Im getting confused. Attempt question:
MR its always specific intent to cause the result right?
So for attempted rape, a general intent crime, lets say we are are looking at (MTS):
no affirmative permission
no freely given permission
+ penetration = sexual assault.
what do I need to show for attempted rape here? Just that he intended penetration? Or that he inteneded penetration while knowing he didnt have permission?
The mens rea requirement for the vast majority of jurisdictions is specific intent (purpose) even if a different culpability requirement is required for the actual offense.
Of course your first analysis must start with the statute, if one exists. If not:
For rape (not statutory rape), one analysis is to analyze if the D had the specific purpose of committing rape (i.e. penetrating without permission or whatever the standard is), then you have to analyze the substantial step versus dangerous proximity requirement to determine where culpability attaches.
Then formulate D's arguments.
It is possible for a court to do weird things. The only case I can think of is not entirely analogous because it's statutory rape (Commonwealth v. Dunne). I don't think the Dunne reasoning is particularly sound.
See mpc 5.01 comments (which is still fuzzy). I guess that's why it's a question.