• People v. Levy): The court in Levy ruled that New York States accusatory instrument alleged that the defendant operated his vehicle recklessly and as such, the prosecution should not have been allowed to argue at trial that the defendant made a reckless decision to drive knowing he was prone to epileptic seizures. Suppose the states accusatory instrument had been consistent with prosecutors argument. Do you think the prosecutor's argument would have merit? Should the voluntary act requirement for establishing an actus reus be satisfied by conduct that includes a voluntary act (i.e., the Model Penal Code one-voluntary-act-is-enough rule)? Or should every act up to the moment of the crime have to be voluntary (see p. 99 in Samaha)?