Modern forms of strict liability fall into two general types.

What are they?

Our previous post introduced the various gradations of homicide, as follows: Traditional Common Law - In the traditional common law approach, there are two basic gradations: murder (collecting together several different mens rea), and manslaughter (divided into two types, voluntary and involuntary, depending on the defendant’s mens rea). Common Law Statutory Reforms - Some states still follow the common law approach, but beginning in the 19th century, many states introduced statutory reforms that added further gradations, reflecting legislative judgments that the common law scheme did not adequately discriminate between various types of mens rea. Model Penal Code and Statutory Reforms - More recently, the Model Penal Code introduced yet another approach, which has spawned further statutory reforms. This post addresses Model Penal Code and Statutory Reforms: (1) The abandonment of the common law’s “malice aforethought” terminology; and (2) The three mens rea terms for murder. Subsequent posts will address the Model Penal Code’s mens rea terms for manslaughter and negligent homicide.

Our previous post introduced the various gradations of homicide, as follows: Traditional Common Law - In the traditional common law approach, there are two basic gradations: murder (collecting together several different mens rea), and manslaughter (divided into two types, voluntary and involuntary, depending on the defendant’s mens rea). Common Law Statutory Reforms - Some states still follow the common law approach, but beginning in the 19th century, many states introduced statutory reforms that added further gradations, reflecting legislative judgments that the common law scheme did not adequately discriminate between various types of mens rea. Model Penal Code and Statutory Reforms - More recently, the Model Penal Code introduced yet another approach, which has spawned further statutory reforms. This post addresses Common Law Statutory Reforms and the concepts of: Two Degrees of Murder; and The Meaning of “Premeditation and Deliberation.” Subsequent posts will address the Model Penal Code Approach.

There are various gradations of homicide, as follows: Traditional Common Law - In the traditional common law approach, there are two basic gradations: murder (collecting together several different mens rea), and manslaughter (divided into two types, voluntary and involuntary, depending on the defendant’s mens rea). Common Law Statutory Reforms - Some states still follow the common law approach, but beginning in the 19th century, many states introduced statutory reforms that added further gradations, reflecting legislative judgments that the common law scheme did not adequately discriminate between various types of mens rea. Model Penal Code and Statutory Reforms - More recently, the Model Penal Code introduced yet another approach, which has spawned further statutory reforms. This post addresses the Traditional Common Law Approach to homicide. Subsequent posts will address common law statutory reforms and the Model Penal Code Approach and statutory reforms.

In the previous post, we observed that although the general rule regarding mistake of law is that ignorance is no excuse, there are exceptions, for which we provided an overview.

In this posting, we focus on the companion – but different – doctrine of mistake of fact:

(1) Common Law: Specific Intent Offense;

(2) Common Law: General Intent Offense;

(2)(a)Common Law Minority Doctrines: General Intent Offense - “Moral Wrong” Doctrine and “Legal Wrong” Doctrine; and

(3)The M.P.C.

It's commonly understood that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Likewise, it's commonly understood that a defendant's misunderstanding of a relevant fact will not shield him from criminal liability.

But these common understandings are far too sweeping. In fact, a mistake of law or a mistake of fact can, in some situations, exculpate a defendant.

Common Law Exculpation Under the common law, there are two bases for exculpation:

1) Mistake of Law by Relevant Statute: "Same Law Defense"; and

(2) Mistake of Law by Other Law: "Different Law Defense."

Model Penal Code: Reasonable Reliance on Statements of Others And under M.P.C. 2.04(3)(b)(i-iv), there are four bases for exculpation, as discussed in this post.

The companion to this post refers to what is called “mistake of fact.” Both topics are addressed our Legal Lessons in Criminal Law: Mistake of Law / Mistake of Fact.

It's unfortunate that year after year, the exam results for 1L students are undermined by predictable misconceptions about the law and by related missteps in applying the law.

Here is a partial list of criminal law topics that fall into that category, and a link to helpful learning tools and activities, all of which are free:

A. Criminal Law: Actus Reus; Voluntary Act Requirement - Three topics; and

B. Criminal Law: Mens Rea; Omissions Liability - Five topics.

In the previous post, we observed that although the general rule regarding mistake of law is that ignorance is no excuse, there are exceptions, for which we provided an overview.

In this posting, we focus on the companion – but different – doctrine of mistake of fact:

(1) Common Law: Specific Intent Offense;

(2) Common Law: General Intent Offense;

(2)(a)Common Law Minority Doctrines: General Intent Offense - “Moral Wrong” Doctrine and “Legal Wrong” Doctrine; and

(3)The M.P.C.

It's commonly understood that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Likewise, it's commonly understood that a defendant's misunderstanding of a relevant fact will not shield him from criminal liability.

But these common understandings are far too sweeping. In fact, a mistake of law or a mistake of fact can, in some situations, exculpate a defendant.

Common Law Exculpation Under the common law, there are two bases for exculpation:

1) Mistake of Law by Relevant Statute: "Same Law Defense"; and

(2) Mistake of Law by Other Law: "Different Law Defense."

Model Penal Code: Reasonable Reliance on Statements of Others And under M.P.C. 2.04(3)(b)(i-iv), there are four bases for exculpation, as discussed in this post.

The companion to this post refers to what is called “mistake of fact.” Both topics are addressed our Legal Lessons in Criminal Law: Mistake of Law / Mistake of Fact.

What is the current view of the constitutionality of strict liability?