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.
