Mens Rea Flashcards
(32 cards)
Common law approach to mens rea
“offense analysis”; specific intent crimes, general intent crimes, strict liability crimes
Specific intent
(1) Requires an intention by the actor to perform some future act above and beyond the “actus reus” of the offense; (2) requires proof of a special motive for the conduct; OR (3) provides that the actor must be aware of a statutory attendant circumstance (e.g., knowingly receiving stolen goods)
Example –> burglary (conduct = breaking and entering; intent to commit a felony therein)
General intent
requires showing defendant intended to perform a certain act with a generally bad state of mind, but not that defendant intended to break the law (lowest level of proof)
Strict liability
Doesn’t require a culpable mental state but must be aware of the nature of conduct. These offenses have low punishment (public welfare offenses, regulatory offenses, inherently dangerous, drug possession, etc.); Mental state doesn’t matter (e.g., 19 y/o having sex with 14 y/o when he didn’t know she was under 17 is statutory rape); Gov’t must prove material elements, defendant must prove non-material elements
***State v. Blake: meth in thrifted jeans pocket; valid SL requires that the D actually performs some conduct, not just innocent passivity
MPC approach to mens rea
“elements analysis”; looks at each material element of the offense to see how it corresponds with mental state–mens rea must correspond to each element
Common law specific intent crimes
Attempt, solicitation, conspiracy, some first-degree murders, larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, robbery, burglary, forgery
Purposely (MPC)
A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:
(i) the element involved the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and
(ii) if the element involved the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist
Knowingly (MPC)
A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:
(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the ttendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and
(ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result (absence act of God)
Recklessly (MPC)
A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he (1) consciously disregards a (2) substantial and (3) unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be a (4) gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a law-abiding person in the actor’s situation. (Ex: gang murdering the wrong guy)
In essay, must show: (1) Substantial risk (2) Unjustifiable risk? (3) Awareness of risk with a conscious disregard of risk? (4) Gross deviation from a law-abiding citizen’s standard of conduct? (5) In the actor’s situation
Negligently (MPC)
A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he (1) should be aware (2) of a substantial and unjustifiable risk (3) that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. (4) The risk must be of such a nature and degree (5) that the actor’s failure to perceive it involves a gross deviance from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. (example: Mobile home hauler with suspended license that kills a tow truck driver on the shoulder because he’s inattentive for a moment while trying to switch lanes and doesn’t see tow truck driver in time insufficient evidence to show criminally negligent homicide (Harber v. State))
What distinguishes knowingly and recklessly?
- Knowledge and recklessness are similar in that both are states of awareness, but w/ knowingly the actor is PRACTICALLY CERTAIN result will occur, whereas in w/ RECKLESSLY, there is a substantial risk that the result will occur.
Sufficient evidence
*substantial evidence that would permit a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crime “beyond a reasonable doubt”
* On appeal for insufficient evidence, the evidence must be looked at in the light most favorable to the verdict. The burden of proof then shifts onto the defendant.
Culpability required unless otherwise provided (MPC)
when the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly, or recklessly with respect thereto
Substitutes for negligence, recklessness, and knowledge (MPC)
When the law provides that negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts purposely or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts purposely.
Minimum requirements of culpability (MPC)
a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense.
Requirement of purpose satisfied if purpose is conditional (MPC)
when a particular purpose is an element of an offense, the element is established although such purpose is conditional, unless the condition negatives the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense. (ex: Holloway carjacking case)
Requirement of knowledge satisfied by knowledge of high probability (MPC)
when knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist (ex: Gatto case)
Requirement of willfulness satisfied by acting knowingly (MPC)
a requirement that an offense be committed wilfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless the purpose to impose further requirements appears (ex: train wreck case)
Culpability as to illegality of conduct (MPC)
Neither knowledge nor recklessness nor negligence as to whether conduct constitutes an offense or as to the existence, meaning, or application of the law determining the elements of an offense is an element of such offense, unless the definition of the offense or the Code so provides.
***aka, IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE
Culpability as determined by grade of offense (MPC)
when the grade or degree of an offense depends on whether the offense is committed purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, its grade or degree shall be the lowest for which determinative kind of culpability is established with respect to any material element of the offense.
What distinguishes knowledge from recklessness?
- Knowledge and recklessness are similar in that both are states of awareness.
- They differ in the magnitude of the risk of which the actor is aware. In knowledge the result is practically certain to occur.
- In recklessness, there is a substantial risk the result will occur.
LaFave factors that help solve statutory silence and ambiguity in regards to mental state
a. Legislative history and context (doesn’t apply to MPC)
b. Guidance from other statutes
c. The severity of the punishment (the more severe the punishment, the less likely it’s strict liability)
d. Seriousness of the public harm the statute seeks to prevent (the more serious the consequences to the public, the more likely the legislature meant to impose liability without regard to fault)
e. Defendant’s opportunity to obtain the true facts
f. The difficulty in proving mental state
g. The number of prosecutions expected under the statute
Natural and probable causes doctrine
jury may infer a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions, even when he states otherwise (e.g., Youts case w/ runaway train)
Sufficient evidence of intent
circumstantial evidence can be sufficient; however, appellate court will scrutinize more closely on a case with only circumstantial evidence
