There's been some misunderstanding; I would like to clarify when you 
should use any or all of these...

NOTE: "*" means it's a buzz word, means put it in your exam.

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.'"

*** REMINDER: LAST REVIEW before your midterms... I'll be going 
over the mock midterm and showing you past "A" answers. I'll also 
go over tips for taking the exam.

As always, please post questions if you guys are confused... 
Happy studying,
Anna