Criminal Law

This lesson focuses on the distinctions between justification and excuse defenses. Many of the major legal scholars and commentators have distinguished justification and excuse defenses. However, the modern view often blurs the distinction. This lesson points out the principal theoretical distinctions as well as the areas of substantial confusion or controversy with respect to classification, both at common law and under the Model Penal Code. The exercise also describes those circumstances in which classification one way or the other makes a difference.

This lesson is one of several addressing the offense of criminal attempt as set forth in the Model Penal Code. In this lesson, students consider broad concepts relating to the law of attempts, such as what mental state, if any, should be required for punishing an incomplete offense (with reference to theories of punishment) and how certain crimes not so labeled are actually particular kinds of attempt offenses. It then examines the mens rea for an attempted offense, highlighting the distinction between knowledge and purpose, and further distinguishing purpose as to conduct from purpose as to result.

This lesson explores the mens rea of knowledge as defined by the Model Penal Code.

This lesson examines the mens rea level of negligence as defined in the Model Penal Code.

This lesson explores the mens rea of purpose as defined by the Model Penal Code.

This lesson explores the mens rea of recklessness as defined by the Model Penal Code.

This is an elementary lesson that introduces the concept of default rules in the Model Penal Code. Students will be introduced to the hierarchy of states of mind expressed in § 2.02(5). This lesson uses sample statutes and scenarios to allow students to practice applying the default rules and hopefully to provide an understanding of why default rules are desirable.

This lesson explains how the MPC deals with the maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse." It addresses the general rule that a defendant need not know his or her conduct is criminal and looks at the exceptions to that general rule found in MPC § 2.04(3)(b).

This is an advanced lesson that demonstrates how the Model Penal Code rules of construction treat mistakes with regard to elements of defenses.

This lesson looks at the treatment of mistakes of fact and law as they relate to elements of offenses under the Model Penal Code.

In the criminal law, culpability can be premised upon either an "act" or (in appropriate cases) an "omission" to act. In this lesson, we examine the concept of culpability for omissions, and we explore the limits of criminal culpability. This lesson is intended for students who have studied these issues in class, and who wish to further refine their knowledge.

These two exercises are offered to familiarize students with what prosecuting and defense attorneys do from the time an investigation begins until trial preparation and why they do it. Special attention is given to correspondence, pleadings, and the guilty plea.

These two exercises are offered to familiarize students with what prosecuting and defense attorneys do from the time an investigation begins until trial preparation and why they do it. Special attention is given to correspondence, pleadings, and the guilty plea.

This exercise provides a general introduction to constitutional limitations on the assignment of burdens of proof and the creation of evidentiary presumptions. Evidentiary distinctions are addressed only insofar as they make a difference from the standpoint of constitutional law. This exercise is not about the law of criminal evidence, but about the constitutional limitations on that body of law.

This exercise introduces students to the four standard theories of punishment, retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. It familiarizes students with the basic features of each theory in the context of particular statutory provisions and hypotheticals drawn from the law of crimes (substantive criminal law) and the law of punishments (sentencing law).

This is a lesson dealing with the basic justification defense of self-defense. Most of us would name self-defense as the primary justification defense; and, it is perhaps the most common or familiar of all defenses. Yet self-defense has roots in other defenses at early common law. Therefore, this lesson begins with a consideration of those roots. Moreover, there is considerable overlap between the various defenses, even when one agrees on classification. Thus, understanding the basics of self-defense is essential to understanding many or all of the justification defenses. The purpose of this lesson is to present very simply the elements of self-defense. Even a student who is just beginning the study of defenses should be comfortable working this lesson.

This exercise provides an overview of the sources of American substantive criminal law. Particular attention is paid to the Model Penal Code and the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

This exercise is designed as a review for students taking the basic first year course in criminal law. Suspendatur! (Latin for “let him be hanged”, the final entry in medieval plea rolls in capital cases) is patterned after the familiar game of hangman, in which each wrong answer adds a part to a stick figure on the gibbet. The student must answer multiple choice and true-false questions based on hypothetical situations. Each right or wrong answer provides substantive feedback in what aims to be at least a mildly humorous fashion.