Mens Rea Flashcards
Define “mens rea”
the person’s mental state at the time a crime was committed and the associated notion of that person’s presumed “blameworthiness” in assessing the existence or absence of criminal culpability
what mental states are used as elements of different crimes?
maliciously
fraudulently
corruptly
willfully
feloniously
intent to steal
Regina v. Faulkner takeaways
RoL: a defendant who is in the process of committing a felony CANNOT be convicted for an accidental act collateral to the felony that would have been a crime if done intentionally
There was no specific intent or objective to commit the given crime
I: Could D have been convicted of burning the ship if the jury were instructed on the mens rea of recklessness?
what are the MPCs four standard mens rea terms?
§ 2.02. General Requirements of Culpability.
(1) Minimum Requirements of Culpability. Except as provided in Section 2.05, 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.
(2) Kinds of Culpability Defined.
(a) Purposely. A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:
(i) if the element involves 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 involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.
(b) Knowingly. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:
75
(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant 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.
(c) Recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.
(d) Negligently. A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.
How is the Requirement of Purpose satisfied if purpose is conditional? MPC
§2.02(6)
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.
How is the Requirement of Knowledge Satisfied by Knowledge of High Probability? MPC
§2.02(7)
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.
How is the Requirement of Wilfulness Satisfied by Acting Knowingly? MPC
§2.02(8)
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 a purpose to impose further requirements appears.
Mens Rea under MPC (her slides)
Purpose: Defendant desires a result (subjective)
Knowledge: Defendant foresees a result as highly likley but it does not matter to them whether is occurs or not (subjective)
Recklessly: Defendant consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk (subjective)
Negligent: Defendant should be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk and conduct is a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person in D’s situation (objective)
Purposefully vs. Knowingly (MPC her slides)
Purposefully: “conscious object” or intend to do an act that will have a certain result and if the element involves attendant circusmtances the defendant is aware of those circumstances
Knowingly: aware of the “nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist”
“Aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result”
NOTE: Since these are both subjective standards both direct and circumstantial evidence can be used to show this.
What are the material elements?
Conduct
Attendant Circumstances (any statutory element that is not the result or the conduct)
Result
Example:
“Unlawful to purposefully destroy a book”
Conduct: destroy
Attendant circumstances: book
Result: destroy
TPC § 6.02(d) the mental states
Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
1. Intentional
2. knowing
3. reckless
4. criminal negligence
different terms but similar to MPC
Why is criminal negligence a higher standard than civil negligence?
The purpose of criminal law, despite increasing criminalization there is still a distinction between criminal acts, and acts that are not criminal
Criminal Negligence in Texas
TPC §6.03(d)
A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstance surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.
This is an objective standard
State v. Ducker
Mens Rea may be different for different elements of teh same criminal offense
This case demonstrates how to parse the elements contained in a criminal statute
What makes strict liability crime different?
Prosecutor does not need to prove any “culpable intent” with these crimes
A D is guilty even if he honestly and reasonably believes his conduct was proper
What is a defense to a strict liability crime?
Not committng the act can be a defense to strict liability offenses
if crime does not have a common law origin it will be interpreted as a stircit liability offense where there is a clear indication of legislative intent
What are the two categories of strict liability?
Public Welfare Offenses (handling food, pharmacy and traffic)
Morality offenses (statutory rape)
How to determine if the offense is a strict liability offense?
Does the statute expressly state that mens rea is not required. If it merely omits language of mens rea then:
look at legislative history of the offense
then look at the pupose of the law and the penalty imposed
Arson in California vs. Texas
California § 451: “A person is
guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property.”
Texas §28.02: “A person commits an offense if the person starts a fire, regardless of whether the fire continues after ignition, or causes an explosion with intent to destroy or damage:
Is intoxication/drugged condition a defense?
Under CL it could negate the mens rea for “specific intent” crimes but not for “general intent” crimes
If the jdx allows such a defense and it uses the general/specific test
If it is a specific intent crime was the defendant sufficiently intoxicated and/or drugged to not be able to possess the intent required by statute
MPC § 2.08 Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication a defense if it negates an element of the offense
If recklessness is an element of the offense D’s intoxication is immaterial if due to the intoxication “D is unaware of a risk of which he would have been aware if he were sober”
What about involuntary intoxication or drugged condition?
it can be a complete defense to criminal charges because it goes to the act, not the mental state
Voluntary Intoxication in Texas §8.04 TPC
(a) Voluntary intoxication does not constitute a defense to the commission of a crime.
How would you distinguish a “general intent” crime and a “specific intent” crime?
Specific: When the definition refers to defendant’s intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence, the crime is deemed to be one of specific intent.
General: When the definition of a crime consists of only the description of a particular act, without reference to intent to do a further act or achieve a future consequence, we ask whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act. This intention is deemed to be a general criminal intent.
What is the proof requirement for mens rea?
The prosecution must prove the specific mens rea elements of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. A showing of general wickedness is never enough to satisfy the mens rea requirement.
What is the key to determining the application of a crime in a particular mens rea?
It is dependent on the intention of the legislature
Is mistake of law normally a viable defense?
No it is not.
“good faith reliance on the advice of counsel is not relevant” is also something to note
