Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/84

Click to flip

84 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
2.01(1)
A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liab is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable
2.01(2)-list of involuntary acts
Following are not voluntary acts:
(a) reflex/convulsion
(b) bodily mvmt during unconsciousness or sleep
(c) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion
(d) bodily mvmt that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual
2.01(3)-When can liability be based on an omission?
Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless:
(a)the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense or(b)a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
2.01(4)-When does possession constitute a voluntary act?
Possession is an act within meaning of this section, if possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period of time to have been able to terminate his possession
2.02(3)-When law does not proscribe a mental state for an element of the crime, what mental states suffice?
When culpability sufficient to estbl mat element of offense not prescribed by law, such element is estbl if person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto
2.02(4)-What if law only lists one kind of culpability but does not distinguish for which elements it applies?
When law defining an offense prescribes kind of culpability that’s sufficient for commission of an offense w/o distinguishing among mat elements thereof, such provision shall apply to all material elements of offense unless a contrary purpose plainly appears
2.02(6)-Can purpose be conditional?
When purpose is an element of an offense, it’s estbl’d although such purpose is conditional, unless the condition negatives the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense
2.02(7)-When can it be said that an actor has knowledge of a particular fact that is an element of the offense?
When knowledge of existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, it’s estbl’d if a person is aware of a high prob of its existence, unless he actually believes that it doesn’t exist
2.02(8)-What satisfies the common law concept of "willfulness"?
Reqmt of willfulness satisfied by acting knowingly
2.03(1)-How to establish causation for a result.
Conduct is the cause of a result when(a)it’s an antecedent but for which result in question wouldn’t have occurred and
(b) relationship between conduct and result satisfies any addtl causal reqmts imposed by the code or law defining the offense
2.03(3)-When is a result within MR of actor acting recklessly or negligently?
When recklessly or negligently causing a particular result is an element of an offense, elmt is not estbl if actual result is not within risk of which the actor is aware or in case of negl of which he should be aware unless:
(a)transferred intent std
(b)not too remote accdtl std
2.03(4)
When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law, element is not established unless actual result is a probable consequence of actor’s conduct
2.04(1)
Ignorance or mistake as to matter of fact or law is defense if(a) ig/mistk negatives PKRN req’d to estbl material element of offense
(b) law provides that state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense
2.04(2)
Although ignorance or mistake would otherwise afford a defense… defense not available if he would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed. (reduce the grade and degree to what he’d be guilty of if as supposed)
2.04(3)
A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based on such conduct when:(a) statute or other enactmt defining offense not known to actor and not been published or otherwise reasonably made available before the conduct alleged
(b) he acts in reasonable reliance on official stmt of law afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous contained in (i) statute or other enactment, (ii) a judicial decision, opinion or judgment, (iii) administrative order or grant of permission, (iv) an official interpretation of the public offier or body charged by law with respon. for interp., admin., or enforcement of the law defining the offense.
2.04(4)
Def must prove a defense arising under (3) of this section by preponderance of the evidence
2.05(1)
Reqmts of culpability under 2.01 and 2.02 don’t apply to
(a)violations unless…
(b)offenses defined by statutes other than code with leg purpose to impose abs liab
2.06(1)
A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable or both
2.06(2)-When is a personal legally accountable for another person's conduct?
A person is legally accountable for another persons conduct when:
(a)Acting w/ culp sufficient for commission of offense, he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct or
(b)He is made accountable for the conduct of such other person by the code or by the law defining the offense or
(c)He is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the offense
2.06(3)-When is a person an accomplice?
A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if:
(a)With purpose of promoting or facilitating commission of offense he
Solicits such other person to commit it; or aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, he fails to make proper effort to do so.
(b) his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity
2.06(4)-What is required Mens Rea for accomplice?
When causing a particular result is an elmt of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense, if he acts with the kind of culpability, if any, with respect to that result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense.
2.06(5)
A person who is legally incapable of committing a particular offense himself may be guilty thereof if it is committed by the conduct of another person for which he is legally acctbl unless such liability is inconsistent with the purpose of the provision establishing his incapacity (e.g. husband can't legally rape his own wife, but can be accomplice to rape if he makes X rape his wife)
2.06(6)-Exceptions to accompliceship
Unless otherwise provided, a person is not an accomplice in an offense committed by another person if:
(a)He is victim of that offense
(b)Offense so defined that his conduct is inevitably incident to its commission
(c)He terminates his complicity before commission and wholly deprives it of effectiveness in commission of offense or gives timely warning to law enforcement authorities or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent commission
2.06(7)
An accomplice may be convicted on proof of the commission of the offense and of his complicity therein, though the person claimed to have committed the offense has not been prosecuted or convicted or has been convicted of a diff offense or degree of offense or has an immunity to prosecution or conviction or has been acquitted
2.08(1)-Can intoxication be a defense?
Except as provided in Subsection 4, intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense
2.08(2)-When is intoxication not a defense?
When recklessness estbl an element of the offense, if the actor, due to self induced intoxication, is unaware of a risk which he would have been aware had he been sober, such unawareness is inmaterial
2.08(3)-Is intoxication a mental disease?
Intoxication does not, in itself, constitute mental disease within the meaning of Section 4.01
2.08(4)-Excused Intoxications
Intoxication which is (a) not self induced or (b) is pathological is an affirmative defense if by reason of such intoxication the actor at the time of his conduct lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate its criminality (wrongfulness) or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law
2.08(5)-Definitions for Intoxication: Intoxication, Self-Induced Intoxication, Pathalogical Intoxication
Definitions:
(a)Intoxication: disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from introduction of substances in body
(b)Self Induced Intoxication: intoxication caused by substances which the actor knowingly introduces into his body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication he knows or ought to know, unless he introduces them pursuant to medial advice or under such circumstances as would afford a defense to a charge of crime
(c)Pathalogical intoxication: intoxication grossly excessive in degree, given the amt of intoxicant, to which actor doesn’t know he’s susceptible.
2.09(1)-Duress defined.
Affirm defense that actor engaged in conduct charged to constitute an offense b/c he was coerced to do so by use of, or threat to use, unlawful force against his person or the person of another, which a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist
2.09(2)-When Duress is unavailable as an affirmative defense.
Defense is unavailable if actor recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to duress. Defense is also unavailable if he was negligent in placing himself in such a situation, whenever negligence suffices to establish culpability for offense charged.
2.09(3)-Can a woman use duress as an excuse if commanded by her husband?
It isn’t a defense that a woman acted on the command of her husband, unless she acted under such coercion as would estbl a defense under this section (Presumption that woman, acting in presence of her husband, is coerced is abolished).
2.09(4)
When the conduct of the actor would otherwise be justifiable under 3.02, this section doesn’t preclude such defense
3.01(1)-Justification as an affirmative defense.
In any prosecution based on conduct which is justifiable under this article, justification is an affirmative defense
3.01(2)-Can justification limit civil liability?
Even if justifiable, still may be able to recover against him in civil actn
3.02(1)-When is justification generally justified?
Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable, provided that:
(a)The harm or evil sought to be avoided is greater than that sought to be prevented by law defining offense charged
(b)Neither code or other law defining offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with specific situation involved
(c)Legit purpose to exclude justctn doesn’t appear
3.02(2)-When does a justification excuse fail?
When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation requiring a choice of harms or evils or in appraising the necessity for his conduct, the justification afforded by this section is unavailbe in a prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or negligece, as the case may be, suffices to estbl culpability
3.04(1)-When is use of force in self-protection allowed as an affirmative defense?
Subject to this and 3.09, the use of force upon or toward another is justiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion
3.04(2)-Limitations on Justifying Necessity for Use of Force
Limitations on Justifying Necessity for Use of Force
(a)Use of force under this section is not justifiable:
i.to resist an arrest when actor knows its made by peace officer even if it’s unlawful
ii.to resist force used by occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where actor knows that the person using force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limit shall not apply if: actor is public officer; actor has been unlawfully dispossessed and making reentry; actor believes such force is necessary to protect himself against serious bodily harm
(b)Use of deadly force is not justifiable unless: believes necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor justifiable if i. actor with purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm provoked the use of force against himself in same encounter ii. actor knows he can avoid necessity of using force by retreating or surrendering possession of a thing
But not obliged to retreat from dwelling/place of work unless he was initial aggressor or is assailed in work by another person whose place of work actor knows it to be
3.04(3)-When can confinement used as a self-protective force?
Use of Confinement as Protective force
* Actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on charge of a crime
3.05(1)-3 situations when actor can use justifiable force to protect a 3rd party
3 situations when actor can use justifiable force to protect a 3rd party
(a)would be justified under 3.05 to protect himself against the injury he believes is threatened on person he seeks to protect
(b)under circumstances as actor believes them to be the person he’s protecting would be justified in using such protective force
(c)actor believes his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person
3.05(2)-Rules of retreat when protecting third party.
(a) actor doesn’t have to retreat unless he knows he can thereby secure complete safety of such other person
(b) actor is obliged to try to cause him to retreat before using force in his protection if actor knows he can obtain complete safety in that way
(c) neither actor nor person whom he seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the other’s dwelling or place of work to any greater extent than his own
3.06(1)-Use of force is justifiable when actor believes it’s immediately necessary in which situations?
Use of force is justifiable when actor believes it’s immediately necessary:
(a)to prevent or terminate unlawful entry or trespass upon land or trespass against or unlawful carrying away of tangible, movable property, provided that such land is believed by actor to be in his possession or in possession of another for whose protection he acts
(b)To retake land/property as long as in fresh pursuit, or believes needed urgency
3.06(3)-Limitations on Justifiable Use of Force
Limitations on Justifiable Use of Force
(a)Use of force is justifiable under this sectn only if actor first requests the person against whom force is used to desist from his interference with the property unless actor believes: (i) request would be useless, (ii) request would put actor or other in danger, (iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought before request can be effectively made
(b)Exclusion of Tresspasser: cannot use force to prevent trespass if removing trespasser will expose him substantial danger of serious bodily harm (e.g. throw him out of your moving car)
(c)Resistance of Lawful Re-entry or Recaption: cannot prevent recapture of chattels or re-entry on real property even if such recapture/re-entry is unlawful if: (i) re-entry/recapture is made by person who was actually dispossessed of property and (ii) it is other justified under paragraph 1(b) of this Section
(d)Use of Deadly Force: ONLY when actor believes that (i) person against whom force is used is attempting to disposses his dwelling for any claim besides claim of right of possession, (ii) person against whom force is being used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery, or other felonious theft or property destruction and either (1) has employed or threatened to employ deadly force against present actor OR (2) the use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission of the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of serious bodily harm
3.06(3)(d)-When can deadly force be used to protect property?
(d) Use of Deadly Force: ONLY when actor believes that (i) person against whom force is used is attempting to disposses his dwelling for any claim besides claim of right of possession, (ii) person against whom force is being used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery, or other felonious theft or property destruction and either (1) has employed or threatened to employ deadly force against present actor OR (2) the use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission of the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of serious bodily harm
3.04(2)(b)-When is deadly force justified in self protection?
(b) Use of deadly force is not justifiable unless: believes necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor justifiable if
i. actor with purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm provoked the use of force against himself in same encounter
ii. actor knows he can avoid necessity of using force by retreating or surrendering possession of a thing
But not obliged to retreat from dwelling/place of work unless he was initial aggressor or is assailed in work by another person whose place of work actor knows it to be
3.06(5)-When can you a device be used to protect property?
Use of Device to protect property okay as long as:
(a)wont cause substantial risk of death/serious bodily harm
(b)use of particular device to protect property from entry or trespass is reasonable under circumstances
(c)device is one customarily used for such purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known probable intruders the fact that it will be used
3.09(1)-When is affirmative defense of justification unavailable when mistake of law or fact in protecting self/other/property?
Justification afforded by 3.04-3.07 unavailable when:
(a)actor’s belief in unlawfulness of force or conduct against which he employs protective force or his belief in lawfulness of an arrest which he endeavors to effect by force is erroneous; and
(b)his error is due to ignorance or mistake as to provisions of the code, any other provision of crim law or law governing legality of arrest or search
3.09(2)-Under what mental states is the affirmative defense of justification unavailable when actor is protecting self/other/property?
When actor believes such force is necessary for any of purposes for which belief would estbl a justification under 3.03 to 3.08, but actor is Reckless or Negligent in having such belief or in acquiring or failing to acquire any knowledge or belief which is material to justifiability of his use of force, the justification afforded by those sections is UNAVAILBLE in a prosecution for an offense for which recklessness or negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish culpability.
3.09(3)-Can justification defense be used when an innocent bystander is harmed or put at risk of harm?
When actor is justified in using force but he recklessly or negligently injures or creates a risk of injury to innocent persons, the justification afforded by those Sections is unavailable in a prosecution for such recklessness or negligence toward innocent persons
5.01(1)-Three types of Attempt Crimes
Definition of Attempt
•Complete Attempt Conduct Crime: purposely engages in conduct which would constitute crime if attndt circumstances were as he believes them to be; or
•Complete Attempt Result Crime: when causing a particular result is an element of the crime, does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result w/o further conduct on his part; or
•Incomplete Attempt: purposely does or omits to do anything which, under circumstances as he believes them to be is an act/omission constituting substl step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime
5.01(2)-Conduct which may be held Substantial step under subsection 1c
Conduct which may be held Substantial step under subsection 1c: conduct shall not be held to constitute substl step unless it is strongly corroborative of actor’s crim purpose. Without negativing the sufficiency of other conduct, the following, if strongly corroborative of actor’s criminal purpose, shall not be held sufficient as a matter of law:
(a)lying in wait, searching for/following contemplated victim
(b)enticing/seeking to entice contemplated victim of crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission
(c)reconnoitering the place contemplated for commission of crime
(d)unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed;
(e)possession of materials to be employed in commission of the crime, which are specifically designed for such unlawful use or serve no lawful purpose of actor under circumstances
(f)possession/collection/fabrication of materials to be employed in commission of crime, at or near place contemplated for its commission, where such possession, collection or fabrication serves no lawful purpose of actor under the circumstances
(g)soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime
5.01(3)-Can an accomplice be charged with attempted crime when crime is not committed or even attempted by Primary actor?
Conduct designed to aid another in commission of a crime:
A person who engages in conduct designed to aid another to commit a crime which would estbl his complicity under section 2.06 if the crime were committed by such other person, is guilty of an attempt to commit the crime, although the crime is not committed or attempted by such other person
5.01(4)-How can an actor escape liability for attempted criminal conduct?
Renunciation of Criminal Purpose
5.02(1)-Defining Criminal Solicitation
Definition of Solicitation: If with purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission.
5.02(2)-Does solicitation have to be communicated for actor to liable for solicitation?
Uncommunicated Solicitation: Doesn’t matter if actor fails to communicate with person he solicits to commit a crime if his conduct was designed to effect such communication
5.02(3)-How can an actor escape liability for solicitation?
Renunciation of Criminal Purpose: affirmative defense if after soliciting another person he persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented the commission of the crime, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.
5.03(1)-What is criminal conspiracy?
Definition of Conspiracy: with PURPOSE (MR) of promoting/facilitating its commission he:
(a)AGREES (AR) with such other person(s) that they or 1+ of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or
(b)agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime
5.03(2)-What is the scope of a conspiratorial relationship?
Scope of Conspiratorial Relationship: if he KNOWS (MR) a person with whom he conspires has conspired with someone else to commit same crime he is guilty of conspiring with such other person or persons, whether or not he knows their identity, to commit such crime
5.03(3)-What if conspiracy has multiple criminal offense objectives?
Conspiracy with Multiple Crim Objectives: If conspires to commit number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as each multiple crime are object of same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship
5.03(5)-What is usually required to prove a conspiracy?
Overt Act
•Other than a felony of the first or second degree, no one can be convicted of a conspiracy unless an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired (The Actus Reus for 1st/2nd Degree felonies is an "agreement"; the Mens Rea is "purposely to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime", see 5.03(1))
5.03(6)-Ways to escape liability for conspiracy.
Renunciation of Criminal Purpose
* Affirmative defense: thwarting success under circumstances manifesting complete and voluntary renunciation of crim purpose
5.03(7)-When can it be said that a conspiracy is abandoned?
Duration of Conspiracy: continuing course of conduct terminates when crimes are committed or agreement that be committed is abandoned by def fellow conspirators; and such abandonment is presumed if neither def nor anyone does any overt act in pursuance of conspiracy during applicable period of limitation; and if an individual abandons the agreement, the conspiracy is terminable as to him only if and when he advises those with whom he conspired of his abandonment or he informs the law enforcement authorities of existence of conspiracy and his participation therein.
5.05(1)-How to grade charges of Attempt/Solicitation/Conspiracy
Grading:
* Same as most serious crime involved; but A/S/C to commit cap crime/felony of first degree is felony of 2nd deg
5.05(2)-Can a court mitigate a sentence for Attempt/Solicitation/Conspiracy?
Mitigation: if A/S/C is so inherently unlikely to result or culminate in commission of a crime court shall lower conviction or dismiss prosecution.
210.0(1)-Human Being Defined
Human Being: has been born and is alive
210.0(2)-Bodily Injured Defined
Bodily injury: physical pain, illness, impairment of physical condition
210.0(3)-Serious Bodily Injury Defined
Serious Bodily Injury: bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ;
210.0(4)-Deadly Weapon Defined
Deadly Weapon: any firearm, or other weapon, device, instrument, material or substance, whether animate or inanimate, which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury
210.1(1)-When is an actor guilty of criminal homicide?
Guilty of Criminal Homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes death of another human being
210.1(2)-Grades of Criminal Homicide
Crim homicide is murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide
210.2(1)-When does is criminal homicide found to be murder?
Crim Homicide constitutes murder when:
(a)Committed P or K
(b)Committed R under circumstances manifesting EIVHL: Presumed if actor is engaged in or accomplice in commission of or attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape, deviate sexual intercourse by threat or force, arson, burglary, kidnapping, felonious escape
210.2(2)-Sentencing for murder
Murder felony of first degree
•Min sentence 1-10 years
•Max sentence: death/life in prison
210.3(1)-When is criminal homicide found to be manslaughter?
Crim Homicide is manslaughter when:
(a) committed R
(b) otherwise is murder but committed under influence of EMED for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse
210.3(2)-Sentencing for manslaughter
Manslaughter is felony of 2nd degree:
•Min sentence: 1-3 yrs in prison
•Max sentence 10 yrs prison
210.4(1)-When is criminal homicide found to be negligent homicide?
Crim homicide constitutes neg hom when committed negligently
210.4(2)-Sentencing for negligent homicide
Felony in third degree
•Min sentence 1-2 yrs
•Max sentence 5 yrs
210.5(1)-When an actor can be held liable for criminal homicide for another actor's suicide.
Causing suicide as crim homicide: a person may be convicted of crim homicide for causing another to commit suicide only if he PURPOSELY (MR) causes such suicide by force, duress or deception
210.5(2)-Punishment for aiding or soliciting suicide
Aiding or Soliciting Suicide as an independent offense: felony of 2nd degree if causes suicide or attempted suicide; otherwise a misdemeanor
213.0(2)-Def of Sexual Intercourse
Sexual Intercourse: includes intercourse per Os or per anum, with some penetration however slight; emission is not req’d
213.0(3)-Def of Deviate Sexual Intercourse
Deviate Sexual Intercourse: sexual intercourse per os or per anum between human beings who are not husband and wife, and any form of sexual intercourse with an animal
213.1(1)-What constitutes Rape?
Rape: A man having sex intrcs with female not his wife guilty of rape if:
(a)he compels her to submit by force or threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain or kidnapping, to be inflicted on anyone
(b)he has substantially impaired her power to appraise or control her conduct by administering or empoying w/o her knowledge drugs, intoxicnts or other means for purpose of preventing resistance; or
(c)female is unconscious
(d)female is less than 10 years old
felony of 2nd degree unless (i) in course thereof the actor inflicts serious bodily injury upon anyone, or (ii) victim not a voluntary social companion of actor upon the occasion of crime and had not previously permitted him sexual liberties: 1st degree. Sexual intercourse includes intercourse per os or per anum, with some penetration however slight; emission not required
213.1(2)-What constitutes Gross Sexual Imposition?
Gross Sexual Imposition:
A male having sex with female not his wife commits felony of third degree if:
* Compels her to submit by any threat that would prevent resistance by a woman of ordinary resolution
* knows she suffers from mental disease or defect which renders her incapable of appraising nature of her conduct
* Knows she is unaware that a sex act is being committed upon her or that she submits b/c she mistakenly supposes that he’s her husband
2.03(2)-When is a result within MR of actor acting purposely or knowingly?
When purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of the offense it’s not estbl if actual result is not within purpose or contemplation of actor unless:
(a)transferred intent std (FN 125 on p. 150)
(b)actual result not too remote or accidental to have just bearing on actor’s liability