Strict Liability

Question 1

Strict Liability Crime Definition

Answer 1

Strict liability crimes lact a mens rea requirement regarding one or more elements of the actus reas.

Proof of the actus reas is sufficient for a conviction, regardless of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of commission

Question 2

Determining Strict Liability: (Morrison Test)

Answer 2

1. Rebuttable Presumption: To start, presume statute includes a mens rea element.
2. Plain Language: Look at plain language of the statute to see if there is unambiguous mens rea language
3. Legislative Intent: Look to factors to determine if the legislature did in fact intend to impose strict liability

Question 3

• Strict liability offenses lack a mens rea requirement regarding one or more elements of the _ _

Answer 3

Actus Reus.

Proof of the actus reus is sufficient for a conviction, regardless of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of commission.

Question 4

• Why is there a Presumption Against Strict Liability

Answer 4

o While strict liability statutes are not per se unconstitutional, at least under due process grounds, the Court has indicated that there is a presumption against strict liability absent a contrary legislative purpose (Morissette)

o Most courts will interpret a federal or state statute, otherwise silent in regard to mens rea, as containing an implicit requirement of some level of moral culpability.

Question 5

Model Penal Code: Strict Liability

Answer 5

MPC does not recognize strict liability, except with respect to offenses graded as “violations.”

For all other offenses, it requires the prosecution to prove some form of culpability regarding each material element.

Reckless is the mens rea if no mens rea present

Question 6

• Two types of crimes:

Malum _ _

Malum _ _

Give examples of each

Answer 6

o Malum In Se- bad in and of itself

• Examples: Murder, Rape, Arson, Kidnapping

o Malum Prohibitum- wrong b/c we say so, a regulation

• Ex: Speeding

Question 7

Morissette v. United States

What does it establish and what happened in the case?

Answer 7

Establishes presumption against strict liability when no legislative purpose is identified, establishes test to determine strict liability

• D was took empty bomb casings from a field while hunting, turned out to be government property, charged for stealing
• D claims he did not intend to steal the property, that he took it with no wrongful or criminal intent
• Court says intent here is inherent. The traditional crimes all have mens rea present, long history of what the offense is.
• Stealing is taking someone’s property intentionally

Question 8

Commonwealth v. Barone:

Answer 8

• D drove into an intersection and was hit by a motorcycle, killing the driver
• Court looks at statute, no ambiguous language
• Court then looks at MPC:

Applies “Plainly Appears Test”: legislation should not be found to impose strict liability unless a legislative intent to do so plainly appears. Should not be applied liberally

Application of Morrisette style test: When examining ambiguous language, legislative intent may be ascertained by examining five characteristics: (after looking at the plain language – Morissette style)

• 1. The circumstances that surrounded the enactment
- Part of a massive overhauling of all PA rules of the road

• 2. The harm sought to be regulated and prevented
- Harm to be prevented was “highway accidents and delays”

• 3. The object sought to be obtained
- Supplements law already existing as relates to deaths caused by motor vehicle code violations

• 4. The consequences of any particular construction
- Not intended to create strict criminal responsibility

• 5. The relative legislative history

Question 9

Determing Strict Liability:

Looking at Legislative Intent -

Factors Include:

_ ?_

_ _ ?

_ _ ?

_ _ ?

Answer 9

• Factors include:

Traditional crime?
• Usually has mens rea

Reason for statute?
• Purpose. Regulatory? Public welfare offense? More likely mens rea

Penalty?
• Higher penalty, more likely mens rea required

Stigma?
• If the crime is associated with a stigma, the legislature is likely to impose only if deserved, mens rea required

Question 10

Court’s job when examining statutes with no explicit mens rea requirement:

Answer 10

Court must determine whether the legislature purposely left out a mental state element because it wanted to treat the crime as one of strict liability, or whether the omission was unintentional

Can apply Morrision Test to determine Strict Liability

1. Rebuttable presumption
2. Plain Language
3. Factors