Top Law Schools

If anyone has read my posts this semester they know I have the most incompetent Crim prof is the nation. We have learned nothing, and no, I am not exaggerating. I dont even fully understand mens rea. With that said...

MPC set out purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, negligently as the 4 levels of culpability and abandoned the general versus specific intent distinction instead asking to prove culpability for each element of the crime (including attendant circumstance). Thats easy, but Common law simply had a distinction between general and specific intent crimes. My question is, I dont understand if there is really no level of culpability for common law? I keep seeing willfully,knowingly, recklessly everywhere but people still insist there are no levels of culpability and you just need to break it up into general/specific intent. Lets say the crime is assault, its a general intent crime, but where do you go from there? Don't you have to address (under COL) whether D acted willfully in his commission of the assault?

Yeah, I am royally fucked, so is the whole class.

The answer to your question isn't clear under common law, which is probably why it's so confusing. Different courts treat it differently. But yes, under common law, most crimes required only a general intent "mens rea," guilty mind. It means if you were intentionally committing assault, or you realized there was a risk you could hurt someone and didn't care, or even if you were oblivious but there was an obvious risk (criminally negligent), then you satisfy mens rea. But if you were really innocent, not even negligent, or even just a little negligent but not grossly so, you don't satisfy general intent mens rea.

So no, you don't need to prove willful in a general intent crime.

You do, of course, have to prove that the defendant made a voluntary act - if the defendant himself, not meaning to hurt anyone, but oblivious to an obvious risk that he might, contracts his muscles with the use of his brain, and hits someone by accident, he's guilty even though not willful.

That actually makes a lot of sense. This test will be the end of me, what a terrible class it was. I am currently reading 4 supplements at a time to try and piece together everything before the final, but thanks for somewhat clearing up the basics on this particular issue.

Did you have the dressler textbook?

Sadly yes.

The only supplement you need is the Dressler one, it is amazing.

I have it, its not bad, he still goes on random rants and tangents but not nearly as much as in the book.

Do you have understanding Crim law or th black letter outline by dressler for crim law? The second one helped me out much more than understanding crim law did.

Nah, I have the Understanding Crim Law by Dressler. I haven't seen what the other one looks like but its too close to the exam for me to order it now cause it wouldn't get here before the Monday exam.

Yep. Its all about the Dressler Supplement. I'm in Crim Law hell as well.

Barbell your library has it. Go check it out. You will not regret that decision. Understanding crim law is not anywhere near as good as the black letter outline he wrote. It is the perfect right before exam book.

This book led me to do amazing things on my exam:
--ImageRemoved--

It all just clicked perfectly. Not all long and drawn out like his other book. Follows the case book perfectly.