Mens Rea

Question 1

Mens Rea

Answer 1

morally culpable state of mind; sometimes the specific mental state that the defendant must have had with regard to the “social harm” elements of the offense

Question 2

3. Regina v. Cunningham

Answer 2

Guy ripped off gas thing, resulting in the poisoning of neighbor.

Mens rea needed: “maliciously.”
Malice requires either…
An actual intention to do that particular harm OR
Recklessness as to whether the harm would occur.

Question 3

malice

Answer 3

An actual intention to do that particular harm OR Recklessness as to whether the harm would occur.

Question 4

CL Intent

Answer 4

With result crimes, intent includes the results the individual wants to happen and the results the individual knows are virtually certain to result from the conduct, even if he does not want them to happen (basically intent = purposefully)

Question 5

CL Permitted Inference of Intent

Answer 5

the law presumes that an ordinary person intends for the ordinary consequences of their voluntary actions.

Never a directive to the jury.

Question 6

Conley

Answer 6

Defendant meant to hit victim, but he did not mean to permanently disable him. Aggravated battery can have intentionally or knowingly in Illinois, and court held he had knowingly because intent can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

The use of high force, the glass bottle as weapon, and the lack of spoken warning work together to prove specific intent.

Question 7

General intent

Answer 7

A general intent crime requires that the defendant had an intent to perform the prohibited act, but the defendant need not have had an intent to cause any specific result

Question 8

Specific intent

Answer 8

A specific intent crime requires that the defendant had an intent to perform the prohibited act combined with an intent to bring about the prohibited result.

Common examples: An intention to commit some future act, separate from actus reus; A special motive or purpose for committing the actus reus; Awareness of the attendant circumstance.

Question 9

MPC culpable mental states

Answer 9

Purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently in that order. If a defendant acts with a higher degree of culpability than a statute requires, then the mental state is still satisfied.

Question 10

Purposefully for Conduct/Results

Answer 10

IF crime requires that defendant engage in a type of conduct or cause a particular result: A defendant acts purposefully if it is his conscious object to behave in that way or cause that result.

Question 11

Purposefully for Attendant Circumstances

Answer 11

A defendant acts purposefully if he knows, believes, or hopes that those circumstances exist

Question 12

Knowingly for Conduct or Result

Answer 12

A defendant acts knowingly if he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause that result. (or aware of a high probability)

Question 13

Knowingly for Attendant Circumstances

Answer 13

A defendant acts knowingly if he is aware that those circumstances exist. (or aware of a high probability)

Question 14

MPC Deliberate Ignorance as Knowledge

Answer 14

MPC treats deliberate ignorance as knowledge. A defendant acts knowingly if he is aware of a high probability that his conduct will cause that result, etc.

Question 15

Recklessly

Answer 15

A person acts recklessly if she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that an element of the crime exists or will result from her conduct.

The person’s disregard of the risk must be a Gross Deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would follow.

Under the MPC, if a statute does not specify the required mental state, then the defendant must at least act recklessly to be found guilty.

Question 16

Negligently

Answer 16

A person acts negligently if he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk than an element of the crime exists or will result from his conduct.

That person’s failure to perceive the risk must be a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

Question 17

SS Gross Negligence

Answer 17

The exercise of such slight care that it raises an inference of conscious indifference to a risk that an element of the crime exists or will result, if a reasonable person in the defendant’s position should have been aware of the risk.

If criminal liability is based on negligence, some jurisdictions require proof that the individual acted with gross negligence.

Question 18

Transferred Intent

Answer 18

The doctrine of transferred intent imposes criminal liability on a defendant who intends to harm one person but actually harms an unintended victim.

Intent only transfer to alternative victims of the intended crime rather than from crime to crime, except for felony murder.

Question 19

Concurrence of the Elements

Answer 19

The defendant must have the necessary mens rea at the time of the actus rea OR the conduct that causes the social harm needs to result from the thought process associated with the mens rea.

Look out for if someone changes their mind during the criminal act or a lack of awareness manifests.

Question 20

State v. Rose

Answer 20

Rose hit a man with his car, kept driving, and abandoned the car. The man was found dead wedged under the wheels. He was charged with negligent manslaughter. BUT Rose cannot be guilty of negligent manslaughter if he believed the victim was already dead. (he did not believe the the victim was alive at the time his conduct caused death)