CL Mens Rea - Specific Intent and General Intent Flashcards
Regina v Cunningham (1957)
Facts: Thief destroys a gas meter during a burglary, causing a leak that severely injures elderly woman in adjacent house.
Rule: The term malice in a criminal statute means either (1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that was in fact done or (2) reckless disregard of a foreseeable risk that the harm would result.
Holding: D wins because the “general wickedness” of his theft does not fulfill the “maliciously” mens rea requirement in the statute. D did not intend to hurt the woman, and jury did not consider whether D was reckless.
US v Yermian (1984)
Facts: D is hired as defense contractor. D lies on forms. Forms include language saying D knows he’ll be guilty if he lies on them. D argues he didn’t realize the docs would be sent to a federal agency.
Rule: The culpability requirement attached to the elements of a criminal offense does not apply to the jurisdictional language in the statute.
Holding: D loses because the court interprets the “knowingly and willingly” portion of the statute to only apply to the actus reus elements of the crime, not the knowledge of the jurisdiction of the statute i.e. that this was a law dealing with federal agencies.
State v Fugate (1973)
Facts: D robs parking garage owner and shoots and kills him with a shotgun. D argues he didn’t kill “purposely.”
Rule: A criminal defendant’s intent to kill may be presumed if the natural and probable consequence of his wrongful act is to cause death.
Holding: D has intent because the natural and probable consequences of shooting someone with a shotgun is their death.
US v Jewell
Facts: D is caught bringing 100 pounds of weed across US border. Weed was in secret compartment. D knew about the compartment, but intentionally didn’t look inside. D argues he doesn’t fulfill “knowingly.”
Rule: For the purposes of satisfying the elements of a criminal statute, “knowingly” includes both positive knowledge and the defendant’s awareness of the high probability of an illegal act when the defendant
People v Atkins (2001)
Facts: D tells friends he wants to burn victim’s house. D gets drunk near victim’s house and lights fire. D argues he doesn’t have requisite intent for arson (general).
Rule: A criminal defendant may not introduce evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate the existence of general criminal intent.
Holding: D loses because evidence of involuntary intoxication is only admissible to show whether a defendant had specific criminal intent.
In essence, general intent only requires an intent to commit the act that causes the harm, while specific intent requires an intent to commit the act and to cause the harm that results from the act.
