Class 2: Mental States, General v Specific Intent, Mistake of Law/Fact, Causation.

Question 1

What are the five main mental states?

(He won’t ask about this)

Answer 1

Malice, Intent, Knowledge, Recklessness, Negligence

Question 2

What is the definition of malice?

Does common law have a problem with the definition?

Answer 2

The typical definition for malice included acting with a wicked motive or with an evil intent.

Yes common law has trouble with this.

Question 3

Hypo:

X was charged with murder. She was very stressed this day. This is a MPC jurisdiction.

Does she have any defence?

If it works, what would it reduce the murder to?

Answer 3

Under the MPC, she can argue extreme emotional disturbance.

Manslaughter.

Question 4

When will the MPC infer knowledge?

(2 scenarios)

Answer 4

The MPC says they will infer knowledge

1) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, and he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist and

2) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.

Question 5

What is express malice?

Provide an example

Answer 5

Express malice involved commission of a crime with the deliberate intention to bring about death.

Example: shooting someone in the head

Question 6

What is implied malice?

Provide an example

Answer 6

Implied malice involved the defendant’s indifference to a particular result brought about by a level of carelessness or inattention so severe that it demonstrated malice.

Implied malice simply means that your actions implied a willingness to hurt others. In other words, by looking at how you acted, it’s obvious that you knew you could kill someone

Example: causing someone’s death by an avoidable accident

Question 7

1) What is intent?

2) What two things does the MPC say about intent?

Answer 7

Intent is acting purposefully.

The MPC says
1) If the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result and,

2) if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist

Basically, intent is 1) if he does the act he intends it and 2) If he knows circumstances may create the act, he intends it.

Question 8

What is knowledge?

Answer 8

Acting with awareness the result is practically certain to occur.

Knowledge is acting knowingly.

Question 9

What is recklessness?

Answer 9

Recklessness means conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that your conduct would cause a particular result

Question 10

What is negligence?

Answer 10

Negligence means disregarding a risk or creating a risk that would cause a particular result but not being aware of it.

You should be aware of it, as a reasonable person would be aware, but you are not actually aware of it.

Question 11

What is the difference between being reckless or negligent?

Answer 11

The difference is not the difference of risk taken, but rather subjective fault. The difference is AWARNESS of the risk.

Being reckless means you know of the risk.

Being negligent means you should have known about the risk but you genuinely did not.

Question 12

What does criminal negligence mean?

General or specific intent?

Talk about criminal negligence and a reasonable person standard.

What is the important part needed for criminal negligence in the US?

Canada and US use different language for more important part. What do each use?

Answer 12

Criminal negligence involves taking substantial and unjustified risk, but the defendant may be completely unaware of it. GROSS DEVIATION

Criminal negligence is specific.

The law declares that he should have been aware of the risk and his failure to perceive it considering the nature and purpose of his conduct, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe.

The gross deviation is the important part for the US

The marked departure is the important for CAN

Question 13

Young v State/Young v Gaylord

Facts: Young believed her son stole from her. Thus, she punished her son by beating him up. She is prosecuted for child abuse.

The code said this crime needed malicious punishment of her child. The state needed to prove that her acts were malicious.

Issue:

They took the old understanding of what Malice meant. What is this old understanding?

Answer 13

Holding:

Court says the old understanding of malice makes sense.

In State v. Gaylord, they said malicious meant to do something with ill will, evil intent, evilly. They claim they are bound by the Gaylord case and thus actual malice means evil, ill will and evil intent.

Malice in this context, was the old understanding, which was evil, ill will, evil intent.

Question 14

Is malice in the MPC?

Answer 14

No.

Question 15

United States v Bailey

Facts: Federal prisoners escaped from custody. Authorities recaptured them. All of them argued and brought up the bad conditions they were living in jail from. The guards abused them, threatened them, the circulation was bad, and they all claimed they had to leave due to necessity because of the bad conditions.

Issue: Did the people need knowledge of escaping confinement, or would leaving due to necessity be enough to convict them?

(Not much to learn from this tbh)

Answer 15

Holding:

COA said At a minimum, they require knowledge.

Lower court said they could only be convicted if they left with the intent to avoid confinement. This turned the requirement much more specific.

The court said this was wrong, and they determined the scope of mens rea under the statute and the mens rea required which was just .

Question 16

What is general intent.

Give one example

Answer 16

General intent is one level of intent that is required for conviction. It elates solely to the performance of the act in question

An example is assault or rape

Question 17

What is specific intent?

Provide an example.

Answer 17

Specific intent is when it requires two levels of intent

Common law burglary is often described as a specific intent crime because it requires the breaking and entering of another’s dwelling with the intent to commit another crime inside.

This requires two levels of mens rea and is why it is a specific intent.

Defendant must have the intent to enter the building and then the intent to commit a second crime such as theft or rape

Question 18

If a crime says “with the intent to” typically what type of intent is required?

Answer 18

Specific intent

Question 19

What is the doctrine of transferred intent?

Provide an example.

Answer 19

This is the idea of the “bad aim” scenario. You intend to kill A but you miss and hit B and kill B.

This doctrine says your intent of killing A now goes to B. You will not escape liability simply because you did not harm the person you intended to.

Question 20

Can the doctrine of transferred intent go to murder?

Answer 20

Yes. Jurisdictions that use this doctrine allow this go to intentional murder.

Question 21

Hypothetical: If a jurisdiction uses the doctrine of transferred intent, can it always work?

Answer 21

No it cannot.

For example, There is a specific crime of killing the president. Applying the doctrine would not work for this crime but would work for another.

Question 22

Rehalf v United States.

Facts:

Got kicked out of school which automatically revoked his visa. He did not know this. He went to a firing range, and he was charged under the federal statute that said you cannot possess a firearm if you do not have a visa. Court held it was a specific intent crime.

Issue:

1) Because it was specific intent what did the court have prove generally?

Answer 22

Holding:

Because of specific intent requirement, he had in a sense “two” levels of intent. One to preform the act, and one for a specific purpose.

In this case, he needed to have both the knowledge of his status and the knowledge of not having the weapon.

Thus, this was a specific intent crime and not just a general intent. He needed to possess knowledge aka acting knowingly.

Question 23

Can knowledge be inferred from someone being willfully blind?

Answer 23

Yes. It can be inferred.

Question 24

What does the MPC say is willful blindness?

Is there any problems you can foresee?

Answer 24

MPC says “awareness of high probability of existence of the item unless he actually believes it does not exist”

This can be problematic, as the MPC says if you really did not know about it, then that is a defence.

Question 25

United States v. Jewell

Facts: Had weed while crossing border, 110 pounds worth 6250. He stated he did not know the weed was there.

Issue:

Assume there is an argument about wilful blindness.

1) Under common law what is the outcome?

2) Under MPC what would be the outcome?

Answer 25

Holding/Analysis

Positive knowledge is not required under this statute. That means everyone who transported the drugs can claim they did know about it.

Willful blindness is not a defense; deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable

IF this was under the MPC, the MPC allows a defence if the person “genuinely does not know” and thus, he would have a stronger case to argue he never knew.

Question 26

State v. Olsen:

Facts: Olsen was driving a tractor, and the front of the tractor was struck by a car. The car person hitting Olsen died on impact.

Olsen said “I didn’t see it” to the police officer after. He was charged with manslaughter. The crime required recklessness. If he was negligent he cannot be convicted, but if he was reckless he can be convicted.

Issue: Assume he really didn’t see it.

1) Define recklessness and negligence.

2) Infer the outcome.

Answer 26

Holding:

Definition of reckless is a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of a substantial risk that the offenders conduct may cause a certain result or may be of a certain nature. They must consciously disregard a substantial risk.

Definition of negligence is lacking the awareness of the risk when a reasonable person should have known.

You cannot be reckless if they are unaware of the risk their behaviour creates as they cannot disregard that risk if they are unaware of it.

Since he didnt see it, he cant be reckless but may be negligent.

Question 27

What are strict liability offences?

Can you provide an example?

What are the two main ways an offence would be categorized as a strict liability?

What considerations would they put a strict liability offence on?

Talk about the nature of offences for strict liability and their scope of punishment.

Does the MPC acknowledge strict liability?

Answer 27

Conviction of someone who acts without culpable mental state. In this case, mens rea is largely irrelevant.

Strict liability is often found in regulatory offenses with minor penalties. Such as medical and environmental regulations, or handling of dangerous materials.

The main two ways an offence is strict liability if the nature of the offence and the scope of punishment.

1. Nature of offence; strict liability crimes tend to be public welfare offences and other malum prohibitum crimes regulatory offences)
2. Scope of punishment; strict liability crimes generally have lesser punishments. The more serious the crime, the more likely you need mens rea.

NO.

Question 28

Does the MPC have strict liability offences?

Answer 28

NO. This is only in the common law NOT MPC.

Question 29

Do strict liability offences require a culpable mental state?

Answer 29

No. Just actus reus.

Question 30

Staples v. United States

Facts: Found an ar-15 at this guy’s house. Indicted for a machine gun. Expert testified rifle never fired automatically, and S claimed ignorance of any automatic firing of the weapon. He said he had literally no idea.

Court said it was a strict liability offense but crime had a penalty in prison for 10 years.

Issue: Not important, answer questions below.

1) Even though the court said it was strict liability, if it has a 10 year prison sentence is it really?

2) If the court requires knowledge, what would the outcome likely be?

Answer 30

Holding/Analysis

No. 10 years is far too much.The COA thought it was strict liability, but the SCC said it was not a strict liability.

The court had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the gun would fire automatically.

Punishment of 10 years denotes its more than strict liability. To obtain a conviction, the government should have been required to prove that petitioner knew of the features his AR-15 that brought it within the scope of the act.

Question 31

What are the two type of mistake defences?

Answer 31

Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law

Question 32

When can you argue a mistake of fact for general intent crimes? (Common Law)

How is the MPC different?

Helpful note: Remember that in the US they don’t care if it was honestly held.

Answer 32

Under common law, a mistake of fact is a defense to a general intent crime ONLY if the mistake is reasonable. If mistake is unreasonable, you cannot use this mistake.

MPC does not care if there is a specific intent or general intent. Any mistake of fact under the MPC is a defence if it negates the mental element of the offence

Question 33

When can you argue a mistake of fact for specific intent crimes? (Common law)

How is the MPC different?

Helpful note: Remember that in the US they don’t care if it was honestly held.

Answer 33

A mistake of fact is a defence to a specific intent crime ONLY IF it negates the specific mens rea.

MPC does not care if there is a specific intent or general intent. Any mistake of fact under the MPC is a defense if it negates an element of the offence

Question 34

Can you argue mistake of fact for strict liability offences?

What about the MPC?

Answer 34

No to both.

In the MPC strict liability crimes dont exist so no.

Question 35

Define what a mistake of fact is.

Provide an example

Answer 35

To prove mistake of fact, the defendant must prove that the criminal activity occurred due to an honest and reasonable mistake rather than purposeful illegal activity

A mistake is relevant if it negates a required mental element of the offense. Up to prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the required mental state

Example of Mistake of Fact: I accidently grabbed the wrong umbrella. This is a defense. Even if it was an unreasonable mistake because it was a specific intent crime.

Question 36

How does the MPC differ for mistake of fact defences regarding specific and general intent crimes?

Answer 36

MPC does not care if there is a specific intent or general intent.

Any mistake of fact under the MPC is a defence if it negates the mental element of the offence

Question 37

Is this a valid mistake of fact?

I take heroin from A, but I thought it was cocaine. I get prosecuted for possession of a drug.

I claim it was a mistake.

Answer 37

This is not a valid defense, as the mistake does not get rid of the mental element of the crime, it was still a drug.

Question 38

Under the MPC, when does a mistake of fact work as a defence?

Answer 38

According to the MPC, a mistake a fact is a defense if and only if it negates the required mental elements of the offense: purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence.

Question 39

People v. Navarro

Facts: Stole wooden beans. He thought the items were abandoned genuinely. It was a specific intent crime.

Issue

1) Assume common law: What is the rule governing a mistake of fact for a specific intent crime?

2) Assume MPC: What is the rule governing a mistake of fact for a specific intent crime?

Answer 39

Holding/Analysis:

Common law says a mistake for a specific intent crime is valid if it negates the mental element.

MPC says a mistake for a specific intent crime is valid if it negates the mental element.

Here both work.

Question 40

State v. Sexton

Facts: Defendant said he never shot Matthew and the gun “went off by itself”. Defendant argues he cannot be convicted as he made a mistake as he thought the gun was not loaded. The court needed to prove an element of recklessness for the mental element.

Issue: Can he argue mistake of fact?

1) Assume the MPC applies, what is needed to win this mistake of fact claim?

2) What does recklessness require?

3) Was he reckless?

Answer 40

Holding/Analysis

Any mistake of fact under the MPC is a defense if it negates an element of the offence

Recklessness requires knowledge of the risk and proceeding anyways.

Expert said it was probably a possible assumption that the defendant would think that the gun was unloaded. Thus, he was not guilty as he was genuinely had a mistaken faultless belief.

Ratio: For the MPC a faultless non reckless mistake of fact can be a defence.

Question 41

Summary for Mistakes US

Under common law these are the steps to use the defence of mistake of fact

1) Look at the crime to see whether it is xxxxx

2) If it is xxxx, then xxxx

3) If it is xxxx, then xxxx

4) If the crime is of strict liability, then xxxx

5) If MPC?

CAN Mistake of Fact
1) If it is subjective

2) If it is objective intent crime

Answer 41

SUMMARY FOR

1) Look at the crime to see whether it is specific intent or general intent

2) If specific intent, ask whether the mistake relates to the specific mens rea of the crime; if so, the mistake is a defence

3) if general intent, ask whether the mistake was reasonable or unreasonable; if reasonable, the mistake is a defence

4) If the crime is one of strict liability, do not apply mistake doctrine

5) If MPC then the mistake must just negate mens rea.

CAN Mistake of Fact
1) Just honestly held, can be unreasoanable.

2) Honestly held and reasonable

Question 42

Summary for Mistakes

Under the MPC, what are the three ways the MPC allows a mistake of law defence?

Answer 42

The MPC allows some limited mistake of law defences if:
1) There was reasonable reliance
2) Absence of fair notice
3) Different law mistakes that negate mens rea

Question 43

What is the mistake of law?

Is ignorance of the law an excuse?

In common law, what two scenarios can you use the defence of mistake of law?

Answer 43

Mistake of law is a mistake involving the misunderstanding or incorrect application of law with regard to an act or transaction.

The common law has recognized the rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse. However modern criminal law has altered this.

Mistake of law is defence in ONLY two scenarios

1) Negating the mens rea. This occurs when the law requires legal knowledge and awareness, and the defendant makes a mistake that would negate proof of such knowledge

2) As an affirmative defence. Some jurisdictions allow this where the defendant acts in reasonable reliance on an official and authoritative interpretation of the law that turns out to be wrong or invalid. See also MPC §2.04(3)(b).

Question 44

People v. Weiss

Facts: Seized and confined Wendel. Convicted of crime of kidnapping. To convict someone of kidnapping, proof BRD must be produced that the defendant wilfully intended without authorities of law to confine or imprison another.

Defendant was told by another that he was working for the secret service and needed help apprehending Wendel.

Because he thought this person was a law enforcement and had legal authority to do so, he helped

Issue: Can he claim mistake of law?

1) What is the 3 part rule of mistake of law for the MPC?

2) What is the 2 part rule of mistake of law for the common law?

3) Using common law, would he be guilty?

Answer 44

Holding/Analysis

The MPC allows some limited mistake of law defences if:

1) There was reasonable reliance
2) Absence of notice
3) Negates mens rea

Common law: Mistake of law is defence in ONLY two scenarios

1) As a failure of proof, negating the mens rea. This occurs when the law requires legal knowledge and awareness, and the defendant makes a mistake that would negate proof of such knowledge

2) As an affirmative defence. Some jurisdictions allow this where the defendant acts in reasonable reliance on an official and authoritative interpretation of the law that turns out to be wrong or invalid.

Reversed and new trial ordered. Cannot prove the wilful intent of kidnapping without authority of law as both has with good faith thought they were doing police work with the authority of the law

Question 45

People v. Marrero

Facts: Federal corrections offer who possessed a loaded automatic pistol mistakenly believed he was entitled to do pursuant to to the law.

Issue:

1) What are the 3 rules for a mistake of law claim under the MPC?

2) What about under the common law? 2 rules

3) What did the court say about ignorance of the law?

Answer 45

Holding

1) For a defence of law under the MPC it is only allowed if 1) reliance on it 2) no fair notice 3) negate mens rea.

2) For common law, it is allowed when

1) as an affirmative defence getting rid of mens rea due to reliance on official interpretation of law

2) negating mental element.

3) Court found that he cannot use the defense of mistake of law claim. The defendant had a personal misunderstanding of the statutory definition.

Question 46

Cheek v. United States

Facts: Cheek was charged with tax evasion and the statute required someone who “wilfully failed to file”

In this case, the law required that the defendant needed to know he had to file taxes but refused to.

However, Cheek genuinely thought did not have to file taxes so he didn’t.

Issue: Can he claim mistake of law in this case?

Answer 46

Holding/Analysis:

Court held that because the statute said “willfully” the court had to prove Cheek knew he had to file.

However, Cheek genuinely thought he did not need to and thus he didn’t.

Court held the crown did not meet its burden as he really did not know he had to.

Question 47

Generally, if a statute says “willfully” or “willfulness” it requires xxxx

Answer 47

Anytime there is a federal statute that says “willfully” or “willfulness” that statute requires legal knowledge that what you did was unlawful

Question 48

What is the doctrine of causation?

What are the two types of causation?

Do you need both types for each offence?

Answer 48

Doctrine of Causation

The basic idea behind the doctrine of causation is that a person must face liability for the outcome of his own actions. It is the concept of causation that helps to determine the extent of liability emerging out of a legal wrong on the part of a defendant.

Two types of causation

1) Actual causation (cause in fact, “but for causation”)

and

2) Proximate causation. Forseeable.

You need BOTH.

Question 49

What is the “cause-in-fact” (But-for cause/actual cause)

What does it mean?

Answer 49

Defendant must be the “but-for” cause – the result would not have occurred but-for the defendant’s voluntary conduct.

Question 50

For causation, what if there were multiple forces on someones death?

What are the two tests the courts will use?
Explain

Do you need to succeed in both tests?

Whats the exception if you do get one of the tests?

Answer 50

On occasion, multiple forces will act on the victim and the cause- in-fact requires further scrutiny. In these situations, courts will ask whether

Substantial Factor Test
1) The defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in leading to the result, even if the result would have occurred anyway,

OR

Acceleration Test
2) The defendant accelerated the result

If the above two are met (or one of them is) that person is GUILTY AS LONG AS THEY ARE ALSO THE PROXIMATE CAUSE.

Question 51

What is the idea behind being a proximate cause for a crime?

Answer 51

Even if defendant is the cause-in-fact, at common law defendant is not guilty unless they are also the proximate (legal) cause.

Proximate cause focuses on reasonable foreseeability: if the result was foreseeable, then defendant is the proximate cause.

Question 52

What happens if there is an intervening cause for the victim?

What is the legal question that is asked?

What if the intervening cause is responsive?

What if the intervening cause is coincidental?

Answer 52

As in cause-in-fact analysis, the problems in proximate cause analysis tend to arise in cases where multiple forces act on the victim, such that those forces intervene in the original chain of causation.

The legal question is whether the intervening force actually supersedes the acts of the original actor , breaking the chain.

If intervening cause is RESPONSIVE, original actor is still the proximate cause, unless the intervening cause of both freakish and unforeseeable.

If the intervening cause is COINCIDENTAL (and thus not responsive), original actor is still the proximate cause ONLY if the intervening cause was reasonably foreseeable

In other words, if the intervention is coincidental, the chain of causation is broken if the intervening cause is unforeseeable.

Question 53

Explain the “apparent safety doctrine” and how it applies to causation

Answer 53

If the person reached a safe area, this would break chain of causation

Question 54

Would free, deliberate, informed human intervention break the chain of causation ?

Answer 54

Yes.

Question 55

Oxendine v. State

Facts: Defendant and his wife both beat this son, the wife did it first which caused a tearing of his internals, then the dad beat him relentlessly. Crown argued there was an acceleration of death.

Issue:

1) What is needed to prove acceleration of death?

Answer 55

Holding/Analysis:

Evidence that shows the persons death sped up due to the intervening force.

Experts couldn’t agree how many causes there were, and who was the cause of death. Tried to argue Oxendine accelerated the death but there was failure of proof for this.

Court had to remand the case on assault rather than manslaughter.

Question 56

People v. Jennings

Facts: Jennings beat his kid and died. Father buried him. The defendant claimed that even though he tortured Arthur, there is insufficient evidence that his torture was the “but for cause” of Arthurs death and the death was because of the drugs not the torture.

Issue:

1. Apply substantial factor test. What is this?

Answer 56

Holding/Analysis:

Court disagreed, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial that the defendants’ actions were a substantial factor leading to the child’s death.

Applying this test, there was causation.

Question 57

State v. Smith

Facts: Smith killed Biser who died after a single punch to the head. Convicted of assault and involuntary manslaughter. The punch damaged his brain, where Biser declined medical care and went home.

3 days later he died from the brain injury. At the hospital, he declined a head CT which would have shown the internal bleeding.

Biser contends the assault may have been the “but-for “cause” but not the proximate cause of his death because of multiple unforeseeable events interfered.

Issue:

1) What is the test for proximate causes of death?

2) If the court says it was foreseeable, then what would the outcome be?

3) What if the court said it was not foreseeable? What would the outcome be?

Answer 57

Holding/Analysis:

Proximate cause focuses on reasonable foreseeability: if the result was foreseeable, then defendant is the proximate cause.

Court said that Biser’s conduct in refusing medical treatment was responsive to Smiths assault on him. It was the assault that made Biser do what he did and impaired his judgment. It is foreseeable that if you give someone a serious head injury, their ability to make rational judgments will be impaired.

In order to be convicted, an accused needs to both the actual cause “but for cause” and the proximate cause. If they found it was not foreseeable, then yes he would not be the proximate cause and thus this would fail.

Question 58

People v. Roberts

Facts: Defendant was an inmate who stabbed a fellow inmate. Before dying, the inmate that Roberts stabbed tried to defend himself and in that course of action, he stabbed and killed a prison guard. The original attacker Roberts was charged with both murders.

Issue:

1) What is the legal question to determine if the chain is broken?

2) If the intervening cause of action is responsive, then?

3) If the intervening cause of action is coincidental then?

Answer 58

Holding/Analysis

The legal question is whether the intervening force actually supersedes the acts of the original actor, breaking the chain.

If intervening cause is RESPONSIVE, original actor is still the proximate cause, unless the intervening cause of both freakish and unforeseeable.

If the intervening cause is COINCIDENTAL, the original actor is still the proximate cause ONLY if the intervening cause was reasonably foreseeable. If the intervention is coincidental, the chain of causation is broken if the intervening cause is unforeseeable.

Court held that no, this was not a break of causation and viewed the victims’ actions as responsive cause that could be attributed to the defence.

Question 59

People v. Rideout

Facts: Defendant was charged with drunk driving causing death.

After the death, the victim went to the side of the road. On the side of the road they decided to re-enter the roadway and were killed. Rideout was charged with murder.

Issue:

1) Apple the apparent safety doctrine to this causation case.

Answer 59

Holding/Analysis:

Court held and used the apparent safety doctrine as the victim was in a position of safety on the side of the road but decided on his own to re-enter the roadway.

By leaving his potion of safety he broke the casual chain

Question 60

People v. Carter

Facts: Carter purposely told her boyfriend to kill himself and he ended up doing it. She was charged.

Issue:

1) Is she the legal cause?
2) Is she the proximate cause?

Answer 60

Holding/Analysis:

Defendant must be the “but-for” cause – the result would not have occurred but-for the defendant’s voluntary conduct.

Proximate cause focuses on reasonable foreseeability: if the result was foreseeable, then defendant is the proximate cause.

She was convicted. She passed both parts of the test