Mens Rea Flashcards
mens rea
the guilty or wrongful purpose that a person has chosen to do. the intention behind an action
negligently
a reasonable person would’ve realized:
- a risk exists, and
- they would seek to avoid that.
failure to meet minimum standard of care. requires notice of a risk, degree of the risk expected, and lack of justification for that risk
purposely
person chose to act badly and intended/desired a specific result.
knowingly
actor is practically certain that a result will occur but may or may not require that result. may be aware the conduct is prohibited or aware that attendant circumstances existed
recklessly
actor acts with awareness that a high risk result will occur and chooses to disregard that risk. risk is substantial and unjustified
transferred intent
when an act is deemed for one person but ends up happening to a different person. the act is as intended, so person is still guilty.
general intent
requires no further proof of a mental state than beyond a willingness to commit the act. ex: rape is solely an act, mental state is irrelevant
specific intent
mental state expressly set out in the definition of the crime, actor acted with intent to cause a particular result. ex: “battery with the intent to cause harmful contact”
regina v cunningham
F: ∆ steals a gas meter and gas seeps into adjacent home, almost killing resident
Q: whether intent to steal can be transferred intent to gas someone
A: no
Why?: crimes are not like crimes
people v conley
F: ∆ hit a kid with a bottle and meant to hit someone else. caused extreme facial injuries and charged w/ aggravated battery
Q: whether the evidence is enough when the intent to cause permanent injuries wasnt there
A: yes
Why?: the nature of the act can mean you can infer from the circumstances that this was intended to cause damage
are mens rea questions questions of fact or questions of law?
questions of law
state v miles
F: ∆ charged with criminal possession of controlled substance. statute had a knowingly mens rea, jury told he doesn’t need to know the character of the drugs
Q: whether not knowing the character of the drugs renders ∆ not guilty
A: no
Why?: knowingly, in this statute, didn’t modify every element
state v nations
F: ∆ charged with child endangerment. MR is knowingly according to statute. ∆ said she didn’t ask
Q: whether ∆ met the MR required
A: No
Why?: Q of willful blindness - ∆ didn’t want to know how old the girl was, so knowledge not met
willful blindness
to deliberately refrain from knowledge. ∆ has to believe:
- high probability that fact exists, and
- ∆ goes out of way to not learn the fact
