This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Criminal Law Outlines

Necessity Mpc And Non Mpc Outline

Updated Necessity Mpc And Non Mpc Notes

Criminal Law Outlines

Criminal Law

Approximately 94 pages

Criminal Law with Professor Rachel Barkow at NYU School of Law.

This is a synthesis of all topics in a fall 2019 class, Criminal Law at NYU School of Law. My notes consist of the important elements of each doctrine, the unsettled areas, and policy justifications....

Available here

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

NECESSITY - Justification

  • Rarely used because difficult to win, use as a last resort

  • Argument: I committed this crime because I was avoiding a greater evil/greater harm; crime was the lesser evil of the two choices

Common Law MPC (3.02)

  • D chooses lesser evil

  • Imminent threat

  • Not allowed in homicide cases

  • Not allowed in economic necessity cases (starving children)

  • Some places require that the emergency was created by natural, not human forces

  • Legislature must not have decided differently (medical marijuana, needle sharing - medical necessity cases)

  • Defendant cannot have created the emergency

  • Harm avoided greater (in fact, not in belief) than harm committed

  • No imminent threat required, but must believe necessary

  • Allowed in homicide cases

  • Allowed in economic necessity cases

  • Emergency does not have to be natural force

  • Legislature must not have decided differently MPC 3.02(1)(b)(c)

  • If D recklessly/negligently created the situation and if reckless/negligent crime > no defense 3.02(2)

TEXT:

3.02(1) Conduct which D believes is necessary to avoid harm or evil is justified if

  • Harm or evil sought to be avoided is greater than crime committed AND

  • Code or other law defining the offense do not provide exceptions or defenses dealing w/ the specific situation AND

  • Legislative purpose to exclude the justification is not apparent

3.02(2) if actor was reckless or negligence in creating the situation requiring the choice of evils, no justification when recklessness or negligence suffices to establish culpability

ARGUMENTS FOR BALANCING THE EVILS

Defense argument:

  • Harm avoided is great - list facts (harm to defendant, harm to society)

  • (if in CL) don't characterize action as addressing economic necessity, but physical health

Government counters:

  • Don't want vigilante justice

  • Separation of powers (legislature didn't make a separate defense, court should not recognize; legislature would have made a separate defense if they thought this was important)

    • Def: if legislature had known or contemplated, would have allowed me to do this

  • ***Slippery slope problem/utilitarian concern/rule of law/totality of harm concern

    • If allow this necessity defense, totality of harm in society greater than harm averted

      • Lots of people would break the law in the same way D did (homeless sleep in vestibules)>engender chaos and diminish rule of law

    • Look at...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Law Outlines.

More Criminal Law Samples