Differences between common law crimes and MPC crimes The elements constituting a crime vary between codes that draw on common law principles and those that draw from the Model Penal Code. For example, the mens rea required of murder in federal law under the United States Code is distinct from the mens rea of murder under the Texas Penal Code (which adopted the Model Penal Code in 1974): +18 U.S.C. §1111Texas Penal Code §19.02Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.A person commits an offense if he: (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual. In the common law approach as under 18 U.S.C. §1111, the definition of murder includes an actus reus (the unlawful killing of a human being) and a common law mens rea: malice aforethought. Modern criminal law approaches the analysis somewhat differently. Using a framework from the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, homicide is a "results" offense in that it forbids any "purposeful" or "knowing" conduct that causes, and therefore results in, the death of another human being. "Purposeful" in this sense means the actor possessed a conscious purpose or objective that the result (i.e. the death of another human being) be achieved. "Knowing" means that the actor was aware or practically certain that a death would result, but had no purpose or desire for it to occur. By contrast with traditional common law, the Model Penal Code specifically distinguishes purpose and knowledge to avoid confusion regarding "intent" elements."Yet, because there are several areas of the criminal law in which there may be good reason for distinguishing between one's objectives and knowledge, the modern approach is to define separately the mental states of knowledge and intent (sometimes referred to as purpose, most likely to avoid confusion with the word 'intent' as traditionally defined)." The modern view: intent and knowledge distinguished, 1 Subst. Crim. L. § 5.2(b) (3d ed.). Many states still adhere to older terminology, relying on the terms "intentional" to cover both types of mens rea: "purposeful" and "knowing".Colb, S. F., "Why Can't Jurors Distinguish 'Knowing' From 'Reckless' Misconduct?", Justia, January 11, 2012.
DifFereNCes BeTWeEn cOmmoN laW CriMeS anD mpC crImes tHE eLements conStiTutiNg a crimE VarY between codeS that DraW ON commoN law PrINciPLEs and tHosE that Draw FroM tHe model PeNal cOde. for eXAMplE, tHe meNs rEa reqUirEd OF muRder in fEDEral Law unDer ThE UNitEd states COde iS DistInCT FROM the mens REa Of murdEr unDer tHe TEXas penal code (which AdOptED The model pEnaL Code In 1974): +18 u.S.c. §1111texaS PEnal code §19.02muRdEr is THe UNlaWful killing OF a huMAn being with malICe afORetHOught.A person commits aN OFfense if hE: (1) intentIOnally Or knoWiNgLy cAusES the deAth OF an inDivIduAl. In the comMon law approaCh As uNdER 18 u.s.c. §1111, the defiNitioN of mUrder iNCluDEs an Actus reus (THe unlaWFul kILling of a hUmAN bEiNg) and a coMmON law mens rea: malice AforEtHouGhT. moDerN cRiminaL LAW aPproaCHes THE analySis SomeWHat diFFeReNtly. usIng A framEWorK frOM thE AMerican lAW InstiTutE's MOdeL penal Code, HomicidE is A "reSults" oFfEnSe in That it ForBIds anY "PurPosefuL" oR "Knowing" cOnDuCT that caUSes, and theReFOrE reSults In, THE death of AnoTHEr huMAN BeInG. "PurPosEFul" in this Sense meaNS thE Actor possesSEd a consCIouS PuRpose oR ObjeCTiVe ThAT The resUlt (I.e. tHE dEatH oF another humaN beIng) bE AcHIevED. "kNOwIng" MEans tHaT the actor wAS awaRe oR praCtiCally Certain tHat a DEaTh wouLd reSulT, bUT Had nO pUrpoSE oR desire for it tO Occur. by COntrast witH trADITIonal commoN law, The moDEL penal CodE SPecificAlLY diStInGuiSheS pURpose and KNowledge to avoId coNfusion REgardinG "Intent" eLEMeNts."yet, BecAusE there ARe seVeRal AreaS oF the cRImInaL lAW in which thEre May be GOod reAsoN fOR dIstInguIshing beTween one's ObjeCTives and KNowLedge, tHe moderN apprOach Is To deFinE sEPArAtEly the mEnTal stAteS of Knowledge aNd INtEnT (soMEtImeS rEferreD to As purposE, most likely to Avoid coNFuSion with the wORD 'intent' AS tRadItiOnally definEd)." the modern vieW: IntenT anD kNowLeDGe dIsTinguIShEd, 1 sUbst. crIm. L. § 5.2(b) (3d ed.). mAny stateS STill adHere to oLDEr TeRmInOloGy, relying oN the terMs "iNteNtional" to coveR bOTh TyPes of mEns rea: "PuRposeFul" And "KnOwiNg".coLb, s. F., "why can't jurOrs DistinGuish 'kNOwIng' FRom 'reCKlesS' MiSconduct?", jusTiA, jaNuary 11, 2012.