MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
azntwice
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:46 pm

MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby azntwice » Mon May 02, 2011 12:33 pm

Okay... I am very confused about this. I understand that here, you have liability based on aiding in conduct, and your liability is pegged to your mens rea regarding the RESULT of that conduct - since the result is usually murder, it depends on what your mental state re: the murder was. If you should have known that murder would happen, they would get you for negligent homicide; if you averted to the risk and were reckless, they can get you for manslaughter or murder. (is that right??) So let's say A gives B a gun at a shooting range, thinking B will use it for target practice. B seems to be totally normal - happy, chipper, no history of violence. However, B suddenly goes ballistic without warning and kills another person at the range. My feeling is that A could not be liable for anything b/c B's behavior was so unforeseeable that A could not have known/should not have known. Or, what if B keeps the gun and many days later kills someone outside the range, A again having absolutely no reason to suspect anything??

Or, am I reading the code wrong? and is it actually your mens rea in aiding the CONDUCT that counts? In my example, it would be whether A was negligent or reckless in handing B the gun - and have nothing to do with whether A had a mental state regarding the chance of murder?

Or are those two the exact same thing???

woodstocker
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:14 am

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby woodstocker » Mon May 02, 2011 12:46 pm

murder requires more than negligence. basically, whatever culpability the principal actor is required to have to be charged for the offense, the other actor must share insofar that he aided or abetted the principal. e.g. if A negligently gives B alcohol and B negligently runs somebody over, A can be charged with aiding or abetting negligent homicide.

gmmathers
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:51 pm

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby gmmathers » Sat May 07, 2011 2:54 pm

Start with the object crime. If B murders someone, what are the elements of murder?

A must aid/encourage with the PURPOSE of bringing about the conduct element of the object crime and he must have the same mens rea required for the result element of the object crime.

Here, we don't even get to the result element. The conduct element would be shooting the gun at someone. Did A give the gun with this purpose? If not, no accomplice liability. (If I leave a gun out on the table and I live with a convicted felon and I know he is likely to use it to shoot someone, I am not liable if he does, because that was not my purpose)

There are certain plus factors that may elevate knowledge to purpose through inference (showing you have a stake in the venture - selling large quantities of something used to make an illegal drug, charging exorbitant prices for 1 hour hotel room stays, etc)

MPC is silent on mens rea requirement for attendant circumstances - that's when it gets a little complicated

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby DoubleChecks » Sat May 07, 2011 3:13 pm

gmmathers wrote:Start with the object crime. If B murders someone, what are the elements of murder?

A must aid/encourage with the PURPOSE of bringing about the conduct element of the object crime and he must have the same mens rea required for the result element of the object crime.

Here, we don't even get to the result element. The conduct element would be shooting the gun at someone. Did A give the gun with this purpose? If not, no accomplice liability. (If I leave a gun out on the table and I live with a convicted felon and I know he is likely to use it to shoot someone, I am not liable if he does, because that was not my purpose)

There are certain plus factors that may elevate knowledge to purpose through inference (showing you have a stake in the venture - selling large quantities of something used to make an illegal drug, charging exorbitant prices for 1 hour hotel room stays, etc)

MPC is silent on mens rea requirement for attendant circumstances - that's when it gets a little complicated


i like this answer a lot; can you keep going in a hypothetical to show how the mens rea requirement of results would be applied to A?

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby BeenDidThat » Sat May 07, 2011 5:55 pm

EDIT: SEE gmmathers below.
Last edited by BeenDidThat on Sat May 07, 2011 9:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

DeweyDell
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:48 pm

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby DeweyDell » Sat May 07, 2011 6:34 pm

I'll bite since it's good practice for me to write this stuff out.
re mens rea for attendant circumstances in accomplice liability: The MPC says that this should be determined on a statute-by-statute basis by imputing the the policy objectives that drove the mens rea requirements regarding the specific attendant circumstances for the principal, onto those ACs for the accomplice and analyze whether or not they apply with equal force.
For example: Statutory rape regimes that apply a strict liability MR to the AC of the victim's age (ie, those that don't allow a defense for reasonable ignorance of the victim's age) have chosen to do so based on a desire to create a very strong incentive for potential perpetrators to find out the age of sexual partners. There could be other policy arguments but we'll just assume the legislative history has left us with this one for the hypo. You would then ask if this same standard is justified in the accomplice context. Do we desire to create the same incentive system for the friend who provides the statutory rapist with a condom and encourages him to go at it? Perhaps there would be some benefit to creating a culture of extreme care regarding the age of sexual partners. But it is unlikely that this lesser potential benefit is so compelling that it should outweigh the potential cost of depriving the accomplice of freedom when his moral culpability is attenuated by the fact that he reasonably believed the victim was of age. So in this statute, you would readjust the mens rea as to the attendant circumstance to better align with relevant policy concerns in the accomplice context. Perhaps you would raise it knowingly, so that the creepy older guy who invites high school chicks to parties would be brought to justice when his actions result in a rape....
However you ultimately come on the issue, this is the analysis you would want to conduct. From what I understand, professors often use this nebulous area of statutory construction as an opportunity to slip policy arguments into a hypo. I know you've been aching to express some opinions all semester, so be prepared to frame them in this way and can actually help you out on the exam.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby DoubleChecks » Sat May 07, 2011 7:01 pm

BeenDidThat wrote:OP,

Murder is a species of homicide. Don't mix up the terms.

Types of homicide:

Murder = P, K causing death of someone OR R w/EIVHL

Manslaughter = R causing death OR Murder BUT with Extreme Mental/Emotional Disturbance

Negligent Homicide = N causing death

2.06(4) makes it so people can be held as accomplices if they act with the above mens rea when aiding/encouraging someone in conduct causing a proscribed result.

SO, my giving a buddy who says they need a gun to kill somebody and who later does so with that gun would make me culpable under 2.06(4) as an accomplice to murder either because it would be my purpose OR (most likely) because I my buddy the gun knowing with practical certainty that he'd use it to kill someone.

If I recognized the risk of giving my friend a knife when he was drunk and screaming about how he hates his ex-gf, I give it to him anyway, and he goes and kills her with the knife, I could be held culpable for accomplice liability under 2.06(4) because I realized a substantial and unjustifiable risk (assuming no other facts, and it might be arguable), and disregarded it and it is arguable a gross deviation from the reasonable standard of care in the circumstance.

If I lent my friend who was stumbling around drunk my car, even though I didn't know he was drunk, and he goes and kills someone with it, I could probably be held culpable under 2.06(4) because I should have known he was drunk because he was stumbling around and giving a drunk person a car probably disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which I should have known and is a gross deviation...

This is how I understand it. If I'm mistaken, I would really appreciate someone correcting me.


couldnt the reckless and negligent examples not be complicity at all? no intent/purpose to aid or encourage the crime

could you break your 3 examples down for me to conduct/results?

like, intend to hand him gun to kill someone [conduct]? intended that he kill someone? [result]? i have a hard time breaking them down in this way

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby BeenDidThat » Sat May 07, 2011 7:59 pm

EDIT: SEE gmmathers below.
Last edited by BeenDidThat on Sat May 07, 2011 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby DoubleChecks » Sat May 07, 2011 8:46 pm

BeenDidThat wrote:I don't think you need to purposefully or knowingly aid/encourage conduct that caused the prohibited result, so long as you meet the mens rea of the offense you are accused of being an accomplice to. That's what separates 2.06(4) from 2.06(3).

So with my handing knife reckless example, if you recklessly aid in the conduct that causes death, then you are on the hook for manslaughter. In that case, I'm on the hook with respect to aiding my friend's killing his ex-gf because I recklessly aided in his conduct by giving him the knife.

I myself have a question about this too, if someone else would be so kind as to hop in this thread: what if your friend intends to kill someone, asks you for a gun, but you don't know his intention, and arguably negligently give him the gun. He goes and kills with the gun. Murder's the obvious charge for him. But I think you can then be held as an accomplice to negligent homicide even though the "principal" in old common law terms was a murderer. I'm not sure if I'm right on this, though I'm somewhat confident that that is right... I aided in the conduct that lead to the prohibited result with the mens rea requisite for culpability of the offense of negligent homicide.


well what i meant was, you did not purposefully aid in the CONDUCT

the mens rea for aiding as it relates to conduct is purpose, the mens rea for aiding as it relates to results is the mens rea of the underlying crime

take for example you giving your friend a gun when he asks, not knowing his intention -- i dont think you'd be an accomplice at all. you had no intention to aid his conduct of shooting someone.

gmmathers
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:51 pm

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby gmmathers » Sat May 07, 2011 8:57 pm

I think what is confusing is that you need to separate the giving of the weapon from the actual crime.

Also, forget the result element for a minute

2.06(3) requires that the accomplice aid/encourage/solicit with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense

the conduct is shooting the gun
the result is death

Did the accomplice give the gun with the purpose of having the principal shoot it? (did the accomplice have the shooting as his conscious objective when he gave the gun?)
K, R, N are not sufficient (although a minority of jurisdictions allow knowledge for serious crimes)

If the accomplice hands the gun and says shoot, then you can get him for murder if he had P, K, R, as to the death of another
If nobody is around and B shoots into the woods but kills someone, he may be liable for negligent homicide. In that case A would be guilty also because he handed him the gun with the purpose of having him shoot it, and he had the requisite mens rea - negligence - when he handed him the gun and told him to shoot it.

the basic idea is that the accomplice should be guilty of any crime the principle is guilty of so long as he acted with the purpose of bringing about the principle's conduct
Last edited by gmmathers on Sat May 07, 2011 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby BeenDidThat » Sat May 07, 2011 9:00 pm

gmmathers wrote:I think what is confusing is that you need to separate the giving of the weapon from the actual crime.

Also, forget the result element for a minute

2.06(3) requires that the accomplice aid/encourage/solicit with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense

the conduct is shooting the gun
the result is death

Did the accomplice give the gun with the purpose of having the principal shoot it? (did the accomplice have the shooting as his conscious objective when he gave the gun?)
K, R, N are not sufficient (although a minority of jurisdictions allow knowledge for serious crimes)

If the accomplice hands the gun and says shoot, then you can get him for murder if he was K, R, N as to the death of another
If nobody is around and B shoots into the woods but kills someone, he may be liable for negligent homicide. In that case A would be guilty also because he handed him the gun with the purpose of having him shoot it, and he had the requisite mens rea - negligence - when he handed him the gun and told him to shoot it.

the basic idea is that the accomplice should be guilty of any crime the principle is guilty of so long as he acted with the purpose of bringing about the principle's conduct


But we're talking about 2.06(4), not 2.06(3). Aren't they different bases for culpability?

So if you negligently aid in the conduct that causes the prohibited result, can you be held as an accomplice under 2.06(4) for the negligent homicide, in the case of causing a human death?

gmmathers
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:51 pm

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby gmmathers » Sat May 07, 2011 9:02 pm

(4) qualifies itself by saying that the person is already an accomplice as to the conduct element

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby BeenDidThat » Sat May 07, 2011 9:05 pm

gmmathers wrote:(4) qualifies itself by saying that the person is already an accomplice as to the conduct element


Okay, so 2.06(4) only applies where someone purposefully aids someone in undertaking a reckless or negligent course of conduct that results in death (in the case of manslaughter/negligent homicide)? So he need not purposefully cause the death but he must purposefully aid someone in doing something negligent or reckless that does in fact cause death?

gmmathers
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:51 pm

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby gmmathers » Sat May 07, 2011 9:08 pm

The second part is right. But it can also apply to murder. I'm standing next to you. I hand you a gun and say shoot that person dead. You shoot them dead. I'm guilty of murder. I gave you the gun with the purpose of having you shoot someone. And I have purpose as the result - death.

edit; but you're right with respect to involuntary manslaughter/negligent homicide

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby BeenDidThat » Sat May 07, 2011 9:41 pm

gmmathers wrote:The second part is right. But it can also apply to murder. I'm standing next to you. I hand you a gun and say shoot that person dead. You shoot them dead. I'm guilty of murder. I gave you the gun with the purpose of having you shoot someone. And I have purpose as the result - death.

edit; but you're right with respect to involuntary manslaughter/negligent homicide


Okay, this makes a lot more sense, and I think it comports better with what my prof was (ineffectively) trying to get across. I think I didn't mention murder because wouldn't you be on the hook as a direct murderer in that case? Did something with the purpose of causing death that did cause death...even tho in this case it was purposefully aided someone with the purpose of them causing the death...

It's a way to bring accomplice liability in for crimes where there is only a prohibited result and no specifically proscribed conduct.

Grazie. Hope it helps OP too.
Last edited by BeenDidThat on Sat May 07, 2011 9:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby DoubleChecks » Sat May 07, 2011 9:43 pm

gmmathers wrote:I think what is confusing is that you need to separate the giving of the weapon from the actual crime.

Also, forget the result element for a minute

2.06(3) requires that the accomplice aid/encourage/solicit with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense

the conduct is shooting the gun
the result is death

Did the accomplice give the gun with the purpose of having the principal shoot it? (did the accomplice have the shooting as his conscious objective when he gave the gun?)
K, R, N are not sufficient (although a minority of jurisdictions allow knowledge for serious crimes)

If the accomplice hands the gun and says shoot, then you can get him for murder if he had P, K, R, as to the death of another
If nobody is around and B shoots into the woods but kills someone, he may be liable for negligent homicide. In that case A would be guilty also because he handed him the gun with the purpose of having him shoot it, and he had the requisite mens rea - negligence - when he handed him the gun and told him to shoot it.

the basic idea is that the accomplice should be guilty of any crime the principle is guilty of so long as he acted with the purpose of bringing about the principle's conduct


this is a great response. totally clears it up for me -- thanks!

illiniguy1551
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:37 pm

Re: MPC 2.06(4) mens rea req'mt

Postby illiniguy1551 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 2:40 pm

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but is this basically right? I'm struggling with this one and putting it in my own words helps:

MPC 2.06(3): Defines how an accomplice promotes and facilitates the conduct of another person (solicitation, aiding etc).

A aids B by giving B a gun, intending for B to shoot the gun. (conduct)

MPC 2.06(4): Elaborates on when there is a result element in an offense, that the accomplice must both INTEND the conduct, and have the SAME mental state as the other person regarding the result of the offense.

A INTENDs to give B a gun for the purpose of shooting, B recklessly shoots and kills someone. A was reckless in giving B the gun
due to conscious awareness of the risk of what B would do with the gun. (conduct = purposely) (result = recklessly)

THANK YOU




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: santoki and 6 guests