Mens Rea Flashcards
MPC § 2.02. Types of Mens Rea
- Purposely 2. Knowingly 3. Recklessly 4. Negligently.
MPC § 2.02. Purposely
- If the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof,
A. it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and - If the element involves the attendant circumstances,
B. he is aware of the existence of such circumstances
or he believes or hopes that they exist.
CONSCIOUS OBJECT; BELIEF OR HOPE OF RESULT
MPC § 2.02. Recklessly
- Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.
- The risk must be significant enough that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.
CONSCIOUS DISREGARD; GROSS DEVIATION
MPC § 2.02. Negligently
- Should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.
- The risk must be significant enough that failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.
A. under the circumstances known to DEF and nature and purpose of his conduct
SHOULD BE AWARE; GROSS DEVIATION
MPC § 2.02. Knowingly
- if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances,
A. he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and - if the element involves a result of his conduct,
B. and he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.
AWARENESS; PRACTICAL CERTAINTY
[State v. Miles, South Carolina A/C. “I didn’t know there were drugs in the box!”] Statutory Interpretation
Generally Mens rea of a statute modifies all subsequent elements.
S/C ruled this isn’t invariably the case
[State v. Miles, South Carolina A/C. “I didn’t know there were drugs in the box!”] Rule of Lenity
Rule of Lenity: Courts should rely on lenity only after all means of understanding the statute have been exhausted and the statute’s meaning remains ambiguous.
[Morissette v. US “Hunter salvages on Federal land, is he guilty of theft?”]
Unless it is very clear the legislature intended Strict Liability, the court must read MR into the statute.
[Kougl v. Board of Liquor License Commissioners “S. Club employees bang undercover cops.”]
The MR of “suffer, permit, or allow” requires some knowledge on the part of DEF.
General Intent:
(1) DEF acted voluntarily
(2) With knowledge that the act was illegal
Specific Intent:
(1) DEF acted voluntarily
(2) Knowingly and
(3) Desired the specific outcome of the illegal act
For example: In 1M, you have to show intent to kill, not just that they killed.
MPC § 2.04(1): Ignorance or mistake of fact or law is a defense if
The ignorance or mistake negates the MR
Mistake of Law (MOL) “I thought selling cocaine was legal”: When is MOL a defense? (3 elements)
Generally not a defense UNLESS:
(1) The Statute has not been known or published (notice)
(2) If DEF acts in a reasonable reliance of an official statement of the law
(Non MPC) When the government itself is responsible for MOL
(Note) Defendant must assert proof via POTE rather than BRD
[People v. Snyder] “I thought I wasn’t a felon so I owned a gun.”
Answer: MOL is not a defense in a case with no MR requirement.
DEF simply had to violate the law, regardless of intent.
Strict Liability
A criminal act that doesn’t require MR(intent) for a conviction.
-Generally exists for safety laws and accidents. Otherwise courts usually read MR into the statute, unless explicit evidence statute was intent to be strict liability.
Mistake of Facts (MOF) “I thought it was baby powder, not coke!”:
A: If proven, challenges state’s ability to prove MR
BOP for DEF rather than state
[People v. Navarro] “I thought I had a right to take those beams” Specific v. General Intent (MOF)
(1) Specific Intent: GF, even if unreasonable, can be a defense if the statute is specific intent
(2) General Intent: MOF that is both GF and Reasonable will almost always be a defense
Lesser Crimes Rule (Broadly Accepted)
If DEF would’ve been guilty of another offense had the situation been as D believed, then DEF may be convicted of the lesser offense.
EX: Murder of an undercover cop
