Mens Rea

Question 1

Common law approach to mens rea

Answer 1

“offense analysis”; specific intent crimes, general intent crimes, strict liability crimes

Question 2

Specific intent

Answer 2

(1) Requires an intention by the actor to perform some future act above and beyond the “actus reus” of the offense; (2) requires proof of a special motive for the conduct; OR (3) provides that the actor must be aware of a statutory attendant circumstance (e.g., knowingly receiving stolen goods)
Example –> burglary (conduct = breaking and entering; intent to commit a felony therein)

Question 3

General intent

Answer 3

requires showing defendant intended to perform a certain act with a generally bad state of mind, but not that defendant intended to break the law (lowest level of proof)

Question 4

Strict liability

Answer 4

Doesn’t require a culpable mental state but must be aware of the nature of conduct. These offenses have low punishment (public welfare offenses, regulatory offenses, inherently dangerous, drug possession, etc.); Mental state doesn’t matter (e.g., 19 y/o having sex with 14 y/o when he didn’t know she was under 17 is statutory rape); Gov’t must prove material elements, defendant must prove non-material elements
***State v. Blake: meth in thrifted jeans pocket; valid SL requires that the D actually performs some conduct, not just innocent passivity

Question 5

MPC approach to mens rea

Answer 5

“elements analysis”; looks at each material element of the offense to see how it corresponds with mental state–mens rea must correspond to each element

Question 6

Common law specific intent crimes

Answer 6

Attempt, solicitation, conspiracy, some first-degree murders, larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, robbery, burglary, forgery

Question 7

Purposely (MPC)

Answer 7

A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:
(i) the element involved 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
(ii) if the element involved the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist

Question 8

Knowingly (MPC)

Answer 8

A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:
(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the ttendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and
(ii) 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 (absence act of God)

Question 9

Recklessly (MPC)

Answer 9

A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he (1) consciously disregards a (2) substantial and (3) unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be a (4) gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a law-abiding person in the actor’s situation. (Ex: gang murdering the wrong guy)
In essay, must show: (1) Substantial risk (2) Unjustifiable risk? (3) Awareness of risk with a conscious disregard of risk? (4) Gross deviation from a law-abiding citizen’s standard of conduct? (5) In the actor’s situation

Question 10

Negligently (MPC)

Answer 10

A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he (1) should be aware (2) of a substantial and unjustifiable risk (3) that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. (4) The risk must be of such a nature and degree (5) that the actor’s failure to perceive it involves a gross deviance from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. (example: Mobile home hauler with suspended license that kills a tow truck driver on the shoulder because he’s inattentive for a moment while trying to switch lanes and doesn’t see tow truck driver in time  insufficient evidence to show criminally negligent homicide (Harber v. State))

Question 11

What distinguishes knowingly and recklessly?

Answer 11

• Knowledge and recklessness are similar in that both are states of awareness, but w/ knowingly the actor is PRACTICALLY CERTAIN result will occur, whereas in w/ RECKLESSLY, there is a substantial risk that the result will occur.

Question 12

Sufficient evidence

Answer 12

*substantial evidence that would permit a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime “beyond a reasonable doubt”
* On appeal for insufficient evidence, the evidence must be looked at in the light most favorable to the verdict. The burden of proof then shifts onto the defendant.

Question 13

Culpability required unless otherwise provided (MPC)

Answer 13

when the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly, or recklessly with respect thereto

Question 14

Substitutes for negligence, recklessness, and knowledge (MPC)

Answer 14

When the law provides that negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts purposely or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts purposely.

Question 15

Minimum requirements of culpability (MPC)

Answer 15

a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense.

Question 16

Requirement of purpose satisfied if purpose is conditional (MPC)

Answer 16

when a particular purpose is an element of an offense, the element is established although such purpose is conditional, unless the condition negatives the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense. (ex: Holloway carjacking case)

Question 17

Requirement of knowledge satisfied by knowledge of high probability (MPC)

Answer 17

when knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist (ex: Gatto case)

Question 18

Requirement of willfulness satisfied by acting knowingly (MPC)

Answer 18

a requirement that an offense be committed wilfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless the purpose to impose further requirements appears (ex: train wreck case)

Question 19

Culpability as to illegality of conduct (MPC)

Answer 19

Neither knowledge nor recklessness nor negligence as to whether conduct constitutes an offense or as to the existence, meaning, or application of the law determining the elements of an offense is an element of such offense, unless the definition of the offense or the Code so provides.
***aka, IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE

Question 20

Culpability as determined by grade of offense (MPC)

Answer 20

when the grade or degree of an offense depends on whether the offense is committed purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, its grade or degree shall be the lowest for which determinative kind of culpability is established with respect to any material element of the offense.

Question 21

What distinguishes knowledge from recklessness?

Answer 21

• Knowledge and recklessness are similar in that both are states of awareness.
• They differ in the magnitude of the risk of which the actor is aware. In knowledge the result is practically certain to occur.
• In recklessness, there is a substantial risk the result will occur.

Question 22

LaFave factors that help solve statutory silence and ambiguity in regards to mental state

Answer 22

a. Legislative history and context (doesn’t apply to MPC)
b. Guidance from other statutes
c. The severity of the punishment (the more severe the punishment, the less likely it’s strict liability)
d. Seriousness of the public harm the statute seeks to prevent (the more serious the consequences to the public, the more likely the legislature meant to impose liability without regard to fault)
e. Defendant’s opportunity to obtain the true facts
f. The difficulty in proving mental state
g. The number of prosecutions expected under the statute

Question 23

Natural and probable causes doctrine

Answer 23

jury may infer a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions, even when he states otherwise (e.g., Youts case w/ runaway train)

Question 24

Sufficient evidence of intent

Answer 24

circumstantial evidence can be sufficient; however, appellate court will scrutinize more closely on a case with only circumstantial evidence

Question 25

Defendant’s testimony

Answer 25

5th Amendment protects against self-incrimination, so the government can’t call the defendant to testify or comment on defendants failure to testify at trial as circumstantial proof of the defendant’s guilt

Question 26

Doctrine of conscious avoidance (“willful blindness”)

Answer 26

prevents defendants from avoiding criminal liability by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical, strongly suggested facts that, if known, would render them guilty of a crime.

Question 27

2 requirements to prove willful blindness

Answer 27

(1) defendant must subjectively believe there’s a high probability that the fact exists and (2) defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning the fact (still conducte.g., purposely hiding behind door during drug deal)

Question 28

Proof of notice of high probability

Answer 28

strong likelihood of something’s existence –> makes conscious avoidance charge appropriate

Question 29

MPC Transferred Intent

Answer 29

a. (2) When purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of offense, the element isn’t established if the actual result is not within the purpose or the contemplating of the actor unless: (a) actual result is different than the one contemplates only that a different person/property was affected; injury caused isn’t as extensive; or (b) result involves some injury or harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too remote/accidental
b. (3) When recklessly or negligently causing a particular result, element isn’t established if the result is within what the actor was or should’ve been aware of unless: (a) different person/property harmed or injury would’ve been more extensive than that caused; or (b) result involves same kind of harm as probably result and isn’t too remote or accidental

Question 30

What do you do when a statute doesn’t explicitly have a mens rea?

Answer 30

Don’t assume it’s strict liability; apply LaFave factors for analysis

Question 31

What is the willful blindness test? (MPC and CL jurisdictions)

Answer 31

a. MPC: § 2.02(7), Requirement of Knowledge Satisfied by Knowledge of High Probability
b. Other jurisdictions: 2 requirements: (1) defendant must subjectively believe there’s a high probability that the fact exists and (2) defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning the fact (still conducte.g., purposely hiding behind door during drug deal)

Question 32

Prescribed culpability requirement applies to all material elements (MPC) - a/k/a the traveling rule

Answer 32

When the law defining an offense prescribes the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of an offense, without distinguishing among the material elements thereof, such provision shall apply to all the material elements of the offense, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears