Mens Rea Flashcards
Mens Rea- requisite and scienter definitions
Requisite= state of mind; requirement of a guilty mind Scienter = intent or knowledge of wrongdoing
“The four gradations of MENS REA (highest to lowest):
Act purposefully (specific intent)
Act Knowingly (specific intent)
Act Recklessly
Act negligently
Act with no mens rea (strict liability)
Strict liability in our justifications of punishment:”
Specific intent (old CL language) basically refers to…
purposefully and knowingly
General intent (old CL language) refers more for….
negligently and recklessly
General intent
intent to commit any crime that makes the offender liable for any harm caused
the unlawful intent would transfer to the actual but unintended result
Specific intent
need to intend for specific harm to result
What is the exception to the mens rea requirement? Is it often used?
Strict liability exception (no actual mens rea), courts are pretty reluctant to get rid of a required mental state, so it’s pretty rare. A mens rea requirement is enforced if there’s no common law offense.
Pure SL
Liability without a culpable mental state with respect to any element.
Impure SL
Liability without culpable mental state to some elements but no others
“Factors in support of strict liability (constitutional):
• Huge public health/safety issues • Regulatory offenses • Low penalties o Felonies generally have mens rea requirements • Stigma with reputation • Enforceability • Legislative intent • Common law history of criminalization o More likely to needs mens rea • Purpose of the statute o Mala in se: usually requires mens rea o Malium prohibitum: more likely to be constitutional if it’s a strict liability crime (not apparently evil) "
what’s MPC’s take on SL?
“Under the MPC:
• Only violations (small monetary fines, no prison time) can be strict liability. Everything else must have mens rea element. MPC is all about culpability so it isn’t a big fan of strict liability.
• If its silent, the default is recklessness.
• If a rule under the MPC has one mens rea element, it applies to every other element (distribution rule), unless a contrary purpose plainly appears in the statute. “
“Morrissette v. US
• Defendant was picking up the left-over bomb metals from an Air Force bombing site. It was illegal; he thought it was abandoned property.
- should SL be applied? Why or why not?
No strict liability in absence of public safety needs.
• SC said improper conviction without culpable mens rea – lack of public health and safety risks.
oStrict liability is more appropriate when there is public health and safety concerns. “
”
STRICT LIABILITY- People v. Dillard
o Defendant was carrying a gun case that contained a loaded rifle inside of it. The police stopped him and arrested him after finding out the rifle was loaded, which violated the CA statute.
Is this a violation of DPC?
o CA recognizes certain regulatory offenses enacted for public safety and are not criminal in nature and don’t require actual culpability.
• The act was so destructive of the social order and the mens rea element would be too hard to prove.
Society has a legit interest in a defendant figuring out if a gun is loaded or not before going out in public. This statute doesn’t violate due process.
SL: “Regina v. Prince - statutory rape case
o Defendant took a 14-year-old from her dad and the court was determining whether or not the D needed to know she was underage.
o Court said it didn’t matter; he is guilty regardless. Strict liability is still permissible with clear legislative intent.”
Rule: SL is still permissible with clear legislative intent
“Rehaif v. United States
Came to the U.S. to go to school, he got bad grades, and lost his immigration status. The student goes to the firing range and the government charges him with a crime.
The jury instructions said that all you needed to find is knowledge of having a gun, not his immigration status.
This instruction is not correct. The government and trial judge misconstrued the statute. The word “violation” in the statute implies all elements of the crime.
So…. what are the rules?
Because Rehaif didn’t know that his immigration status had changed. The instructions should have clearly identified this. “
“We do not criminalize unless someone has a culpable state of mind.
Prosecution must prove mens rea as to all material elements.”
When may the ignorance of law defense be used?
“Normally, ignorance of the law is no excuse, but it will prevent culpability if you have an entirely new ordinance that is entirely unforeseeable and such a great departure from common law.
Ignorance of the law could be a defense if an ordinance abruptly criminalizes what the common law allowed, and things are not clearly harmful.”
When intent is unclear, should mens reas be applied to all material elements?
yes
Mens Rea- threats?
Defendant must intend a REAL threat. It doesn’t matter how a reasonable person could construe those words.
Mistake of law defense
“It can be a defense when:
1) Mistake to offense definition (insufficient notice or when the crime hasn’t been in common law)
2) Mistake to legal circumstances (we’re more sympathetic to this one).
3) Mistake due to erroneous official pronouncements (public official with rule making authority or a judge) “
When is mistake of fact not available as a defense?
Mistake of fact is not available if the D has been guilty of another offense, had the situation been the way he supposed. Transferred intent
MPC- Intoxication as a defense?
voluntary intoxication of the actor isnt a defense unless it negates an element of the offense
Burden of proof shifts to D- prepondrance of evidence on D
Common law intoxication
“• Voluntary intoxication: negates specific intent (knowledge/purpose) but NOT general intent (reckless)
• All mens rea elements are negated by involuntary or pathological intoxication”
Mens Rea Gradations definition
Purpose- Intended, conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature Aware of such circumstances or believes or hopes they exist
Knowledge- Aware that conduct is of this nature or the circumstance exists, Aware that it is practically certain that conduct will cause this result
Note: willful ignorance is enough
Recklessness- Consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from conduct. Risk must be of such a nature that considering the actor’s purpose and known circumstances, it is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the same situation
Negligence
Same as recklessness but can also be constructive knowledge
