Mens Rea

Question 1

Mens Rea is…

Answer 1

The intent to commit the eventual outcome (evil mind)

1. Most serious offenses require proof of a specific intention, (no one should be found guilty of a serious criminal offense unless he or she was shown to have been blameworthy because he or she actually intended to commit that crime)

Question 2

MPC §2.02. (1) Minimum Requirements of Culpability

Answer 2

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 (except as provided in section 2.05)

Question 3

Purposely

Answer 3

A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:

He consciously desires his conduct to cause a particular result

Question 4

Knowingly

Answer 4

A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:

He is aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause a particular result

Question 5

Recklessly

Answer 5

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 this conduct.

Question 6

Negligently

Answer 6

When he should be aware of a risk that his conduct might cause a particular result…

Question 7

Intoxication Defense

Answer 7

Many jurisdictions have intoxication defenses that apply to specific intent crimes, but not to general intent crimes or strict liability crimes.
1. To establish intoxication, an accused must prove that she was so severely intoxicated that she did not possess the mens rea for the offense she was charged

Question 8

Mistake of Fact

Answer 8

To make defense, D must ordinary establish that her mistaken belief both negated the required Mens Rea element and was reasonably held.
1. Requires that such an honest belief (subjective focus) also be a reasonable belief (objective focus) in order to make a good defense to some specific crimes. Mistake of fact is never, however, a defense to strict liability crimes as it is a mens rea defense only

Question 9

Mistake of Law

Answer 9

Ordinarily not a defense

Question 10

Exceptions to Mistake of Law

Answer 10

A defendant can defend against criminal charges on the ground that he mistakenly relied on the advice of a public official
1. Unless accused was told officially- that such conduct was not criminal or where the criminal statute specifically makes knowledge of illegality an element of the crime

Question 11

Mistake and Mens Rea

Answer 11

1. To demonstrate that the accused did not think that he or she was acting with the required intent because he or she had a mistaken belief about relevant factual circumstances (“mistake of fact”)
2. But an accused person’s mistake beliefs about applicable law rather than relevant facts is not a good defense. (“mistake of law”)

Question 12

General intent

Answer 12

when the required mental state entails only an intent to do the act that causes the harm

Question 13

Specific Intent

Answer 13

when the required mental state entails an intent to cause the resulting harm. ( must have desired to do something further)

Question 14

Voluntary Intoxication

Answer 14

Usually not a dense, unless specific intent…

To establish intoxication, an accused must prove that she was so severely intoxicated that she did not possess the mens rea for the offense she was charged.

• not a defense when the intent was formed before intoxication, or the defendant becomes intoxicated for the purpose of making defense.
• not a defense to crimes involving malice, recklessness, or negligence, or for strict liability crimes

Question 15

Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 15

a complete defense to criminal charges, treated as an involuntary act

Question 16

Strict Liability

Answer 16

Legislatures have the power to enact strict liability, and they often do with respect to minor and/or public welfare offenses.

Question 17

Presumption of the Courts

Answer 17

Legislatures may enact strict liability criminal statues, but the absence of a mens rea term does not necessarily mean that the statue is one of strict liability. The courts often presume that legislatures meant to include a mens rea element unless they indicated clearly that it did not.