Mens Rea Test Flashcards
What is the definition of Mens Rea?
The Latin phrase “Mens Rea,” which means “guilty mind,” is a theory that refers to the state of mind or intent that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to show criminal guilt.
What are the five legal words/terms that are used in statutes/codes describing the INTENT needed to be held criminally culpable (accountable) for violating that law?
Knowingly, willingly, purposely, recklessly, and negligently.
What’s the difference between general intent, specific intent, and strict liability?
For general intent, the defendant must consciously want to act in something damaging or illegal. For specific intent, the defendant must consciously want to get a certain result from their actions. When someone is guilty of strict liability, they are responsible for the results of their acts, no matter what state of mind they were in.
State vs. Jantzi (p. 138) describes the difference between “knowingly” and “recklessly” in the court’s decision. How would you explain the difference between the two?
Based on this case, the way I’d describe the difference is that “knowingly” involves a more direct and purposeful intent, while “recklessly” involves a conscious disregard of a known risk.
Referring to State vs. Stark (p. 135), what was the question before the court, and what was the decision/rule that the court handed down? (Remember, the decision/rule/holding answers the question before the court.)
The question was: did he expose his victims to HIV on purpose? The court decided that a person with HIV could be charged with a crime for transferring the virus to someone else if they knew they were HIV-positive and purposely had sex without protection without informing the other person.
Referring to Koppersmith vs. State (p. 140), why did the court rule that the trial judge should have allowed the defense’s motion for jury instruction on “criminally negligent homicide” and ordered a new trial?
There was evidence that the defendant may have murdered the victim by error rather than on purpose. The court believed the jury should have learned about both intentional and criminally negligent murder because the evidence at the trial could support either one.
What’s the defense of Mistake of Fact?
Mistake of fact is a theory based on an honest error that the accused acted upon. In other terms, it’s when someone commits an act under the belief something/someone is harming their property or their persons.
What’s an example of a code or statute/law that would be considered a “strict liability” law?
Possession, in some cases. For instance, if I give a friend of mine a ride to work one day and he happens to have acid tabs on his person and a few fall out of his pocket throughout the course of the drive or getting out of the vehicle. If my car was searched and they found said acid tabs in my car, the car registered in my name, I would be held responsible.
What’s an example fact pattern of what could happen where a mistake of fact defense is valid?
A guy gets his lawnmower stolen from his yard, so he steals another one from a guy in his neighborhood because itlooked just like his. Although it’s not, and he can claim mistake of fact.
Referring to State vs. Jacobson (pg. 154), why did the court rule that Jacobson has a right to present evidence of mistake of law defenses?
The court understood that even though there is a general assumption that people know the law, this assumption can be thrown out by proof that someone really doesn’t know or understand it. The court decided that this information was relevant to the question of intent and could possibly show that the prosecution was wrong when they said that Jacobson did what he did on purpose and with knowledge.
