are some specific exceptions and nuances that must be understood. It is the purpose of this lesson to cover those specifics and nuances in the context of some classic scenarios.