mens rea/strict liability

Question 1

Elements of a crime

Answer 1

crime = evil-meaning mind + evil-doing hand
 There must be a concurrence of a mens rea and an actus reus.
 Mens (Latin for “mind”; we get the English word“ mental”)
 Reus/a/um (Latin for “guilty”)
 M.P.C. § 2.02 identifies four states of mind: purposeful, knowing, reckless, and negligent (in descending order of culpability) (pp. 986–987)

Question 2

Morissette v US 1952

Answer 2

Δ took 3 tons of bomb casings from gov’t land and sold them for scrap value.
 “Whoever … knowingly converts to his use … any … thing of value of the United States … shall be fined … or imprisoned.” – 18 U.S.C. § 641
 What sort of mindset is required by the statute?
 Statutory interpretation informed by basic principles of criminal law.

Question 3

Morissette Statutory Interpretation

Answer 3

“Intent” is not used in the statute
: congressional silence—rejected
 borrowing of common law terms
 U.S. Claim: Cong. intended to create an intent-free crime—conversion.
 rule against surplusage—rejected
 history of common law theft suggests the correct answer
 No presumption of intent from the act itself.
 Note, Fla.’s contrary presumption.

Question 4

Jewell Willful blindness

Answer 4

Deliberate indifference & positive knowledge are equally culpable
 How do you show “deliberate indifference”?
 It can almost be said that Δ actually knew.
 High probability of the existence of fact in question.
 Δ’s actual knowledge of that high probability.
 Actual disbelief is a defense

Question 5

Liability without fault strict & vicarious Morissette strict liability

Answer 5

Strict liability criminal statutes largely arose in the industrial era as a response to dangerous machinery.
 Infamous crimes vs. minor offenses
 malum in se vs. malum prohibitum
 lengthy imprisonment vs. petty penalties
 “the law on the subject is neither settled nor static”

Question 6

Policy Analysis Guminga

Answer 6

Can there be vicarious criminal liability punishable with imprisonment ? Balance test:
SCALE
Public interest ——- intrusion on personal liberty

Question 7

Balancing Public interest/private interest

Answer 7

Public interest Private interest
prohibit liquor sales to minors liberty / restraint
deter people who would so sell reputation
Deterrence options (future disabilities
fine arising from being
license revocation a convicted
jail criminal)
convict the actual seller

Question 8

Garnett Md 1993

Answer 8

Statutory elements:
1) vaginal intercourse,
2) victim under14,
3) Δ at least 4 years older
 Defense: Δ thought she was 16 => lacked mens rea
 Statutory interpretation:1. expressio unius2. drafting history How do the dissents differ from each other?