Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law > Elements of Crimes - Mens Rea > Flashcards

Elements of Crimes - Mens Rea Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Mens Rea

General Definition

A
  • Moral blameworthiness, culpability
  • Under this definition, the defendant’s state of mind didn’t matter.
  • This shows us motive
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Mens Rea

Specific Definition

A

The particular mental state provided for in the definition of the offense

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Intentionally

A

A person intentionally causes the social harm of the offense if

  • He wants to cause the harm or
  • He is virtually certain his conduct will cause the harm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Importance of Motive

A
  • Some offenses require proof of a specific motive to convict the actor
  • Motive is relevant to claims of defense
  • Motive is highly relevant to sentencing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Knowledge of a Material Fact

A

A person has knowledge of a material fact if he

  • Is aware of the fact or
  • Correctly believes the fact exists
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Willful Blindness

A

Willful blindness exists when the actor

  • Believes there is a high probability of the fact (attendant circumstance) exists and
  • Either
    • Deiberately avoids confirming the fact or
    • Purposely fails to investigate in order to avoid confirming the fact
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Willful

A

Willful requires proof that the actor acted intentionally (purposefully or knowingly), and she performed the prohibited act

  • in bad faith or with a wrongful motive, or
  • in violation of a known legal duty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Specific v. General Intent

First Approach

A

General intent described crimes for which no particular mental state was set out in the definition of the crime.

Specific intent described crimes for which some mental state was expressly set out in the definition of the crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Specific v. General Intent

Second Approach

A

General intent described crimes that had a mens rea of recklessness or negligence.

Specific intent described crimes that had a mens rea of purposely or knowingly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Specific v. General Intent

Third (Current) Approach

A

General intent describes crimes that have a mens rea of purposely or knowingly (and sometimes recklessly or negligently)

Specific intent describes general intent crimes that must show

  • a motive for comitting the actus reus or
  • an awareness of the attendant circumstances
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Specific Intent Crimes

Property Crimes

A
  • Larceny
  • Robbery
  • Burglery
  • Forgery
  • False pretenses
  • Embezzlement
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

General Intent Crimes

A

Thery are mainly crimes against people:

  • Murder
  • Rape
  • Kidnapping
  • Battery

The exception is arson.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Specific Intent Crimes

Inchoate Crimes

A
  • Attempt
  • Solicitation
  • Conspiracy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

MPC 2.02(1)

Minimum Requirements of Culpability

A

A person is guilty of an offense if he acted puposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently under each material element of the law. See Section 2.05 for exceptions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

MPC 2.02(2)(a)
Purposely

Result Crimes

A

A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when

  • If the element involves the result of his conduct, he wants to cause such a result
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

MPC 2.02(2)(a)
Purposely

Conduct Crimes

A

A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when

  • If the element involves the nature of his conduct, he wants to engage in conduct of that nature
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

MPC 2.02(2)(a)
Purposely

Attendant Circumstances

A

A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when

  • If the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existance of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

MPC 2.02(2)(b)

Knowingly

Result Crimes

A

A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when

  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

MPC 2.02(2)(b)

Knowingly

Conduct Crimes

A

A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when

  • If the element involves the nature of his conduct, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

MPC 2.02(2)(b)

Knowingly

Attendant Circumstances

A

A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when

  • If the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware such circumstances exist.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

MPC 2.02(2)(c)

Recklessly

Elements

A

A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when she

  • consciously disregards a
  • substantial
  • and unjustifiable risk
  • that the material elements exist or will result from her conduct
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

MPC 2.02(2)(c)

Recklessly

Nature and Degree

A

The risk must be of such a nature and degree that

  • considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to her
  • its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding citizen would observe in the actor’s situation
23
Q

Substantial Risk

A
  • Substantial risk means taking too much of a chance that the prohibited harm will occur.
  • This can be understood to mean takng
    • A large chance that a small harm will occur or
    • A small chance that a large harm will occur
24
Q

Substantial Risk Chart

A
25
Q

MPC 2.02(2)(d)

Negligently

A

A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when she

  • should be aware of a
  • substantial and
  • unjustified risk
  • that the material element exist or will result from her conduct
26
Q

MPC 2.02(2)(d)

Negligently

Nature and Degree

A

The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it,

  • considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to her,
  • involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.
27
Q

MPC 2.02(3)

Culpability Required Unless Otherwise Provided

A

When the law does not specify the level of culpability required to establish a material element, the person’s purposeful, knowing or reckless act will define it

28
Q

MPC 2.02(4)

Prescribed Culpability Requirement Applies to All Material Elements

A

When a law prescribes a level of culpability for one material element of a crime without prescribing one for each material element, the level applies to every material element, unless there is an obvious contrary purpose.

29
Q

MPC 2.02(5)

Substitutes for Negligence, Recklessness and Knowledge

A
  • If a law specifies negligence, it can be proven by a purposeful, knowing or reckless act
  • If a law specifies recklessness, it can be proven by a purposeful or knowing act
  • If a law specifies knowledge, it can be proven by a purposeful act
30
Q

MPC 2.02(7)

Requrement of Knowledge Statisfied by Knowledge of High Probability

A

When knowledge of a fact is required to establish an element, it is established if the person has a high probability of knowing it exists, unless he truly believes it doesn’t exist

31
Q

MPC 2.02(8)

Requirement of Willfulness Statified by Acting Knowingly

A

A person acts willfully if he acts with the knowledge of the material elements of the offense, unless there’s a reason for adding other requirements

32
Q

Malice

A

In non-homicide crimes a person acts with malice if he intentionally or recklessly causes the social harm prohibited by the offence.

In homicide crimes a person acts with malice if he acts intentionally or extremely recklessly.

33
Q

Transferred Intent

A
  • Transfering the actor’s intent to commit a crime against one victim when he accidentally commits the same crime against another victim. Ex. A intends to kill B but kills C. A is charged with intent to kill C and reckless endangerment of B
  • Transferred intent only works when the social harm is the same. Ex. A intends to kill a dear and kills a man. The intent can’t be transferred.
34
Q

Transferred Intent

MPC 2.03(2)(a)

A

When the actual result is not what the actor wanted or planned, the actor is still liable if

  • the actual result differs only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or
  • the injury or harm designed or planned would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused
35
Q

Transferred Intent

Can’t Be Applied When

A
  • A more culpable social harm than intended happens ex. aiming for an animal but shooting a man
  • Specific intent crimes where knowledge of the identity of the victim is required by statute
36
Q

Interpreting Statutes

A

If the statute is not clear, courts will interpret it in a way that best complies with the legislative effect by looking at

  • The structure/grammar
  • Assumptions of criminal law, ex. a mens rea requirement should apply to each statutory element that criminalizes behavior
37
Q

Temporal Concurrence of Mens Rea and Actus Reus

A
  • The actor must possess the required mens rea at the same moment he commits the act or omission that causes the social harm
  • The social harm can occur after the mens rea. Ex. Actor intents to kill a victim, mortally wounds her, feels remorse but then the victim dies
  • The actus reus cannot come before the mens rea, nor can the mens rea come before the actus reus
38
Q

Motivational Concurrence

A

The defendant’s conduct that causes the social harm must be started by the thought process that constituted the mens rea of the offense. That is, the actus reus must flow from the mens rea.

39
Q

Culpability Chart

A
40
Q

Different Definitions of Intentionally

A
  • Under common law, this includes purposely or knowingly
  • Under jurisdictions that follow the MPC, this only includes purposely
41
Q

Purpose v. Motive

A

If a person acts purposely, he wants to perform the act. Motive tells why he wants to do it.

42
Q

Importance of Motive

A
  • Motive is an element of specific intent crimes, such as property crimes, inchoate crimes and group criminality
  • Motve can be important for circumstantial evidence
  • Affimative defenses might take the defendant’s motives into account
  • Motive might be considered during sentencing
43
Q

Ways to Prove Intent

A
  • Direct evidence Ex. defendant’s oral or written statement of what he intended
  • Circumstantial Evidence
    • Infer intent by the defendant’s conduct
    • A purpose can be inferred through what the defendant knew would or could likely happen
44
Q

Main Differences Between Recklessness and Negligence

A

A person acting recklessly KNOWS of a risk and ignores it, while a person acting negligently should know of the risk but DOESN’T KNOW of it.

A reckless person is compared to a law-abiding citizen, whereas a negligent person is compared to a reasonable person.

45
Q

People v. Steinburg

Penal Law § 125.20(1)

Manslaughter in the First Degree

A

A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when…with intent to cause serious physcal injury to another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person

46
Q

People v. Steinburg

Defendant’s Argument and Court’s Rejection

A

The defendent argued that the state must prove he knew that failure to get medical help would cause serious bodily injury

The Court distinguished between purpose and knowledge and said the state only needed to show purpose.

47
Q

People v. Steinburg

Showing Purpose (Intent)

A
  • There was testimony that the defendant was upset at the child staring at him because he thought she was trying to hypnotize him.
  • This would support a jury finding that he wanted to cause Lisa serious physical harm and that’s why he chose not to call for medical help.
48
Q

People v. Steinburg

Calling 911

A

Just because the defendant eventually called 911 to prevent her death doesn’t mean a jury couldn’t infer he wanted to cause her serious bodily harm.

49
Q

People v. Licitra

Manslaughter in the Second Degree

A

To show manslaughter in the second degree the prosecution had to show recklessness.

Circumstances in which the gun was being removed in close proximity to another person, including the defendant’s finger on the trigger, showed a substantial risk created by the defendant

50
Q

People v. Licitra
Defendant’s Awareness of the Risk

A
  • He was familiar with firearms, especially with his gun
  • He knew the gun was loaded
  • He called the police under fishy circumstances
51
Q

People v. Cabrera

Wrong Decision

A

The court said speeding alone did not support a claim of negligence but…the defendant failed to comply with the restrictions on his license regarding

  • who could be passengers
  • ensuring everyone wore seatbelts
52
Q

People v. Conway

Reason for Negligence

A

The defendant tried to drive with his non-dominant hand while holding his gun in the same hand, with his finger on the trigger, and trying to grab the suspect with his other hand.

53
Q

People v. Muhammad

Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument In the Second Degree

MPC 170.25

A

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree when

  • with knowledge that it is forged and
  • with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another,
  • he utters or possesses any forged instrument of a kind specified in 170.10

It is a class D felony.

54
Q

People v. Muhammad

Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument In the Second Degree; Presumption

MPC 170.27

A
  • A person who possesses two or more forged instruments,
    • each of which seems to be a credit or debit card
    • as defined in 155.00(7) and 155.00(7)(a)
  • is presumed to possess the knowledge that they are forged and
  • to have the intent to defraud, deceive or injure another

Criminal Law (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions