Mens Rea Flashcards
Mens Rea
Guilty Mind
- Specific and General Intent
- Subjective, Objective & No Fault
- Model Penal Code Approach
- Transferred Intent
- Criminal Negligence
- Strict Liability
- Vicarious Liability
- Ignorance of the Law Defense
- Mistake of the Law Defense
- Mistake of Fact Defense
Specific Intent
Intent to perform the precise act later charged with
- the actor’s conscious objective is to accomplish the specific crime
- Requires proof of a particular state of mind (usually defined in statute)
(ex: if statute uses the term “with intent”) - State has the burden of proof with specific intent
State v. Trinkle
Facts: D is drunk and shoots into a bar. Hits parton who is standing behind door.
Trinkle did not intent to shoot parton specifically, so he did not have specific intent to kill – this is general intent, not specific
(no evidence that he knew someone was behind the door)
General Intent
Intent to do a forbidden act, even if D does not desire the particular consequences
- an intent to act where there it is practically certain that harm will result, regardless of whether D desires that hard or not
Subjective Fault
Fault is a matter of the mind
(D must know in his own mind)
— what is actually in the D’s mind
Objective Fault
Fault not a matter of the mind
(D doesn’t have to know anything but D SHOULD have known because a REASONABLE PERSON IN THE SITUATION would have know)
– Reasonable Person Stanard
No Fault
Strict Liability
Strict Liability
- D guilty regardless if it was not reasonable for him to have known
- Guilty regardless of where he knew or should have know
Model Penal Code Approach
Minimum Requirement of Culpability: D has not satisfied the mens rea requirements unless he acts PURPOSELY, KNOWINGLY, RECKLESSLY, or NEGLIGENTLY, as the law may require, w/RESPECT to EACH MATERIAL ELEMENT
Purposely
MPC
- with the CONSCIOUS OBJECTIVE to engage in conduct and cause the results
- AWARE of existence of attendant circumstances or believed or hopes they exist
- with PURPOSE, DESIGN and INTENT
Knowingly
MPC
- D PRACTICALLY CERTAIN that conduct will cause result
- KNOWLEDGE of the conduct and circumstances
Recklessly
MPC
- D CONSCIOUSLY DISREGARDS a SUBSTANTIAL and UNJUSTIFABLE risk
- – subjective standard – D must be aware of and realize risk
- gross deviation from the standard of conduct that the law abiding citizen would observe in the actor’s situation
Negligently
MPC
- D SHOULD be aware of SUBSTANTIAL and UNJUSTIFIABLE risk that the material element exists of will likely result from his conduct
- – objective standard – D need not actually realize risk but a REASONABLE PERSON would have
Transferred Intent
“Intent follows the bullet”
General Principles:
1. Applies to unintended victims, not unintended crimes
2. Cannot be used to elevate or enhance the crime (battery cannot become aggravated battery)
3. Intent cannot be transferred to a different crime
4. Cannot be duplicated (cannot multiple criminal liability)
Sanger v. State
Facts: Sanger is in an argument with Chino, throws a bottle from his car at Chino and hits bystander
- If a person has an intent to strike one person and in attempting to strike that person actually – accidentally strikes another person the striking is intentional
- — transferred intent
Criminal Negligence
- Gross Deviation from a prudent person’s standard of care
- Acts create a substantial and unjustifiable risk (objective standard/reasonable person)
Factors to determine:
- GRAVITY of the harm that would foreseeably result – how serious
- PROBABILITY of the harm occurring – how likely
- BURDEN on the D to avoid the act – ex. speeding child to hospital
Strict Liability
No culpable state of mind; enough that D committed the act
– lack of criminal intent is NOT a defense
MPC: NOT SL if punishable by imprisonment
CL: SL if regulatory rule, NOT SL if prohibits CL crime or severe penalty/stimga
Vicarious Liability
- Legal responsibility for actions of another
- Dispense with requisite element of personal liability
- no act on the part of D
- no knowledge or implied consent (no mens rea but SL)
Ignorance of Law
Defense
Ignorance of the law is NO excuse
- Presumed to know the law - any mistake or ignorance is not a defense
EXCEPTIONS:
- Authorized/Reasonable Reliance Doctrine: if at the time of the offense D reasonably relied upon an official statement of that law that was later determined to be erroneous (Reliance upon lawyer’s advice does not count)
- Mistake of Law that Negates the Mens Rea: under MPC ignorance of law = excuse if the statutory mens rea is “purposefully”
- Fair Notice: D not aware of law, and, didn’t know conduct illegal, and law not made readily available (unpublished, etc.)
Mistake of Law
Defense
D knows that there is a law that applies to the general area of his activity, but believes the law does not apply to his acts
- may be a defense if it negates the statutory mens rea for specific intent crimes
- good faith mis-readings don’t relieve criminal liability
Mistake of Fact
Defense
- Willful blindness is no excuses – treated as if the D knew
- defense if it negates the requisite state of mind
Common Law View:
- specific intent: mistake of fact does NOT have to be REASONABLE, but it does have to be HONEST
- general intent: makes of fact is a defense ONLY IF the mistake is REASONABLE
MPC View:
- Mistake of fact is a defense if it negates the requisite mens rea (purposeful, knowingly, reckless, negligent)
