Mens Rea

Question 2

What was the holding for State v. Blurton?

Answer 2

If the statute indicates “intent” along with an act, this implies there must be both actus reas and mens rea

You must have both a criminal act and criminal intent for an armed robbery conviction. D had a genuine belief he wasn’t being illegal.

PTP: intent

The defense’s case rested on a “failure of proof” argument.

Question 3

What is the holding of State v. Nations?

Answer 3

Actual knowledge of the nature of his conduct or that aware this his conduct is practically certain to cause result. AKA willful blindness to acquiring knowledge

PTP: Knowing

Question 4

What is transferred intent?

Answer 4

the state of mind one has when about to commit a crime upon one person is considered by the law to exist and to be equally applicable although the intended act affects another person.

Question 5

What is the holding in Conley?

Answer 5

For aggravated battery, must prove that it was the defendant’s “conscious objective” to achieve the harm defined, or that the defendant was “consciously aware” that the harm defined was “practically certain to be caused by his conduct.”

PTP: Natural and probable consequences

Question 6

What is the difference between specific vs. general intent in the MPC?

Answer 6

Specific intent means the same thing as purposeful does in the MPC; general intent means the same thing as reckless or negligent in the MPC

Question 7

What are the 4 general requirements of culpability?

Answer 7

(a) Purposely.
(b) Knowingly.
(c) Recklessly.
(d) Negligently.

Question 8

What are the pathways for “knowingly” under the MPC?

Answer 8

• No intent
• objective risk
• subjectively aware of objective risk
• the result is practically certain

Question 9

What are the pathways for “purposeful” under the MPC?

Answer 9

• Intended the result

Question 10

What are the pathways for “Negligent” under the MPC?

Answer 10

• No intent
• objective risk
• was not subjectively aware of objective risk

Question 11

What are the pathways for “Reckless” under the MPC?

Answer 11

substantial and unjustifiable risk

• No intent
• objective risk
• subjectively aware of objective risk
• results are not practically certain (but maybe probable)

Question 12

What is the holding in Flores-Figueroa?

Answer 12

Social security but didn’t know it belonged to another, thought it was just fake.

Where a statutes specifies “knowingly” and then specifies various attendant circumstances to the definition of the crime, knowing is applied to all attendant circumstances or “all material elements”.

Question 13

What is the holding of State v. Miles?

Answer 13

In this statute, (possessing or distributing a controlled substance) - “knowingly” does not apply to every word/material element. Instead, the State was only required to prove the “conscious wrongdoing”’ of possessing some kind of illegal drug, not the specific kind of illegal drug

Question 14

What is the holding of Morissette v. United States?

Answer 14

Strict liability is not appropriate for crimes other than public welfare offenses, even if the statute does not mention an essential mental state.

He must have had knowledge of the facts, though not necessarily the law, that made the taking a conversion.

Question 15

For a strict liability - public welfare offense, is there a mens rea element?

Answer 15

Act is intentional; attendant circumstances aren’t.

Question 16

What are attendant circumstances?

Answer 16

The facts surrounding an event. So in a case, you’ll typically have: actus reas, mens rea, and the attendant circumstances.

Question 17

Is mistake of law a defense?

Answer 17

No. Only mistakes of facts can constitute a defense.

Mistake of law: are you wrong about what the law means?

Question 18

How does a defendant’s mistake of fact, influence their culpability?

Answer 18

An act committed or an omission made under an ignorance or mistake of fact which disproves any criminal intent is not a crime.

Mistake of fact: are you wrong about something in the world?

Question 19

What was the holding in People v. Navarro?

Answer 19

Where the law requires a specific criminal intent, it is not enough merely to prove that a reasonable man would have had that intent, without meeting the burden of proof that the defendant himself also entertained it.

PTP: specific intent and good faith belief

Question 20

What is the holding in People v. Snyder?

Answer 20

Mistake regarding correct legal status was a mistake of law, not fact. This does not constitute a defense.

The elements of the offense are: conviction of a felony and ownership, possession, custody or control of a firearm capable of being concealed on the person. No specific criminal intent is required, and a general intent to commit the proscribed act is sufficient to sustain a conviction.