Chapter 5 - Mens Rea Flashcards
Mens Rea
A guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent
- *Actor is culpable ONLY if their intent is criminal
- unless it is a strict liability crime
Culpability Meaning of Mens Rea
“Guilty mind, vicious will, immorality of motive, morally culpable state of mind.”
- doesn’t matter which state of mind, but his state of mind is morally blameworthy when committing the crime
Elemental Meaning of Mens Rea
- the mental state specified in the definition of the crime MUST be met
- -knowning, reckless, negligent, purposeful
MPC 2.02
“General Requirements of Culpability”
- applies elemental approach to mens rea
- prosecutor must prove that the defendant committed EACH material element of the charged offense with the state of mind required
- if it can’t be proven to EACH material offense, no valid criminal conviction.
Material Elements of a Crime
MPC
An element that does not relate exclusively to the
1) statute of limitations
2) jurisdiction
3) venue or
4) to any other matter similarly unconnected with the
a) harm or evil/conduct to be prevented by the offense
b) the existence of a justification or excuse for such conduct
* *Basically - material element are everything except for silly procedural stuff in the crime/offense
Purposely
1) it is a conscious objective to engage in conduct or to cause such a result
2) +attn. circum. - awareness of the circumstances is required, or belief or hope that they exist
Knowingly
1) awareness that the conduct is of that nature or that attendant circum. exist
2) awareness that conduct will almost certainly produce the result
Recklessly
Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result from the conduct
** involves a gross deviation from reasonable conduct standard
Negligently
Should be aware of a risk/result of conduct
**Involves a gross deviation from reasonable conduct standard
“Willful Blindness”
“Ostrich”
- Defendant must subjectively believe there is a high probability that a fact exists
- Defendant must take DELIBERATE actions to avoid learning of that fact
- -SuCo in Global Tech Appliances v. SEB S.A.: defendants cannot escape the reach of statutes by deliberately shielding themselves.
- -MPC 2.02 (7) The requirement of knowledge is satisfied by knowledge of high probability
Prima Facie Case
When the prosecutor’s evidence is sufficient for a conviction(evidence of both actus reus and mens rea)
-If the defendant is able to present an evidence that is contradictory (affirmative defense/failure of proof defense and rebuttal evidence), the case is dismissed.
Regina v. Cunningham
Maliciously
- Does NOT require ill will toward the person harmed
- requires ACTUAL intention to do the particular kind of harm done or recklessness at to whether such harm could occur.
People v. Conley
Intent
-state must show defendant intended to cause the social harm of the offense
-Can be inferred from surrounding circumstances
-Intentional when the conscious objective or purpose is to accomplish the result or to engage in the specific conduct
state must show defendant intended to cause the social harm of the offense
Failure of Proof Defense
Defendant refutes the prosecution’s evidence w/ more compelling evidence; state has not proved offense BRD.
- -Defendant will rebut state’s evidence
- -ex. “I wasn’t there that day.”
Mens Rea for Result Offenses
- When an offense is defined by result, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant either:
- -had the conscious objective (intent) to achieve the harm defined OR
- -was “consciously aware” (knowing) that harm defined was practically certain to be caused by his conduct.
(ie. People v. Conley)
Transferred Intent
Cannot transfer men rea, only intent; Cannot transfer intent between two different offenses
- When A aimed at B but missed an killed C.
- -Intent and culpability are transferred
Breaking down a statute (look at PPT)
Break the statute into elements of the crime (P must prove ALL elements of the crime):
Mens Rea, Actus Reus, Attendant Circumstances, defense, result
Mens Rea and BRD
State must prove mens rea BRD;
General Intent Crime
assault, rape, kidnapping, false imprisonment
Specific Intent Crime
w/ intent to
w/ purpose to
** planned
Strict Liability Crimes
- Statutory Rape
- Public welfare offenses
- strict liability is allowed for public welfare offenses b/c the punishment is usually small and there is no injustice done by depriving these offenders of mens rea
Affirmative Defense
Defendant will assert a defense such as duress/coercion;
NOT refuting
Inference V. Presumption
Inference : Jury MAY draw a conclusion that fact A exists based on the proof that fact B exists; w/o evidence from opposing party, jury can still reject the conclusion that fact A exists
Presumption : presumption establishes the existence of fact A from the existence of fact B; opposing party has the burden of rebutting the presumption – without evidence from the opposing party - the jury MUST draw the presumptive conclusion
State v. Nations
Legislature failed to adopt MPC about willful blindness - only actual knowledge of that fact will meet that state’s burden
– B/c state couldn’t prove knowingly, D was not culpable
Flores-Figueroa v. US
SUCO requires states to have to prove “knowing” for all elements of a statute including “knowing”
Result Crimes
Must prove intention to cause social harm
MPC 2.02 (3) - Subjective Liability
IF the statute doe not specify a particular mens rea, you can establish culpability if P or K or R
- -because it requires the actor to be aware of the risk
- N (they are not aware of the risk)
MPC 2.02(5) Subsitution
A lesser culp. requirement can be REPLACED with a greater culp requirement
Morrissette v. US
SUCO Concluded that Defendant had to have been proven to have specific mental state of offense
Malum In Se
Conduct that is inherently wrong; conduct is bad no matter the circumstances
(murder/rape)
Malum Prohibitum
conduct is wrong simply because it is prohibited; nothing inherently wrong in the conduct
(Marijuana, drinking underaged)
Staples v. US
Legislature did not mention a specific mens rea because they did not intend to outlaw otherwise lawful conduct
Garnett v. State
Because of wording and legislative history behind statutory rape, there must be strict liability
– very difficult to have exceptions for mistakes of fact (you can be lied to/deceived)
Mistake of Fact (Strict Liability)
Mistake is NEVER a defense
Mistake of Fact (Specific Intent)
ALMOST GUARANTEED TO BE ON THE TEST
D is not guilty of the offense if mistake of fact NEGATES THE SPECIFIC INTENT of the crime
Mistake of Fact (General Intent)
A) Reasonable Mistake- MAY NOT be guilty BUT Legal Wrong Doctrine and Moral Wrong Doctrine
B) Unreasonable Mistake- guilty is mistake is unreasonable
Legal Wrong Doctrine
D is guilty of X, despite a reasonable mistake of fact, if he would be guilty of a different albeit lesser crime if the facts believed were true.
Moral Wrong Doctrine
There should be NO exculpation for mistake where, if the facts believed were true, the conduct would STILL be immoral
(what is morality though?)
Mistake of Fact
– Failure of Proof Defense
– D has burden of proof of producing evidence that he was mistaken
How can mistake of fact (relating to an element of the offense) affect criminal responsibility?
– One’s misperception of reality may exculpate b/c the actor is deprived of opportunity to make the correct choice
Mistake of Law
Ignorance or mistake concerning the law excuses NO ONE
– Exceptions: Different Law Negating Specific Intent, Reasonable Reliance Doctrine, Fair Notice
Reasonable Reliance Doctrine
A person is exculpated if he REASONABLY RELIED on the official statement of the law obtained from a person authorized to interp. the law (policeman, lawyer; official doc, official statement, NOT privately retained counsel)(later determined to be erroneous)
Fair Notice (Lambert Principle)
A person who is unaware of a duly enacted and published law may assert violation of due process IF
a) punished by omission
b) imposed a duty based on status rather than activity
c) was malum prohibitum
Different Law Mistake (Ignorance/Mistake that Negates Mens Rea)
Strict Liability - MISTAKE IS NOT A DEFENSE (reasonable or not)
Specific Intent - Different law mistake (reasonable or not) IS a defense IF it negates the specific intent
General Intent - MISTAKE IS NOT A DEFENSE (reasonable or not)
MPC 2.04 (1) (a) (b)
(a) A mistake of fact is a defense if it negates any required mens rea
(b) A mistake of fact is a defense when it establishes a state of mind that constitutes a defense
MPC 2.04 (1)
Mistake of law is IRRELEVANT except:
- Where the definition of the crime so provides
- Where the law has not been reasonably made available
- Where the actor relies on an official statement
