1. Consequentialist Theory a. Actions are morally right if and only if they result in desirable outcomes b. Rely on theory of utilitarianism to justify punishment: Forward looking effects of punishment. General deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation 2. Nonconsequentialist Theory c. Actions are morally wrong in themselves, regardless of the consequences d. Theory of Retributivism: look back at the harm and calibrate the punishment to the crime Theories of Punishment 1) Incapacitation: Incarceration to render them harmless.
2) Retribution: collective condemnation of society bearing down. “Just Deserts” 3) Rehabilitation: give the criminal skills and values to make them a law-abiding citizen 4) General Deterrence: deter other criminals from committing crimes 5) Specific Deterrence: deter the punished criminal from future crimes Justifications for Punishment in Context 1. The case of Thomas Dudley (Eng. 1884): Stranded at sea for 24 days, 2 men conspire and kill a third to eat. Charged with murder and sentenced to death a. Necessity defense doesn’t apply.
Lawfully killing another to save yourself is only in reference to necessity and self-defense (violence towards yourself) Retributive in nature 2. People v Suite: Man owned . 32 caliber pistol, not licensed as required by 1980 legislation. Sentenced to 30 days in jail b. Principle aim of the gun licensing law is general deterrence. Reduction of jail time would proclaim that first time offenses would not result in jail for first time offenders and would declare 30 days to be too harsh/abuse of discretion. Upheld to further principle of general deterrence legislature intended Standards of Proof.
Prosecution: beyond a reasonable doubt (state has high burden b/c innocent until proven guilty) 1. Curley v US: Judge must ask if prosecution has introduced sufficient evidence such that a rational jury could decide that the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If evidence reasonably permits a verdict of acquittal or guilt, decision is for the jury to make. Defense: by the preponderance of the evidence. (self-defense, insanity, necessity) Rule of Lenity When statutory intent is unclear, the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the Defendant.
US v. Dauray Actus Reus Definition: Voluntary Act, social harm A voluntary act that results in social harm, or an omission where there is a duty to act. 1. Thoughts do not constitute criminal acts 2. Actions compelled by the state do not constitute criminal acts 3. Criminal “acts” must be voluntary 4. No liability for omission unless there is a duty to act 5. “Status Crimes” are unconstitutional Cases Act, not thought 1) Proposition against thought crimes- State v Dalton: “act” was the writing of a child molestation diary. Acquitted.
From a deterrence perspective he should not be guilty; from rehabilitation perspective maybe. Since regime is generally geared to deterrence it was the right outcome 2) Hate crimes/speech- Wisconsin v Mitchell: group of black men beats up young white boy a. Rule: Statutes penalizing bigoted motivations (thoughts) are justified b. Rationale: these acts are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, so society has a greater interest in punishing them. Deterrence and retribution justify harsher penalties Voluntary, not involuntary MPC 2. 01: Requirements of Voluntary Act.
(1) A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act. (2) NOT voluntary Acts: reflex/convulsion; bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep; conduct during hypnosis; bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, whether conscious or habitual 3) Acting under State Compulsion- Martin v State: drunk on public highway b/c police brought him there c. Rule: no voluntary act where state compelled the action. d. Rationale: prevent the government from punishing the innocent 4) Involuntary Acts- State v.
Decina: epileptic who knew of his condition drives and kills children e. Rule: an involuntary act can be voluntary when the individual knew of its likelihood and failed to preventatively act f. Rationale: it doesn’t matter if a person is unconscious when the harm occurs as long as the act took place only because, during consciousness, there was bad thinking- here, recklessness or negligence in failure to prevent the harm. He purposefully put himself in a situation that created a further risk. 5) Powell v Texas: Powell charged with public intoxication g.
Rule: Voluntary because he could have prevented his appearance in public h. Rationale: criminalizing involuntary behavior is cruel and unusual (8); this wasn’t involuntary MPC 2. 01: Voluntary, involuntary, omission, possession * Involuntary: Convulsion, moving while unconscious or asleep, conduct during hypnosis, or a movement not a product of the effort or determination of the actor; Voluntary defined by the negative * Omission: liability for an omission cannot arise unless the omission is made sufficient expressly in the language defining the offense, or a duty to perform is imposed by law.
* Possession: D must have been aware of possession for sufficient period to have been able 2 terminate it Status Crimes- Criminalizing a status violates 8th Amendment: Cruel & Unusual 1) Robinson v California: man with track marks charged with narcotics addition a. Rule/Rationale: The act of using narcotics can be criminalized; addiction can’t. Criminal penalties may not be inflicted upon a person for INVOLUNTARY acts. 2) Powell v. Texas: a chronic alcoholic was charged with being drunk in public b. Rule: public drunkenness is not a status crime because it is PUBLIC. c. Rationale: convicted of being D.
I. P. not chronic alcoholic. Volitional act of choosing to drink without preventing oneself from being in public is sufficiently proximate to the inviolate act of going out while drunk to give the state an ACT to punish. 3) Jones v City of Los Angeles: punished behavior on sidewalks 24-7 which homeless people can’t avoid. d. Rule: it is unconstitutional to punish acts arising out of an involuntary status because these acts are also necessarily involuntary. Omissions 1) Omission can be an actus reus where there is a legal duty to act, and D was physically capable of acting.
(mens rea, causation, and concurrence still required) a. Contracts for care b. Special relationships c. Statutory duty d. D created the risk of harm e. D voluntarily assumed care (especially if others are prevented from giving care) 2) People v Beardsley: man and woman get drunk over weekend, she surreptitiously takes morphine and dies after D gave her to someone else to let her sleep it off f. Rule: no legal duty existed because none of the 5 above were present. g. Rationale: a legal duty is not the same as a moral obligation; acquaintances aren’t close enough relationally to create a legal duty without one of the above.
3) Commonwealth v Howard: mother failed to prevent her daughter’s torture and murder by a third party h. Rule: parents have a legal duty to protect their children- special relationship i. Rationale: parents can be legally forced to act; additionally, the omission was the direct cause of the death (medical testimony). 4) Commonwealth v Pestinikas: couple contracted to care for old man for $300/mo j. Rule: failure to care for another is only a breach of a legal duty when the caregiver has undertaken the responsibility of care through contract or voluntarily k.
Rationale: the omission in situation of duty caused harm D could have prevented. Mens Rea Definition The particular mental state provided for in the definition of an offense. Rationale for Requiring Mens Rea Deterrence or Utilitarian Justification: you cannot deter someone who does not have a guilty mind. Retributive Justification: “Just Deserts. ” You should not punish someone who is morally innocent. MPC v Common Law Equivalents of Mens Rea MPC 2. 02(2)|.
Common Law| Purposefully: conscious object to commit| Intent- natural and probable causes| Knowingly: awareness; substantial certainty| Knowledge- aware of the fact, or correctly believes it exists, including willful blindness| Recklessly: conscious disregard of foreseeable risk- subjective standard. Awareness. | Concepts of “recklessness” and “negligence” are often embodied| Negligently: should have been aware of risk and disregard it- reasonable person would have been awareNo distinction b/n general, specific intent| Distinction b/w general, specific intent| CL: Uses the concept of mens rea in many terms: Willfully, wickedly, maliciously, knowingly, intentionally, negligently.
No uniformity across states as to definitions MPC: 4 mental states that are precisely defined. If no mental state is referenced in a statute, read in recklessly. Proving “Intent”, common law- natural and probable consequences doctrine 1. Regina v Cunningham: Son in law stole gas meter to sell; mother-in-law was exposed to coal gas. a. Malice means (i) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that was in fact done or (ii) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (foresaw risk; continued anyways) 2.
State v Fugate: D shoots and kills store owner after forcing him into basement. b. Intent can be inferred from attendant circumstances and composite picture developed by evidence, including instrument used to produce death and the manner of inflicting a fatal wound. c. Intent to kill may be presumed where the natural and probable consequence of a wrongful act is to produce death. 3. Foreseeability Issues: If harm is so foreseeable as to almost be certain to occur, intent can be found. Proving “Knowledge”, common law- willful blindness 1.
US v Jewell: a person acts knowingly for common law if the person is aware of the fact OR correctly believes it exists OR suspects the fact exists and purposefully avoids learning the truth a. Deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable. To act “knowingly” is not necessarily to act only with positive knowledge, but also to act with an awareness of the high probability of the existence of the fact in question. When such awareness is present, “positive” knowledge is not required. Transferred Intent – only where harm is to people; NOT property 1. Regina v Pembliton: D threw stone at enemy, hit window instead.
Intent to hit friends is not intent to hit window; mens rea is lacking. 2. Regina v. Falkner: intent to steal rum is not intent to burn down a ship. 3. People v Scott: D intended to shoot A and shot B instead; mens rea (intent) transfers. Society has a greater interest in deterring and punishing (retribution) people who kill than damage property. Common law Specific v General Intent – consider the attendant circumstance * Specific intent statute: requires intent to cause harm to the attendant circumstance; to be convicted under a specific intent statute, you must intend (and succeed) in burning a BOOK.
You must have a conscious objective that is more than just lighting a match. * Intending to complete the act- purposefully, knowingly * General intent statute: requires intent to do the act, only. Might punish setting fire to instead of saying, setting fire to woodland flora. Drunk people are likely to get netted under a general intent statute because the attendant circumstance is general. * Intending the act- negligent, reckless * People v Atkins: Attempt to raise voluntary intoxication to charge of Arson. * Court finds Arson as general intent crime.
Inadmissible b/c only need to do actus reus. How MPC Avoids Specific Intent-General Intent Distinctions 1. MPC 2. 02(1): Minimum Requirements of Culpability a. Except as provided in 2. 05 (strict liability provision), a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently with respect to each material element of the offense 2. MPC 1. 13(9): “element of offense” means (i) such conduct or (ii) attendant circumstances or (iii) such a result of conduct as b. is included in the description of the forbidden conduct in the definition of the offense; or c.establishes the required kind of culpability d. negatives an excuse or justification for such conduct e. Negatives a defense under the statute of limitations 3. MPC 1. 13(10):
“Material element of an offense” means an element that does not relate exclusively to the statute of limitations, jurisdiction, venue, or any other matter similarly unconnected with (i) the harm or evil, incident to conduct, sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense, or (ii) the existence of a justification or excuse for such conduct Strict Liability Crimes.
* Statute lacks mens rea component. MPC reads recklessness into any statute missing a mens rea. * TRUE STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES: regulatory crimes, crimes against the public welfare, morality offenses (statutory rape), felony murder. MPC 2. 05 recognizes only minor “violations” and violations outside the MPC where it is plain that the legislature intended to create strict liability Morissette: Ordinary presumption is to read mens rea in the statute (recklessness). Courts are likely to construe the following as strict liability offenses: 1. Statute protects the public welfare.
2. D is in a position to prevent the harm and it is reasonable to expect this of her 3. The penalties imposed are light 4. There is little stigma associated with the offense 5. It is a newly created crime Commonwealth v Barone: Woman killed another in a car crash, appeals on grounds that the statute imposed strict liability and she shouldn’t be punished 1. If a statute is ambiguous, must read in reckless or negligent and cannot impose strict liability. Heavy penalties and negative stigma associated with this type of crime. Mistake and Ignorance.
In general: D commits a crime with a belief that turns out to be wrong. MPC: what does the statute require for mens rea? Rationales for Mistake and Ignorance Defenses 1. Deterrence/Utilitarian Justification: you cannot deter someone who does not possess a guilty mind 2. Retributivist justification: “just desserts. ” you should not punish someone who is morally innocent Question Tree 1. MPC or common law? a. What statute are you being asked to apply? 2. Mistake of fact or law? — what must D show to prevail under mistake defense? b. MPC 2. 04: No distinction b/w mistake of fact and law i.
Mistake of fact: must negate mens rea of the statute ii. Mistake of law: no defense unless provided in the statute iii. When D raises mistake claim, P must prove that notwithstanding the mistake, D possessed requisite mens rea c. Common law: iv. Mistake of fact: 1. Specific intent: honest but unreasonable mistake is a defense 2. General intent: defense only if both honest and reasonable v. Mistake of law: 3. No excuse, but three exceptions: relied on official interp. of law, knowledge of illegality is an element of the crime, or no fair notice Common Law: Cases – Mistake of Fact.
1. People v Navarro: D took lumber, thinking it was abandoned. a. Larceny is a specific intent statute, so mistake of fact is a defense, if honest 2. Bell v State: MINORITY VIEW: no exculpation for mistake where, had the mistake of fact not been made, the conduct would still be illegal or immoral. b. Moral wrong test: there is no violation of the culpability principle if the conduct is criminally punished without regard to mens rea- mistake of fact not a defense if the conduct is morally wrong. i. Ask if reasonable ii. If reasonable, look at factual panorama.
“what is it that you (reasonably) thought you were doing? ” Insert candid response. iii. Evaluate morality of actor’s conduct. If morally wrong, it is sufficient to convict. c. Legal wrong test: even if D can assert a reasonable mistake of fact, mistake of fact isn’t a defense if, had the facts been as she thought, she would still be guilty of some other crime. d. Punishes D for the crime he was mistaken about committing (and so never did actually commit) instead of for a lesser crime he did actually commit. Cases- Mistake of Law.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense against criminal liability UNLESS: 1. Reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law (Marrero) 2. Where knowledge that the conduct is prohibited is an element of the crime. Ignorance or mistake negates the mens rea. a. Cheek v US: When statute requires willfulness, Subjective standard is to be used and shall be determined by the factfinder. Need not be reasonable. b. Bryan v US: (Gun Trafficker) Knowingly requires proof of knowledge of the facts that constitute the crime. Willfully requires knowledge of the specific rule they are breaking.
However, ignorance of the law is no excuse; knowledge that the conduct is unlawful is all that is required. 3. The prosecution of person lacking fair notice can violate due process c. Lambert- no fair notice. In order to be punished, there must be a probability that D had actual knowledge of the law before committing the crime. MPC * Does not allow mistake as a defense where D would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed; but if that punishment is lesser, it will be imposed instead. * Mistake of fact under MPC is a defense if it negates the mental state required for commission of the offense.
* Mistake of law under MPC is a defense if the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense * Relationship between various mistakes of fact and required mens rea levels: Required Mens Rea| Defense / D is not guilty if: | Purposely or knowingly| Any actual belief to the contrary (even if reckless)| Recklessly| Any non-reckless mistake of fact (even if negligent)| Negligently| Any non-negligent “reasonable” mistake| Strict Liability| Even a very reasonable, non-negligent mistake is no defense| * We applied MPC in RRH book burning example.
Mistake can be a defense, but it has to be less than conscious disregard in all circumstances. RRH’s mistake was negligent at the very worst, not even reckless. Causation Question Tree 1. Actual cause? a. But for D’s act, would the harm have occurred? i. No: actual cause. (proceed to proximate cause analysis) ii. Yes: not actual cause. 1. Proximate cause? a. Is D the direct cause, such that it would be fair and just to hold him liable? i. Yes: Then D has complete liability. ii. No: proceed to intervening cause analysis a. Was there an intervening cause? If Dependent, D typically is proximate cause unless bizarre i.
Yes: 1. Was it dependent on D’s voluntary act? a. Yes: next question: i. Was it a bizarre situation? 1. No: D has liability. 1. Yes: D is absolved. 1. Was it independent of D’s voluntary act? a. Yes: was it foreseeable? If yes, liable. If no, not liable a. No: does anything above fit? i. No: if there is no intervening cause and was proximate cause, D is liable. Cases 1. Commonwealth v Rementer: woman runs from boyfriend into street, hit by car, killed a. Actual cause? YES. But for their fight, she would not have been in the street. b. Proximate cause? First, was there an intervening cause? YES. ii.
Was the intervening cause dependent or independent? 1. Dependent- he fought with her, and she ran. 2. In cases of intervening dependent cause, he is liable unless it was a bizarre situation. They were fighting in front of a road, so no. c. D is liable. Actual cause, and proximate cause, the latter through dep. Intervening 2. State v. Govan: D shot the V in the neck, she became a quadriplegic d. Actual cause? YES. But for… e. Proximate cause? Was there an intervening cause? Yes- pneumonia killed her. iii. Dependent or independent intervening cause? 3. Dependent- you don’t die from TB unless you’re a quadriplegic 4.
Dependent intervening cause, not bizarre- D liable. iv. An intervening cause that was a coincidence will be a superseding cause when it was unforeseeable. Intervening causes that are a response will be superseding when it was abnormal and unforeseeable 3. Henderson v Kibbe: drunk guy robbed and left on snowy highway w/o glasses f. actual cause? YES. But for being left there… g. Proximate cause? Was there an intervening cause? Yes. Indep or dep? v. Independent: they weren’t driving the truck that hit him 5. If Indep, it was foreseeable, so D is liable. vi. Dependent: but he wouldn’t have been there without their robbing him 6.
If Dep, truck wasn’t bizarre, so D is liable. Concurrence Temporal and Motivational 1. Temporal concurrence: D must possess the requisite mens rea at the same moment that her voluntary conduct (or omission) causes the social harm (or actus reus) 2. Motivational concurrence: the mens rea must be the motivating force behind the act Sexual Offenses MPC Rape: 213. 1: Rape if: * Compel to submit by force of threats of death, extreme pain, etc OR * You give V GHB, etc OR * V is unconscious OR * V is younger than age 10. Felony 2nd degree * NO MISTAKE OF AGE DEFENSE UNDER AGE 10 * There is a mistake of age defense between 10 and age of consent Rape.
Traditional: no rape unless force was used to overcome the victim’s resistance (No resistance, then no force, then no rape) rape determination based on victim’s actions. 1) Heterosexual vaginal intercourse NO MENS REA 2) of a woman, not the man’s wife 3) by force and 4) without her consent – consent is an element; that she did not consent has to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution in order to convict (hard to prove) a. FORCE: Whether D’s acts used sufficient force to overcome P’s resistance, or whether his threats created in her mind a reasonable fear of harm. b.
Rusk v State: she didn’t actively resist or attempt to run when she had the chance, so under the traditional view she could not have been raped. i. She said she was fearful, but unless D objectively manifested his intent to use physical force to accomplish his purpose, her submission will be read as consent because it couldn’t have been reasonable without an objective manifestation. ii. DISSENT: (now majority rule): this view requires too much resistance from the victim- and resisting victims get hurt more often. Modern: force requirement met by nonconsensual penetration- no need for resistance that requires force to overcome.
Rape determination based on D’s actions, not V’s actions or character. * Modern rape law is built around meaningful consent. * It is gender neutral, includes the word “coercion”, includes more than vaginal intercourse, uses the term “sexual assault” instead of rape * Consent is an affirmative defense, not an element 1) Physical force or coercion 2) NO EXPLICIT CONSENT ELEMENT – consent is an affirmative defense; a question that she may have consented has to be raised by a preponderance of the evidence a. State of New Jersey v MTS: force requirement met by nonconsensual penetration.
Physical force in excess of that inherent in the act of sexual penetration is not required for such penetration to be unlawful i. There is an inherent wrong in forced sexual intimacy- crime against a person’s right to control her body. Rape is violating the sphere of privacy. 3) WHAT COUNTS AS CONSENT? Permission can be inferred either from acts or statements reasonably viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances b. In re John Z: Woman participated in sexual acts for a while; after penetration told him to stop. ii. Forcible rape is still committed when V consents initially, then withdraws consent, but D continues having sex with her iii.
Her consent can be debated- she consented through acts, then lightly verbally said no, but physically continued… Statutory Rape * Common law: Sex with a female under the age of consent. * Assumes male D, female V * Heterosexual, vaginal intercourse * No force required * No non-consent required (so if she consented it’s still statutory rape) * MPC 213. 4: Sexual assault. Sex with child under age 10 is a strict liability crime, no mistake of age defense. Between age 10 and age of consent, there is a mistake of age defense.
* Garnett: even a mentally handicapped person can be convicted of statutory rape with a person his mental equivalent- we don’t care about mindset, only about the act. * Scholars think strict liability crimes don’t serve a deterrent purpose because they punish without regard to the actors’ state of mind. * But I think this sort of liability is a good thing overall because people are aware that if they have sex with someone who looks young, they could be in trouble- forces people to be a bit more responsible- but then, people probably don’t think of the punishments ahead of time, either.
Homicide Common law: 4 primary kinds of homicide. (** minority rule) Murder, 1st degree Murder, 2nd degree Voluntary Manslaughter Involuntary Manslaughter Murder: The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought Manslaughter: The unlawful killing of another human being without malice aforethought CL: 4 conditions when malice aforethought is present 1. An intent to kill 2. Intent to commit serious bodily harm 3. An abandoned and malignant heart or depraved heart 4. The felony murder rule applies If D intends to kill, he acts with express malice.
If malice aforethought is shown in any other way, it is implied malice. Acceptable Evidence when proof of murder depends on malice aforethought 1. Inferred from circumstantial evidence 2. Deadly weapon rule: Can infer intent to kill when D uses deadly weapon and aims it @ vital part of body 3. Natural and probable consequences rule Murder, 1st degree: Murder involved * Premeditation and Deliberation * Premeditated intent to kill. Killer reflected upon and thought about the killing in advance * Deliberation. Refers to the quality of the accused’s thought process * Statutory felony murder.
* Lying in wait, poison, torture, etc. Murder, 2nd degree: * Unpremeditated intent to kill * Intent to cause great bodily harm** * Depraved heart/extreme recklessness * All other felony murders Murder Cases * State v Brown: Death of 4 y. o. resulting from beating from father. charged with M1 * To be guilty of first degree murder, one must act with premeditation and deliberation in addition to malice aforethought * Although premeditation can be formed in an instant, it must be done deliberately- with coolness and reflection * State v Bingham: Raped and strangled on highway.
* To allow a finding of premeditation only because the act takes an appreciable amount of time obliterates the distinction b/w 1st and 2nd degree murder. Having the opportunity to deliberate is not evidence of deliberation. Otherwise, any form of killing which took more than a moment could result in a finding of premeditation, without some form add’l evidence showing reflection * Gilbert v State: 75 y. o. man killed dementia wife by shooting her * good faith is not a legal defense to first degree murder Voluntary manslaughter.
* Intent to kill plus reasonable provocation (always has to be reasonable provocation for charge of voluntary manslaughter- something akin to heat of passion. But for provocation, this person wouldn’t be a killer) * Provocation: One who kills in response to legally adequate provocation is treated as having acted without malice aforethought, the mens rea required for murder * Intent to kill plus imperfect self defense** (D might have over-defended themselves) * Diminished Capacity 3 ways to determine if D is entitled to provocation defense * Common law categorical defense.
If kill in response to * Aggravated Assault or battery * The observation of a serious crime against a close relative * Illegal arrest * Mutual combat * Catching one’s wife in the act of adultury * Mere Words Rule: Mere words are never enough to constitute legally adequate provocation * People v Ambro: H stabbed wife after verbal goading and revealing that she was in an affair * Mere words are usually not enough. Exception to which is when there is a series of provoking statements and circumstances. * Modern Reasonable Man. Jury must find * D actually acted in the heat of passion.
* The heat of passion was provoked by an act or event that would have also provoked a reasonable person in the D’s shoes to lose self-control * D did not have sufficient time to “cool off” b/w provocative event and the killing * A reasonable person in Ds shoes would not have had sufficient time to cool * There must be a causal connection b/w the provocation, the passion, and the killing * People v Barry: Husband strangled wife with phone cord after hearing that she was leaving him * Court considers the whole course of provocation over time, not just in the moments leading up to the murder * MPC Extreme mental or Emotional Disturbance test.
* MPC 210. 3(b): A homicide that would otherwise be murder may be considered manslaughter when it is committed “under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation and excuse. ” * “the reasonableness of such excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be.
” subjective * State v Dumlao: Husband shoots mother in law after thinking that family members were trying to cheat on him with his wife. Was a very insecure individual * Intense mental or emotional disturbance is distinguished from insanity in that it is to be understood in relative terms as referring to a loss of self control due to intense feelings * 3 part test for EMED Will be found in a person who has * No mental disease or defect.
* Is exposed to an extremely unusual and overwhelming stress * Has extreme emotional reaction to it, as a result of which there is a loss self control in reason is overborn by intense feelings, such as passion, anger distress, grief excessive agitation or similar emotion * Whether there is a reasonable explanation should be made by viewing the subjective internal situation in which the D found himself and the external circumstances as he perceived them to be at the time, no matter how inaccurate that perception may have been, and assessing from that standpoint whether the explanation for his emotional disturbance was reasonable.
Involuntary manslaughter — Cause death with criminal negligence * Can secure IM conviction through Criminal negligence (“gross” negligence or even “recklessness”) or Misdemeanor manslaughter (felony murder, junior) * MPC Equivalent 210. 3(1)(a): “criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when it is committed recklessly” * Commonwealth v Welanski: Night club burned down and killed hundreds * Not required to prove that he caused the fire by some wanton or reckless conduct. Enough to prove that the deaths resulted from his wanton or reckless disregard of the safety of the patrons in the event of fire form any case.