Mens Rea & Strict Liability

Question 1

purposely

Answer 1

offender intends to bring about harmful result, hoped it would occur

Question 1

knowingly

Answer 1

offender is aware of the harmful result that will almost certainly occur from their conduct, deliberately ignorant

Question 2

recklessly

Answer 2

consciously disregards the substantial and unjustifiable risk of their conduct that they are aware of

Question 3

negligently

Answer 3

ought to have been aware of the result of their conduct, a reasonable person would have recognized

Question 4

MPC Mens Rea

Answer 4

Purposely, Knowingly, Recklessly, Negligently
- default is recklessness
- traveling to other parts of statute

Question 5

Common Law Mens Rea

Answer 5

General Intent: D has intended to commit an illegal act (only state of mind required is intent to commit the act that constitutes the crime - even if they didn’t intend to violate the law)
Specific Intent: Prove that D intended to commit the act and that they had the intent to achieve the specific goal
ex: possession of controlled substance with intent to distribute
- look at statute for general or specific, then see if it denotes an intent (“maliciously”, “wickedly”)

Question 6

Common Law Strict Liability

Answer 6

1. public welfare offense
2. does not carry significant stigma of penalties

Question 7

MPC Strict Liability

Answer 7

1. offense constitutes a violation
2. plain legislative intent of strict liability
   - in order to be violation instead of crime, will not expose D to sentence of probation or incarceration

Question 8

Mistake of Fact Defense

Answer 8

MPC: disposes of this offense, mistake of fact defense relates to issue in proving mens rea - only if it negates one of the mens rea state of minds
CL: embraces this defense, mistake of fact is a mistake about a material factual element or mistaken belief other than mistake of law - only if its reasonable
IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NEVER A DEFENSE