Mens Rea Element Flashcards
Mens rea
what is it?
- State of mind of the defendant when committing the crime
Guilty Mind is required (except in rare cases of strict liability)
CL General Intent
what is it?
○ 1. A blameworthy state of mind
○ 2. A general awareness of the nature of what you are doing
○ 3. Recklessness or even negligence as to the existence of the elements, of the element in question
CL General Intent
Rule to find General Intent
where a statutory offense does not state a specific intent, the only state of mind required is INTENT to commit the crime, the actus reus part of the crime
CL specific Intent
what is it?
requires prove of some particular mens rea that goes beyond simply intending to cause the act that caused the social harm (intent to do some future act)
similar to purposeful or knowingly state of mind to the existence of the element in question
CL Transferred Intent on General/Specific Intent
when can it be applied?
In some jurisdictions, the rule is you can only transfer intent from one criminal act to a second criminal act if they are the same type of criminal act, that is same general intent or specific intent
Cannot transfer crimes with general intent to a crimes with specific intent and vice versa
Strict Liability Doctrine (SL)
what is it?
· No culpable mental state at all must be shown – it is enough that D performed the act in question, regardless of his mental state.
§ So it does not matter that D is not aware the offense is a SL crime
SL
Formal Strict Liability (FSL)
what is it?
liability without a culpable mental state with respect to the actus reus
SL
Do majority of crimes fall under FSL?
yes!
SL
FSL Pure Strict Liability
what is it?
§ Liability without any culpable mental state with respect to any objective element
SL
FSL Impure Strict Liability
§ Liability without any culpable mental state with respect to at least one such element
Tip for SL offense with absent mens rea
if you don’t see any mens rea in the definition, don’t assume it is a strict liability crime
but make sure to know mens rea by default is reuired unless facts show law is strict liability
MPC Strict Liability Exception
on what they would label the offense?
provides that the voluntary act and mens rea requirements need not apply to offenses graded as “violations” rather than “crimes.”
SL
Public welfare offenses –> malum prohibitum
what is it?
wrong because we (society/law) prohibits it (not necessarily immoral)
SL
Public welfare offenses Factors to weigh
§ 1. Public welfare offense are not derived from the common law
§ 2. A single violation of such an offense can simultaneously injure a great number of people
§ Ex. your dad places a gun in your backpack and you ride off in your backpack unlicenced–> posed danger to public safety even if you didn’t have knowledge about the gun
§ 3. Standard imposed by the statute is reasonable
§ 4. Penalty for the violation is minor
- Conviction rarely damages the D’s rep
SL
Nonpublic welfare offenses –> malum in se
crime that is inherently immoral/evil (usually stigmatized crimes and more severe punishment)
Unique
Ex. Statutory Rape- does not require any element of D’s knowledge of female being underage.
Malum In Se dealing with Strict Liability
§ Malum in Se crimes have ALWAYS required a mental state—stealing is a common law, malum in se crime. The state can’t remove this requirement and make an offense a strict liability without notice
Mistake of Fact (MofF)
CL rule
A D who is in the act of committing a felony cannot also be found guilty for any accidental collateral act that would constitute another felony
bc D didn’t have knowledge that committing one felony also imputes the knowledge req onto the accidental collateral act
MofF CL rule on constructive knowledge
D’s Willful ignorance is the same as having constructive knowledge
that is to act knowingly is to also act with an awareness of the high probability of the existence of the fact in question.
MofF
CL rule on MofF as an excuse on SL and absent mens rea
at CL, mistake of fact is not an excuse in a strict liability crime
But in crimes requiring intent can be excused if it disproves any element of the requisite mens rea
MofF
on General Intent
The rule is that a person is not guilty of a general intent crime if his mistake of fact was reasonable where D’s commits an act under and honest and reasonable belief
MofF
on Specific Intent
D is not guilty of an offense if his mistake of fact negates the specific-intent portion of the crime, i.e., if he lacks the intent required in the definition of the offense
MofF
CL rule on excusing MofF
mistake of fact can be an excused if every mens rea element in a crime is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt
ex. D must have knowledge that the unknown material D possesses is what prosecution is trying to prove on D–>but if prosecution can’t prove D knew of the material possessed–>then D is excused
MofF
CL rule on req of awareness of committing crime
Criminal statutes generally include a requirement that a person is aware that he or she is committing a crime, even if the statute does not explicitly contain such a mens rea requirement
Mistake of Law (MofL)
what is it
Rule: generally, a mistake of the law is no excuse (Baker rule)
However, there is a very small category of exceptions
MofL
CL Lambert exception
· 1. Law criminalizes
o 1) only wholly passive conduct AND
§ Failing or doing something that should or shouldn’t have been done
o 2) the law is not widely known
o The law must afford notice to D of their required legal duty
That is an omission crime requiring the prosecution to prove actual knowledge of the legal duty violated and if there was no actual knowledge –> there is no crime
MofL
CL Twitchell exception
· 2. OR there is reasonable reliance on an official interpretation of the law
Requires that the interpretation was actually reasonably
MPC 2.04 (1)(a) MofL rule
MofL is only a defense if the ignorance or mistake negates the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense.
§ We do not want to reward ignorance or create incentives for ignorance.
§ But in very small categories, we will make an exception for ignorance of the law.
§ General statement “mistake of the law is no excuse” means that once the state has proven the mental element of the offense –> mistake of law is not an excuse
MofL CL Rule on knowledge req
crim law does not require knowledge that an act is illegal, wrong, or blameworthy;
· two different types of defenses can be raised but does not acquit D
(1) Δ lacks mental state required for offense and
(2) Δ had mental state but is unaware that conduct is criminal
MofL CL Rule on your status and knowledge req
when meet all the remaining elements of offense but you as the D were not aware if you knew you by your status of the offense had the knowledge req to commit the offense–>then you cannot be found guilty
MofL CL rule on failing to follow the law but you lacked the knowledge
when you fail to register or follow a law because you were unaware/lacked the knowledge you needed to follow the law–>you cannot be found guilty
MofL CL rule on advice from public official
advice from public official is no excuse; when Δ is aware of the statute and set out to do exactly what he intended to do–>he cannot raise MofL as defense
MofL CL rule on whether you reasonably believe the law is valid or not…
When the law mandates a certain duty that you must abide by the law–> and you had knowledge of the law whether you reasonably believed the law is valid or not–>one knew they had a duty and ignored the law–> will be found guilty
MofL CL rule on reliance on official interpretation of the law
(exception)
When the D is misled by the official interpretation of the law that was given by an official representative of the law–> thus D did not have knowledge intent of committing the crime
· To make an official statement of law–> must be given/published to the public, not privately given
Ex. local district attorney gives interpretation off the clock in a non-challant way to the D
MofL CL rule on reliance even in good faith
Mistake in reliance even in good faith belief will still not be an excuse
· (minority rule in few states)
