MENS REA Flashcards
Define Mens Rea:
“A guilty mind”
—culpable state of mind
What is the Broad Culpability/ Common Law Meaning of Mens Rea?
A person has acted w/mens rea in broad sense if she committed the actus reus of an offense w/ vicious will, evil mind, morally blameworthy or culpable state of mind.
No particular state of mind required.
— a D is guilty of a crime if she commits the social harm of the offense with any morally blameworthy state of mind; it is not significant whether she caused the social harm intentionally or, instead, with some other blameworthy mental state.
What is the Narrow Elemental/ MPC Meaning of Mens Rea?
Mens rea exists if a person commits the actus reus of an offense with a particular mental state set out in the definition of that offense.
— A defendant is not guilty of an offense, even if she has a culpable frame of mind, if she lacks any mental state specified in the definition of the crime.
Ex: A person is guilty of [name of offense] if she intentionally does X [the social harm elements of the offense]
What is a Utilitarian’s policy argument for mens rea requirement?
Punishment of someone who has no guilty mind is punishing someone who cannot be deterred or reformed so punishment would be counter-utilitarian if you don’t have mens rea.
- –Contrary Argument – May overstate the case in some circumstances. Some persons may be accident prone; although they cannot help what they do, they represent a danger to the community that may merit the application of the criminal law.
- -Furthermore, there may be deterrence value in punishing a person who innocently commits the actus reus of an offense as a lesson to others who might believe that they could otherwise avoid punishment by fraudulently claiming a lack of mens rea.
- -Deterrence also encourages others to act with the greatest care possible.
What is a Retributivist’s policy argument for mens rea requirement?
A person who commits the actus reus of an offense in a morally innocent manner (i.e. accidentally) does not need to be punished, as they did not choose to act unlawfully.
Common Law Approach:
Intentionally
— A person commits the social harm of an offense intentionally if:
(i) it was her CONSCIOUS OBJECT to cause the result or
(ii) if she knew that the harm was VIRTUALLY CERTAIN to occur as the result of her conduct.
Regina v. Cunningham
(D ripped off a gas pipe from P’s cellar to sell it for money; D did not know that he did not turn off the gas valve and the gas seeped upstairs into the house and put the P’s life in danger.)
Issue: Whether the appellant’s act was “malicious” within the meaning of section 23 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861.
Holding: NO. Although the TC judge directed the jury that malicious=wicked, this court believes that malicious under the meaning of the statute means that actor intended the injury when he committed the unlawful act.
People v. Conley (hit with a wine bottle–> permanent disability case)
Issue: Whether the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to inflict any permanent disability.
Holding: Intent can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances: the offender’s words, the weapon used, and the force of the blow.
There is sufficient evidence to support a finding of intent to cause permanent disability beyond a reasonable doubt. Convicted of aggravated battery.
Give the Rule for Criminal Battery:
an unlawful application of force to the person of another
Does Intent pertain to the Social Harm or to the Act?
Intent pertains to the social harm and not the act that causes the result.
A person may intend an act, but for purposes of analyzing mens rea, the issue is whether the person intended the RESULT of the act.
Ex – A aims at a target and intentionally pulls the trigger. To A’s surprise V walks in front of the target and is killed by a bullet from A’s gun. A has caused the social harm of homicide – the death of another human being. But, A did not cause this result intentionally. It was not her conscious object to kill V, nor did she know that firing the gun would almost certainly result in a death. The pulling of the trigger was a voluntary act, a part of the actus reus, but for purposes of determining A’s mens rea, we focus A’s state of mind in relation to the social harm. A may have some mens rea as to this death, but on these facts, it is not an intentional killing.
Intent
“Knowingly” Common Law Approach:
At common law, a person acts “knowingly” regarding an existing fact if she either:
(a) is aware of the fact
(b) correctly believes that it exists OR
(c) suspects that it exists and purposely avoids learning if her suspicion is correct (WILLFUL BLINDNESS).
Specific Intent Offense:
offense that explicitly contains one of the following mens rea elements in its definition; the intent to commit some act over and BEYOND the actus reus of the offense
- Intent to commit some FUTURE ACT (“with intent to sell”)
- SPECIAL MOTIVE or purpose (“with the intent to cause humiliation”)
- AWARENESS OF ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCE (“intentional sale of obscenity to a person known to be under the age of 18”)
General Intent Offense:
Any offense that requires proof of a culpable mental state, but does not contain a specific intent.
When no explicit mens rea term/particular mental state is set out in the definition of the crime, a prosecutor need only prove that the actus reus of the offense was performed with ANY culpable (morally blameworthy state) of mind.
Crimes that permit conviction for reckless/negligent/or any mental state in a definition that relates solely to the social harm of a criminal offense.
Ex. – Battery, the actus reus is the physical touching of another, no intent needed to cause injury, just intent to do the act of touching. No excuse if you just want to scare.
Is Assault a general or specific intent crime?
Assault is a general intent crime.
Is Assault w/ intent to rape a general or specific intent crime?
Specific intent crime because there is an intent to commit a future act.
