CR/MSO Flashcards
What is actus rea?
The prohibited act itself.
What is mens rea?
The mental state element of crime with which defendant must have acted. Another definition = synonymous with being blameworthy.
What are two ways a defendant can avoid being held criminally responsible?
Justification: wrongful act was ok in certain circumstances (self-defense)
Excuses: Not a responsible moral agent, and not blameworthy (affirmative defenses such as insanity)
What are the 4 mens reas per ALI’s MPC?
Purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence
What is the mens rea of purpose?
Crime is a result of the agent’s conscious objective. The actor has the “conscious object” of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.
What is the mens rea of knowledge?
the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result, or is aware to a high probability that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, or is aware to a high probability that the attendant circumstances exist.
What is the mens rea of recklessness?
the actor consciously disregards a “substantial and unjustifiable risk” that his conduct will lead to a prohibited result and/or is of a prohibited nature.
What’s the mens rea of negligence?
a “reasonable person” would be aware of a “substantial and unjustifiable risk” that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, will lead to a prohibited result, and/or is under prohibited attendant circumstances, and the actor was not so aware but should have been.
Clark v. Arizona
SCOTUS said it’s not a violation of the constitution/DP if Arizona limited their insanity test to just the moral prong (right/wrong) without the cognitive prong (nature and quality of act) of M’Naghten. Reasoning: many states vary in their insanity tests, so the cog prong can’t be considered fundamental to insanity.
They also said it’s not a violation of DP if Arizona limited use of MH testimony to insanity, and eliminated its use for dimcap/mens rea pursuant to State v. Mott. The court reasoned a defendant could avoid CR without proving insanity by clear and convincing or even preponderance of the evidence, but by merely creating reasonable doubt about intent. They also reasoned, MH evidence about mens rea could confuse jurors bc most of us MH people are inconsistent in how we think about the role of MH in psycholegal capacities, and it’s quite a leap for us to talk about legal concepts like mens rea.
SCOTUS spoke to what AZ is allowed to do, not what they should or must do.
Name affirmative defenses/excuses.
Legal insanity, involuntary intoxication, duress
Name partial excuse defenses.
Provocation/passion, EMED/EED, twinkie defense, imperfect self-defense
What proportion of jury trials involve NGRI defenses? Of those, what percentage are successful?
Handbook: 1%, 25%
Melton: 0.1-0.5%, 15%
What is the Insanity Defense Reform Act (1984)?
- Insanity is an affirmative defense that DEFENDANT must prove by clear and convincing standard (except Oregon requires reasonable doubt pursuant to Leland).
- As a result of MD or D, unable to appreciate nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts (M’Naghten).
- Prohibits us from giving ultimate opinion on legal issue.
- Does not prohibit intro of MH info to negate mens rea (in contrast to what AZ did in Clark).
- Subsequent research on impact of IDRA showed that putting burden on def led to reduced rate of successful insanity pleas. No change in what jury did in applying their own notions about insanity.
What is GBMI?
The guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict is a verdict option that enables juries and judges to find a defendant guilty of committing an offense while formally acknowledging that the defendant has a mental illness. The GBMI does not usually replace the insanity defense standard but presents an additional verdict option. Once sentenced, a court can send the defendant to treatment, although this is not guaranteed.
Jones v. US (1983)
Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court, for the first time, addressed whether the due process requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment allows defendants, who were found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) of a misdemeanor crime, to be involuntarily confined to a mental institution until such times as they are no longer a danger to themselves or others with few other criteria or procedures limiting the actions of the state. SCOTUS held that the Constitution permitted the government, on the basis of the insanity judgment, to confine him to a mental institution until such time as he had regained his sanity or was no longer a danger to himself or society. There was no correlation between severity of the offense and length of time necessary for recovery.
