Chapter 5 - Mens Rea

Question 1

Mens Rea

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Culpability Meaning of Mens Rea

Answer 2

“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

Question 3

Elemental Meaning of Mens Rea

Answer 3

• the mental state specified in the definition of the crime MUST be met
• -knowning, reckless, negligent, purposeful

Question 4

MPC 2.02

Answer 4

“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.

Question 5

Material Elements of a Crime

MPC

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Purposely

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Knowingly

Answer 7

1) awareness that the conduct is of that nature or that attendant circum. exist
2) awareness that conduct will almost certainly produce the result

Question 8

Recklessly

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Negligently

Answer 9

Should be aware of a risk/result of conduct

**Involves a gross deviation from reasonable conduct standard

Question 10

“Willful Blindness”

Answer 10

“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

Question 11

Prima Facie Case

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

Regina v. Cunningham

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

People v. Conley

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Failure of Proof Defense

Answer 14

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.”

Question 15

Mens Rea for Result Offenses

Answer 15

• 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)

Question 16

Transferred Intent

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Breaking down a statute (look at PPT)

Answer 17

Break the statute into elements of the crime (P must prove ALL elements of the crime):
Mens Rea, Actus Reus, Attendant Circumstances, defense, result

Question 18

Mens Rea and BRD

Answer 18

State must prove mens rea BRD;

Question 19

General Intent Crime

Answer 19

assault, rape, kidnapping, false imprisonment

Question 20

Specific Intent Crime

Answer 20

w/ intent to
w/ purpose to
** planned

Question 21

Strict Liability Crimes

Answer 21

• 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

Question 22

Affirmative Defense

Answer 22

Defendant will assert a defense such as duress/coercion;

NOT refuting

Question 23

Inference V. Presumption

Answer 23

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

Question 24

State v. Nations

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Flores-Figueroa v. US

Answer 25

SUCO requires states to have to prove “knowing” for all elements of a statute including “knowing”

Question 26

Result Crimes

Answer 26

Must prove intention to cause social harm

Question 27

MPC 2.02 (3) - Subjective Liability

Answer 27

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)

Question 28

MPC 2.02(5) Subsitution

Answer 28

A lesser culp. requirement can be REPLACED with a greater culp requirement

Question 29

Morrissette v. US

Answer 29

SUCO Concluded that Defendant had to have been proven to have specific mental state of offense

Question 30

Malum In Se

Answer 30

Conduct that is inherently wrong; conduct is bad no matter the circumstances
(murder/rape)

Question 31

Malum Prohibitum

Answer 31

conduct is wrong simply because it is prohibited; nothing inherently wrong in the conduct
(Marijuana, drinking underaged)

Question 32

Staples v. US

Answer 32

Legislature did not mention a specific mens rea because they did not intend to outlaw otherwise lawful conduct

Question 33

Garnett v. State

Answer 33

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)

Question 34

Mistake of Fact (Strict Liability)

Answer 34

Mistake is NEVER a defense

Question 35

Mistake of Fact (Specific Intent)

Answer 35

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

Question 36

Mistake of Fact (General Intent)

Answer 36

A) Reasonable Mistake- MAY NOT be guilty BUT Legal Wrong Doctrine and Moral Wrong Doctrine

B) Unreasonable Mistake- guilty is mistake is unreasonable

Question 37

Legal Wrong Doctrine

Answer 37

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.

Question 38

Moral Wrong Doctrine

Answer 38

There should be NO exculpation for mistake where, if the facts believed were true, the conduct would STILL be immoral

(what is morality though?)

Question 39

Mistake of Fact

Answer 39

– 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

Question 40

Mistake of Law

Answer 40

Ignorance or mistake concerning the law excuses NO ONE

– Exceptions: Different Law Negating Specific Intent, Reasonable Reliance Doctrine, Fair Notice

Question 41

Reasonable Reliance Doctrine

Answer 41

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)

Question 42

Fair Notice (Lambert Principle)

Answer 42

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

Question 43

Different Law Mistake (Ignorance/Mistake that Negates Mens Rea)

Answer 43

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)

Question 44

MPC 2.04 (1) (a) (b)

Answer 44

(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

Question 45

MPC 2.04 (1)

Answer 45

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