As you all know by now, Prof. Chang will give you MULTIPLE statutes 
for crimes. Please be ready...

Don't get all stressed out. You've all been dealing with actual 
statutes already. California's definition of 1st degree murder is 
an actual statute. 

She's also been kind enough to tell you that they will be 
constitutionally valid, so no need to go through the constitutional 
validity. However, just FYI, below is what you would do if the 
statute was not constitutionally valid.

*** Also, please check the language of the statute carefully for the 
mental state required for each material element of the crime, 
because whether a defendant is guilty often turns on that mental 
state. 

For example, if the statute requires that a defendant 
act "knowingly" (such as 'knowingly selling guns to a felon'), the 
defendant will not be guilty if she did not have that knowledge (ie 
did not know the purchaser was a felon). In interpreting a statute, 
keep in mind that "willfully" is equivalent to "knowingly". 

I suggest breaking up the STATUTE she gives you to 
several "elements"... You all know that Common Law Burglary has 5 
elements, right? When you get a statute, break it down accordingly 
as well. Look for a mental state, if there is one, and make sure 
you apply each mental state to EACH ELEMENT.

In the end, don't forget to CONCLUDE whether or not the defendant 
committed the crime-- apply the facts of the midterm to each element.


---------------This is from a PREVIOUS POST--------------------------

1. IF YOU ARE GIVEN A STATUTE ON THE EXAM:
You should first analyze its *CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY. This is when 
you bring up:

*Principle of Legality
*Clarity
*Avoid Undue Discretion
*Lenity (*ambiguous statutes bias towards the D)

(These concepts are defined on my web site: 
http://www.geocities.com/crimlawhelp, under "Principles")

This analysis may include a comparison to the crime's common law 
defition to determine legislative intent.

Example: If there's been a new statute written for murders, then 
you analyze it using the 4 concepts above and then use the CL 
definition of murder to talk about why the legislature wrote it as a 
felony in the first place and COMPARE.

2. IF YOUR EXAM DOESN'T GIVE A STATUTE:
You should state (not verbatim, something to the effect of:) "In the 
absence of a statute, I will first use the CL definition, second the 
MPC definition, and finally, how this definition has been modified 
today by different states."

YOU MUST discuss:

*COMMON LAW
*MPC
*Modern variations (specify if you are using CALIFORNIA)... score 
extra points if you discuss other states...

IE: "California follows the majority of states, with Heat of 
Passion. While New York follows the minority of states, with 
Extreme Emotional Disturbance."

IE: "California has defined premeditation and deliberation under 
first degree murder as something carried out in 'the twinkle of an 
eye' while other states have said that it can be done during 'the 
opportunity for a second thought.'"

-- Email if I just confused you more. Good luck everyone!
Anna