Mens Rea Flashcards
What if statute has no reference to mental state? 2 options:
- No mental state is required because strict liability was intended by legislature
- Some mental state is required by definition of crime, but still requires common law cases to establish
Regina v. Faulkner
- D was on a ship carrying rum, stole some rum, then plugged the hole, he lit a match, rum then caught fire, injured him and destroyed the ship. Charged with arson
- Prosecution said he was stealing rum when he started the fire and felonious intent with respect to arson was established by his intent to steal the rum (transferred intent)
- Appellate court said he couldn’t be charged with arson
Transferred Intent - Faulkner
This not longer exists, except in felony murder
Faulkner definitions of intent/malice
• 1. Intended to do the thing (intended to set fire to the ship) – subjective test
• 2. It was the necessary consequence of some other criminal act in which he was engaged (knowledge that in doing something else, ship would necessarily blow up) – subjective test, must foresee
o Don’t use this test anymore
• 3. Having foreseen or should’ve foreseen the result, he continued with the act (probable result) – objective test, negligence [THIS IS TEST USED]
Regina v. Cunningham
- Semi-detached house. Wades lived next door. D went into the cellar and stole gas meter (it had coins in it) but did not turn off the gas, which partially asphyxiated Mrs. Wade
- Unlawfully and maliciously administer/cause to be administered to any other person any poison or noxious thing that endangers life
- D argued that he did not act maliciously. D is convicted by appellate court reverses.
- Now required:
• 1. Actual intention to do the kind of harm that was in fact done – subjective
• 2. Recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (foreseen a risk that harm might be done, but has gone on anyway) – subjective and objective hybrid [aligns to test used in Faulkner]
Types of common law mens rea
- Specific intent
- General intent
- Strict liability, very rare
Mistake of Fact
Objectively did the act, but mentally innocent because a mistake of fact
Two kinds of mistake of fact
- Specific intent- defense if mistake is honest
2. General intent (intent to punish reckless or negligent behavior)- defense if mistake is honest and reasonable
Green v. State
- Specific intent crime – drove to woodland, killed several hogs, took the home, arrested and prosecuted for stealing hogs (hogs belonged to someone else)
- Larceny – 1. Take or carry away 2. Personal property of another 3. With intent to permanently deprive
- Defense – he had his own hogs running on the range, thought the ones he killed were his
- If he honestly thought the hogs were his, he didn’t have the intent to commit this specific intent crime of larceny
State v. Walker
- General Intent Crime - Charged with child abduction
- Abduction – 1. Taking/carrying away 2. Child 3. Without consent
- Defendant abducted boy and girl in front of the school building, girl was later found walking back to school but boy was still missing
- Dismissed boy’s abduction because father of boy involved and given his consent
- Girl was unrelated but thought it was the granddaughter
- Mistake of fact would work if they showed it was honest and reasonable (made with good faith and due care)
US v. Oglivie
- Married wife when stationed in Panama, husband moved away and she stayed, later she said she filed for divorce in Panama, he thought they were divorced. He got his basic allowance for quarters terminated. Then remarried and reinstated his BAQ.
- His previous divorce was not final and he was convicted of bigamy and 2 counts of making a false statement
- False statement – specific intent crime (intent to deceive and knowing that it’s false)
• Said he made an honest mistake
• Exculpatory because he honestly believed he was divorced - Bigamy – general intent crime (derived from common law)
• Mistake was honest but was not reasonable because he didn’t take reasonable steps to determine the validity of divorce
• Found guilty of bigamy
US v. Yermian (mix of SI and GI elements)
- D knowingly made false statements on a security clearance form so that his answers would match false statements he made on his application for employment
- Said he didn’t know lies mattered within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of US
- Knowingly make false statements is specific intent
- BUT crime has general intent elements – as to jurisdictional elements, SC later said that jurisdictional elements are strict liability
- Mistake relevant was to general intent element, not reasonable, convicted
Specific intent crime with general intent elements
- Burglary – 1. Break 2. Enter 3. Occupied structure 4. Or residence of another 5. At night
- Specific intent as to break and enter, general intent as to other
Strict Liability for grading elements
- Difference between stealing jewelry and fencing it for $50 when it’s really worth $10k, still a grand larceny rather than regular larceny under facts as he believed
- Mistake of fact only defense when there would otherwise be NO crime
Strict Liability and Statutory Rape
Strict liability for moral wrongs
1. Statutory rape – sexual intercourse / with another / under age ___
2. Strict liability as to age, no mistake is exculpatory as to age
3. Tell if its strict liability by looking at the cases
• Ex: Regina v. Prince - any unmarried girl under the age of 16 years… - defense: thought she was 18. SL because D’s behavior morally wrong even if girl was 18
