Top Law Schools

What are the differences between the actus reus requirement for the common law v the model penal code?

I am outlining and realized I took HORRIBLE class notes on this...I took pretty thorough notes from Dressler's Understanding Crim Law, but its a little confusing because I can't tell when hes talking about the common law specifically, though he puts headers for the MPC

I believe common law still uses strict liability while the MPC rejects it..............or is that the Mens Rea portion

LAWYER2 wrote:I believe common law still uses strict liability while the MPC rejects it..............or is that the Mens Rea portion

2.05 of MPC is about strict liability, which it says can apply to either actus reus or mens rea, but for some reason we never went over it in respect to actus reus in class

There's no difference in actus reus requirements. No matter the offense, you must have actually committed the act proscribed by the statute in order to be found guilty of the offense. If you haven't, you're not guilty, period. If you have, then the State must prove that you did so with the required mens rea, and that's where differences between the common law and the MPC come into play.

EDIT: Since a section-mate just passed this along, I'll pay it forward: Common Law vs. MPC Differences (LinkRemoved)

bgdddymtty wrote:There's no difference in actus reus requirements. No matter the offense, you must have actually committed the act proscribed by the statute in order to be found guilty of the offense. If you haven't, you're not guilty, period. If you have, then the State must prove that you did so with the required mens rea, and that's where differences between the common law and the MPC come into play.

EDIT: Since a section-mate just passed this along, I'll pay it forward: Common Law vs. MPC Differences (LinkRemoved)

OMG i was going to make this on wednesday!!! THANK YOU. you just saved me an hour.

Debating whether or not I should still make it though..it may help me learn. But I can use that as a backup to double check. awesome!

bgdddymtty wrote:There's no difference in actus reus requirements. No matter the offense, you must have actually committed the act proscribed by the statute in order to be found guilty of the offense. If you haven't, you're not guilty, period. If you have, then the State must prove that you did so with the required mens rea, and that's where differences between the common law and the MPC come into play.

EDIT: Since a section-mate just passed this along, I'll pay it forward: Common Law vs. MPC Differences (LinkRemoved)

OMG.

If you and/or your sectionmate could do it for homicide, that would be fucking awesome.

zeth006 wrote:

bgdddymtty wrote:There's no difference in actus reus requirements. No matter the offense, you must have actually committed the act proscribed by the statute in order to be found guilty of the offense. If you haven't, you're not guilty, period. If you have, then the State must prove that you did so with the required mens rea, and that's where differences between the common law and the MPC come into play.

EDIT: Since a section-mate just passed this along, I'll pay it forward: Common Law vs. MPC Differences (LinkRemoved)

OMG.

If you and/or your sectionmate could do it for homicide, that would be fucking awesome.

She didn't make the chart; she just found it. The interwebs are a wonderland. I'm guessing there's something similar for homicide out there somewhere.

bgdddymtty wrote:

zeth006 wrote:

bgdddymtty wrote:There's no difference in actus reus requirements. No matter the offense, you must have actually committed the act proscribed by the statute in order to be found guilty of the offense. If you haven't, you're not guilty, period. If you have, then the State must prove that you did so with the required mens rea, and that's where differences between the common law and the MPC come into play.

EDIT: Since a section-mate just passed this along, I'll pay it forward: Common Law vs. MPC Differences (LinkRemoved)

OMG.

If you and/or your sectionmate could do it for homicide, that would be fucking awesome.

She didn't make the chart; she just found it. The interwebs are a wonderland. I'm guessing there's something similar for homicide out there somewhere.

Cool

zeth006 wrote:

bgdddymtty wrote:There's no difference in actus reus requirements. No matter the offense, you must have actually committed the act proscribed by the statute in order to be found guilty of the offense. If you haven't, you're not guilty, period. If you have, then the State must prove that you did so with the required mens rea, and that's where differences between the common law and the MPC come into play.

EDIT: Since a section-mate just passed this along, I'll pay it forward: Common Law vs. MPC Differences (LinkRemoved)

OMG.

If you and/or your sectionmate could do it for homicide, that would be fucking awesome.

go to page 7 of that document...