Mens Rea Flashcards
MPC 2.02
Purposely
A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offence when:
- If the element involves the nature of his CONDUCT or a RESULT thereof, it is his CONSCIOUS OBJECT to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause the result.
- ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES. AWARE of the existence of such circumstances, or he believes or hopes they exist.
MPC 2.02
Knowingly
A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offence when:
- CONDUCT and ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES. AWARE that his conduct is of that nature and AWARE that the attendant circumstances exist.
- RESULT. he is as AWARE that it is PRACTICALLY CERTAIN that his conduct will cause such result.
MPC 2.02
Recklessly
A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of a crime when he CONSCIOUSLY DISREGARDS A SUBSTANTIAL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK that the material elements exist or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that considereing the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard INVOLVES A GROSS DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE that a law abiding citizen would have observed in the actor’s situation.
MPC 2.02
Negligently
A person acts negligently with respect to a material element when he SHOULD BE AWARE OF A SUBSTANTIAL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. Risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actors FAILURE TO PERCEIVE IT INVOLVED A GROSS DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE that a reasonable person would observe in the actors circumstances
Malice Aforethought
COMMON LAW term. Mens rea that seperates murder from manslaughter. Murder requires malice aforethought.
Regina v. Cunningham
Judges instruction. Malice means wickedness “Something which the defendant had no business to do and perfectly well knows it.”
- Appellates argue that this is TOO BROAD. Should be AN ELEMENT OF FORESEEABILITY.
- “Recklessly committing an act with awareness that a particular harm might result”
Regina v. Faulkner
A defendant is responsible for every act that occurs as a result of committing one crime
Trying to steal rum, lit a match and burnt down whole ship.
Majority Common Law Interpretation
Malice - Cunningham
Recklessly committing an act with awareness of a “substantial risk” of causing harm.
MPC 2.02(3)
Statutory silence with regards the mens rea
When a statute doesn’t specify a mens rea requirement for a crime, it is satisfied if the person acted, purposely, knowingly, or recklessly. NOT NEGLIGENTLY.
- Negligence is an exceptional basis of liability and should be excluded unless explicitly described.
- Basically if there is silence with regards mens rea we read RECKLESSNESS.
MPC 2.04(4)
Unclear whether mens rea applies to all elements
When a statute has a mens rea but it is unclear whether it applies to all material elements, assume that it does unless a contrary purpose plainly appears.
Elonis v. United States
General rule is that criminal statutes include a requirement that a person committing the crime is aware that they are committing a crime. Even where no mens rea is specifically mentioned in the statute.
- Alito states that the default should be recklessness which is in accord with the MPC.
Posting threats on Facebook.
State v. Hazelwood
Ordinary negligence is sufficient to impose criminal liability for conduct which society seeks to deter.
- Captain of an oil tanker that crashed and caused a huge spill in Alaska
State v. Muniz
Defendant fired a gun at a backyard chair in a neighbour’s garden. His friends urged him not to because there was a risk that he could hit one of the children playing. Defendant was confident in his marksmanship and fired anyways, he hit one of the children in the head causing serious physical and cognitive injuries.
- subjective theory of recklessness: the more skill, the more likely there is less substantial risk
-
opaque recklessness: awareness of some risk but failure to appreciate how substantial it was
- lies between recklessness and negligence
Shimens case
Defendant helf a yellow belt in Taekwondo and was demonstrating his skills to his friends. To do this he made as if to strike a plate glass window with his foot however his kick broke the window. Found guilty of criminal damage via recklessness.
Voisine v. United States
To act recklessly is in the dominant forumulation to “consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the conduct will cause harm to others. To commit an assault knowingly or purposefully is to act with another state of mind respecting that acts consequences - in the first case (knowingly) to be aware that harm is practically certain, and in the second case (purposely) to have that result as a conscious object
MPC 2.02(7)
Ostrich Instruction
When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of the offence, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of A HIGH PROBABILITY of its existence, UNLESS he actually believes that it does not exist.
United States v. Jewell
Knowingly includes positive knowledge as well as a defendants awareness of the HIGH PROBABILITY of an illegal act BUT PURPOSEFULLY FAILING TO INVESTIGATE the presence of the illegal act in order to remain ignorant.
- Guy arrested for transporting drugs in the secret compartment of his car. Evidence suggested he was lying and also that he knew of the existence of the secret compartment.
Kennedy’s Dissent encapsulated in MPC 2.02(7)
Global Tech v. SEB
Two requirements for holding knowledge when faced with willful ignorance:
- Subjective belief that a high probability exists, and
- Deliberate avoidance
Recklessness + Deliberate avoidance to avoid learning the truth = Knowledge.
U.S. v. Giovannetti
There must be an act that shows that the defendant deliberately avoided learning the truth in order to impute knowledge of the illegal act to him.
e.g. she used to walk past house, rents to gamblers, changes walking route to avoid checking on the house.
Strict Liability
Theories of punishment
Where the mere engaging in the activity makes you culpable regardless of mental state.
- From a deterence perspective, strict liability does not make sense
- How can you deter someone from doing something that they did not know was prohibited?
- A retributivist standard may seem more reasonable
United States v. Balint
A legislative body may enact laws that are against public policy and do not require proof of a scienter requirement.
- Defendants were convicted for violating a narcotics act by selling derivatives of opium, argued that they did not know they were selling prohibited drugs.
United States v. Dotterweich
Pharmaceutical company held strictly liable for repackaging and shipping mislabeled drugs.
- Public policy, allocation of risk falls on the distributor not the consumer. We want to increase consumer protection by forcing companies to take more care that their products don’t cause injury.
Morissette v. United States
Malum in se
- Acts that are wrong/evil in themselves REQUIRE A MENS REA standard because punishment for these acts tend to be serious and we want prosecutors to have a higher burden of proof.
Malum prohibitum
- Acts that are wrong simply by virtue of being made illegal. Here strict liability CAN apply. Punishment less severe.
Staples v. United States
Absent a clear statement from Congress that there is no mens rea requirement, federal felony statutes should NOT be interpreted so as to eliminate the mens rea.
- Defendant had a semi-automatic rifle, modified to fire automatically that was unregistered. Claimed he did not know.
- Don’t want to criminalize a broad range of apparently innocent conduct
U.S. v. Heredia
∆ thought she smelled drugs. Ct said she should have pulled over.
Deliberate avoidance of knowledge = knowledge.
Does the MPC have a strict liability provision?
Nein.
