Mens Rea

Question 1

Mens Rea

Answer 1

Guilty Mind

1. Specific and General Intent
2. Subjective, Objective & No Fault
3. Model Penal Code Approach
4. Transferred Intent
5. Criminal Negligence
6. Strict Liability
7. Vicarious Liability
8. Ignorance of the Law Defense
9. Mistake of the Law Defense
10. Mistake of Fact Defense

Question 2

Specific Intent

Answer 2

Intent to perform the precise act later charged with

1. the actor’s conscious objective is to accomplish the specific crime
2. Requires proof of a particular state of mind (usually defined in statute)
   (ex: if statute uses the term “with intent”)
3. State has the burden of proof with specific intent

Question 3

State v. Trinkle

Answer 3

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)

Question 4

General Intent

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Subjective Fault

Answer 5

Fault is a matter of the mind
(D must know in his own mind)
— what is actually in the D’s mind

Question 6

Objective Fault

Answer 6

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

Question 7

No Fault

Strict Liability

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Model Penal Code Approach

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Purposely

MPC

Answer 9

• 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

Question 10

Knowingly

MPC

Answer 10

• D PRACTICALLY CERTAIN that conduct will cause result

- KNOWLEDGE of the conduct and circumstances

Question 11

Recklessly

MPC

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

Negligently

MPC

Answer 12

• 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

Question 13

Transferred Intent

Answer 13

“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)

Question 14

Sanger v. State

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Criminal Negligence

Answer 15

1. Gross Deviation from a prudent person’s standard of care
2. Acts create a substantial and unjustifiable risk (objective standard/reasonable person)

Factors to determine:

1. GRAVITY of the harm that would foreseeably result – how serious
2. PROBABILITY of the harm occurring – how likely
3. BURDEN on the D to avoid the act – ex. speeding child to hospital

Question 16

Strict Liability

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Vicarious Liability

Answer 17

1. Legal responsibility for actions of another
2. Dispense with requisite element of personal liability
   
   • no act on the part of D
   • no knowledge or implied consent (no mens rea but SL)

Question 18

Ignorance of Law

Defense

Answer 18

Ignorance of the law is NO excuse
- Presumed to know the law - any mistake or ignorance is not a defense

EXCEPTIONS:

1. 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)
2. Mistake of Law that Negates the Mens Rea: under MPC ignorance of law = excuse if the statutory mens rea is “purposefully”
3. Fair Notice: D not aware of law, and, didn’t know conduct illegal, and law not made readily available (unpublished, etc.)

Question 19

Mistake of Law

Defense

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Mistake of Fact

Defense

Answer 20

• 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)