The Center
for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction
CALI Lessons Subject List - Criminal Law
Printable version.|
Markus Dubber Professor of Law State University of New York - Buffalo School of Law Approximate completion time 40 minutes.
| Actus Reus This exercise provides an introduction to the act requirement. In particular, it addresses the definition of "act," voluntariness, liability for omissions (failures to act), and possession offenses. crim15 |
Flash/ScoreSave
Web/HTML
Win/Download
Mac|
Ellen Suni Dean, Marvin Lewis Rich Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law Approximate completion time 35 minutes.
| Ambiguous Culpability Requirements This is the second in a series of lessons on culpability requirements under the Model Penal Code (MPC). This Lessonette® exercise, which assumes students are familiar with the basic requirement that every material element have a state of mind, addresses the state of mind that applies to each element when one or more states of mind are contained in an MPC criminal statute. The lesson introduces students to the various types of elements in MPC statutes and to the general rule, found in § 2.02(4), that where a state of mind is specified, it applies to all material elements unless a contrary purpose plainly appears. The lesson affords students the opportunity to practice the default rules relating to states of mind on mock statutes and to learn how the legislature expresses a contrary purpose. crim23 |
|
Norman Garland Professor of Law Southwestern Law School Approximate completion time 40 minutes.
| Battered Woman's Syndrome This is a Lessonette® exercise on battered woman syndrome with respect to the defense of self-defense. Over the last few decades, there has developed in the legal literature a recognition of this, and other similar syndromes, in the context of homicide cases. The situation of an abused person who kills the abuser raises questions about the basis for a defense of self-defense in circumstances that might not easily fit into the traditional self-defense mold. Though courts allow the defense in many cases, the invocation of the defense still presents problems in certain situations. The purpose of this lesson is to explore those varying circumstances and the issues raised with respect to the possibility of a defendant invoking the defense of self-defense. The focus of this lesson is on battered women, but there are others who might be identified as qualifying for a defense on the same theory. Included could be battered husbands, elderly parents, children, and so forth. Thus, this lesson will explore a number of the issues involved in the invocation of self-defense by such persons and to allow the student to test his or her understanding of how the defense works in such circumstances. The lesson explores when and how the defense can be invoked in various scenarios involving abused persons, and also considers the use of experts and jury instructions. The lesson assumes a beginner's understanding of self-defense principles. However, working the lesson will also serve to enhance that understanding. crim19 |
|
Markus Dubber Professor of Law State University of New York - Buffalo School of Law Approximate completion time 35 minutes.
| Causation This exercise provides an overview of the concept of causation. Factual cause is distinguished from legal cause, and causation in general from mens rea and attempt. Specific issues covered include simultaneous causes, different victim, different manner, and different injury. crim16 |
|
Ellen Suni Dean, Marvin Lewis Rich Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law Approximate completion time 25 minutes.
| Concurrence This is a basic lesson covering the common law doctrine of concurrence. At common law, crimes required not only an actus reus and a mens rea but concurrence of the two. Through use of scenarios involving the common law crimes of murder, robbery, burglary and larceny (which are briefly introduced), the requirements for concurrence are explored. In addition, also through the use of scenarios, the doctrine is distinguished from the related doctrines of causation and mistake. Finally, concurrence as to attendant circumstances is also addressed. After completing this lesson, the student should have a working knowledge of the common law doctrine of concurrence and some understanding of how modern common law jurisdictions deal with the issues raised by this doctrine. The lesson contains practice questions in a separate section that can be done independently of the lesson itself. crim26 |
|
Markus Dubber Professor of Law State University of New York - Buffalo School of Law Approximate completion time 35 minutes.
| Consent This lesson explores the various ways in which the criminal law considers victim consent. Topics include consent as negating an offense element, consent as justification, effective consent, and limitations on consent as a defense. crim32 |
|
Markus Dubber Professor of Law State University of New York - Buffalo School of Law Approximate completion time 35 minutes.
| Constitutional Limitations: 8th Amendment This exercise provides a general overview of the Eighth Amendment as it applies to substantive criminal law. It outlines the Amendment's potential scope as well as its actual reach, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Procedural criminal law (and the Court's capital punishment jurisprudence in particular) is ignored, except insofar as it bears on substantive criminal law or helps to define the Amendment's scope. crim08 |
|
Markus Dubber Professor of Law State University of New York - Buffalo School of Law Approximate completion time 30 minutes.
| Constitutional Limitations: Legality In this exercise, students get an overview of the principle of legality. Legality is divided into four subtopics: legislativity, retroactivity, vagueness, and lenity, which are addressed in turn. Particular attention is paid to the following issues: constitutional foundations; applicability to the states; applicability to the making or the interpretation of criminal laws, and to the legislature or the judiciary; applicability to criminal and civil law, and to substantive and procedural criminal law in particular. crim09 |
|
Norman Garland Professor of Law Southwestern Law School Approximate completion time 25 minutes.
| Defense of Others This Lessonette® exercise covers the subject of defense of others. In many respects an actor's right to defend another parallels his or her right to defend himself or herself. However, there are some specific exceptions and nuances that must be understood. It is the purpose of this lesson to cover those specifics and nuances in the context of some classic scenarios. The justification defense of defense of others derives from two or three analogous old common law defenses: defense of self, prevention of crime, and perhaps protection of property. This lesson seeks to inform the student on the relationship of the defense of others to those other defenses. Although familiarity with those other defenses might assist a student working the lesson, one could learn about these other defenses from the lesson in the first instance. The lesson contrasts the common law rules relating to the defense of others with the Model Penal Code provisions, as applied in recurring scenarios. The lesson also looks at jury instructions on defense of others. And, finally, the lesson focuses on the special rules relating to the duty to retreat in the context of the defense of others. crim21 |
|
Norman Garland Professor of Law Southwestern Law School Approximate completion time 25 minutes.
| Duty to Retreat This Lessonette® exercise covers the subject of the duty to retreat as a requirement for the justification defense of self-defense. This lesson reviews the common law and current status of the duty to retreat. This subject matter is not particularly complicated, but there are some details that require close scrutiny. The lesson assumes some understanding of the duty to retreat as integrated into the defense of self-defense. One who works the lesson will pinpoint the nuances of issues that arise in the context of current issues relating to the duty to retreat, exceptions to the requirement of retreat. Finally, the lesson focuses on appropriate instructions to the jury on the duty to retreat. crim20 |
|
Markus Dubber Professor of Law State University of New York - Buffalo School of Law Approximate completion time 40 minutes.
| Excuses I: Duress, Entrapment, Mistake Excuses I provides a general introduction to excuse defenses by placing them within the larger context of the analysis of criminal liability. More specifically, Excuses I covers duress, entrapment, and mistake (or "ignorance"). Insanity and infancy are covered in Excuses II. crim12 |
|
Markus Dubber Professor of Law State University of New York - Buffalo School of Law Approximate completion time 30 minutes.
| Excuses II: Insanity and Infancy Excuses II covers the excuses of insanity and infancy. As in Excuses I, the connection between these defenses and other issues in the analysis of criminal liability is emphasized. Excuses II is a freestanding exercise and provides a general introduction to the concept of an excuse. Still, it's probably best used in conjunction with Excuses I. crim13 |
|
Ellen Suni Dean, Marvin Lewis Rich Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law Approximate completion time 25 minutes.
| Introduction to Homicide This lesson provides a basic overview of the law of homicide. It is an introductory lesson to get you started on distinguishing criminal from noncriminal homicide, identifying the elements of homicide, and analyzing the varying degrees of homicide. The lesson guides you through applying the basic concepts of actus reus, mens rea and causation to homicide offenses and provides an analytical framework for approaching homicide problems. Finally, it provides separate practice questions and an opportunity to try out the problem-solving approach on an exam-type question. crim33 |
|
Norman Garland Professor of Law Southwestern Law School Approximate completion time 30 minutes.
| Justification Defenses: Excuse Defenses Distinguished This Lessonette® exercise 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 lesson also describes those circumstances in which classification one way or the other makes a difference. The student approaching this lesson should have a basic understanding of various defenses, both under the common law and the MPC. Working the lesson should significantly add to that student's ability to distinguish various defenses based on the classification of each with respect to justification versus excuse. In addition, the student should enhance his or her ability to articulate the theory and consequences of such classification. crim18 |
|
Rosanna Cavallaro Professor of Law Suffolk University Law School Approximate completion time 20 minutes.
| The Mens Rea of Attempts This Lessonette® exercise 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), how the punishment of an attempt should compare to that for a completed offense, 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. crim27 |
|
Rosanna Cavallaro Professor of Law Suffolk University Law School Approximate completion time 20 minutes.
| The Mens Rea of Knowledge Like the other Lessonette® exercises about mens rea, this lesson examines the mental state of knowledge as set forth in the Model Penal Code. It places knowledge in a continuum of mental states and seeks to familiarize students with the rationale for requiring knowledge and for punishing knowledge crimes differently from other offenses. The lesson also presents material to demonstrate how knowledge, a highly subjective mental state, can be proven through inferences of various kinds, and how proof of knowledge of a result might differ from proof of knowledge of conduct. crim07 |
|
Rosanna Cavallaro Professor of Law Suffolk University Law School Approximate completion time 20 minutes.
| The Mens Rea of Negligence This Lessonette® exercise examines the mental state of negligence as set forth in the Model Penal Code. In particular, the lesson presents some material on the rationale for punishing at negligence level (or not), as well as examining the concept of "failure to perceive." Finally, the lesson examines the nature of the risk at issue in negligence, drawing particular attention to the Code terms "substantial" and "unjustifiable," and to the simultaneously subjective and objective aspects of the Code's definition of that risk. crim06 |
|
Rosanna Cavallaro Professor of Law Suffolk University Law School Approximate completion time 20 minutes.
| The Mens Rea of Purpose In this Lessonette® exercise, students examine the mens rea of purpose as set forth in the Model Penal Code. The lesson contains some material that allow students to see purpose in relation to other levels of culpability, and to recognize and understand purpose as the highest and most subjective level of culpability. The lesson explores the Code term "conscious object," and also presents opportunities to consider the theoretical significance of requiring purpose as a condition of imposing criminal punishment, in terms of both retribution and negligence. Finally, the lesson examines certain rules permitting presumptions and inferences that ease the difficulty of proving purpose to a factfinder. crim04 |
|
Rosanna Cavallaro Professor of Law Suffolk University Law School Approximate completion time 20 minutes.
| The Mens Rea of Recklessness This Lessonette® exercise considers the mens rea of recklessness as defined in the Model Penal Code. After some material on the idea of a minimum level of culpability as a condition of punishment at common law, the lesson examines how recklessness operates as that minimum level in the Code. The lesson attempts to distinguish those mental states associated with greater and lesser culpability from that of "conscious disregard." It also examines the nature of the risk at issue in recklessness, drawing particular attention to the Code terms "substantial" and "unjustifiable," and to the simultaneously subjective and objective aspects of the Code's definition of that risk. crim05 |
|
Ellen Suni Dean, Marvin Lewis Rich Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law Approximate completion time 35 minutes.
| Minimum Culpability Requirements Under the Model Penal Code This is an elementary lesson that introduces the concept of default rules in the Model Penal Code. It focuses on several sections of MPC § 2.02 relating to minimum culpability requirements. After completing this lesson, students should understand that, except in rare cases, the MPC requires a state of mind as to every material element of an offense, and that generally recklessness is the minimum level of culpability required. Students will also obtain a working knowledge of the terminology of the MPC, including elements, material elements and the various states of mind. They will also 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. crim22 |
|
Ellen Suni Dean, Marvin Lewis Rich Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law Approximate completion time 25 minutes.
| Mistake as to the Law Defining the Offense This lesson addresses the oft-stated maxim that ignorance or mistake of law is no defense and examines its relevance under the Model Penal Code. Using sample statutes and scenarios, it demonstrates that, as a general principle, no state of mind is required as to whether a defendant's conduct constitutes an offense. The Lesson explores the policies behind the rule and its "reasonable reliance" exceptions. Students have an opportunity to practice applying the various exceptions and to gain an understanding of the burden of proof regarding the reasonable reliance defense. crim25 |
|
Ellen Suni Dean, Marvin Lewis Rich Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law Approximate completion time 30 minutes.
| Mistake Under the Model Penal Code: Mistake as to Defenses This is an advanced lesson. It assumes the student has the ability to identify the state of mind required for each element of an offense and defense based on MPC default rules of construction and has an understanding of basic principles of mistake set out in § 2.04. Using scenarios involving abandonment in burglary, choice of evils and self-defense, the lesson demonstrates how ignorance or mistake as to an element of a defense is treated under the MPC. This lesson relies heavily on MPC Commentary to explain the rules and policy behind mistake as to defenses. It carries through the theme of punishing defendants at the level of their personal culpability. crim30 |
|
Ellen Suni Dean, Marvin Lewis Rich Faculty Scholar and Professor of Law University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law Approximate completion time 35 minutes.
| Mistake Under the Model Penal Code: Mistake as to Elements of Offenses This Lessonette® exercise, which assumes basic understanding of the default rules of construction, introduces the concept of mistake under the Model Penal Code. It is fairly basic in its coverage. The lesson introduces the MPC approach to mistake and relates it to common law doctrines. Using sample statutes and scenarios, it shows the relationship between the required state of mind and mistake and demonstrates how reasonableness is not generally required in MPC analysis. It then covers the difficult concepts addressed in § 2.04(2) (guilt of lesser offenses where defendant makes a "culpable" mistake) and explores the policy underpinnings of this rule. At the conclusion of the lesson, students should have an understanding of how the MPC deals with claims of ignorance and mistake. The lesson provides a separate section of review/practice questions. crim24 |
|
Frank Tuerkheimer Robert L. Habush-Bascom Professor of Law University of Wisconsin Law School Approximate completion time 1 hour.
| Plea & Discovery 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. The framework for both exercises is federal practice. crim02 |
|
Frank Tuerkheimer Robert L. Habush-Bascom Professor of Law University of Wisconsin Law School Approximate completion time 1 hour.
| Pre-indictment & Charge 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. The framework for both exercises is federal practice. crim01 |
|
Markus Dubber Professor of Law State University of New York - Buffalo School of Law Approximate completion time 35 minutes.
| Presumption of Innocence (Burden of Proof and Presumptions) This exercise provides a general introduction to constitutional limitations on the assignment of burdens of proof and the creation of evidentiary presumptions. crim10 |
|
Markus Dubber Professor of Law State University of New York - Buffalo School of Law Approximate completion time 30 minutes.
| Punishment: Theories 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). crim11 |
|
Norman Garland Professor of Law Southwestern Law School Approximate completion time 25 minutes.
| Self-Defense This is a Lessonette® exercise 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. crim17 |
|
Markus Dubber Professor of Law State University of New York - Buffalo School of Law Approximate completion time 10 minutes.
| Sources of Criminal Law 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. crim14 |
|
Daniel Moriarty Professor of Law Albany Law School Approximate completion time 2 hours.
| Suspendatur! 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. crim03 |
The Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction
|
| All Contents Copyright The Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction | About | Contact | Legal |