MPC Mens Rea

Question 1

Holloway v US (1999)

Answer 1

Facts: D robs people in their cars. D charged with carjacking, which requires “intent…to… serious[ly]…harm.” D did not seriously harm anyone, but his colleague says they would have had victims not complied.

Rule: When a statute contains an element of intent, an individual can satisfy that intent element through conditional intent.

Holding: D loses because his forking intent to either let someone go if they cooperated or shoot them if they didn’t is enough to fulfill the intent element in the statute.

Question 2

US v Jewell

Answer 2

Facts: D is caught bringing 100 pounds of weed across US border. Weed was in secret compartment. D knew about the compartment, but intentionally didn’t look inside. D argues he doesn’t fulfill “knowingly.”

Rule: For the purposes of satisfying the elements of a criminal statute, “knowingly” includes both positive knowledge and the defendant’s awareness of the high probability of an illegal act when the defendant