Mens Rea Flashcards
(16 cards)
Mens Rea Generally
the state of mind that the prosecution must prove the defendant had when committing a crime
MPC Mens Rea
a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted with the REQUISITE CULPABILITY with respect to each material element of the offense
MPC 2.02 list of Culpability
Purposely: defendant acts volitionally desiring an outcome (subjective). it is the D’s “conscious object” or intent to do an act that will have a certain result. If the element involves attendant circumstances, the defendant is aware of those.
Knowingly: Defendant foresees a result as highly likely but it does not matter to him whether it occurs or not (subjective). D is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. D is aware that the conduct is practically certain to cause the result.
Recklessly: Defendant consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk (subjective)
Negligently: Defendant should be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk AND D’s conduct is a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person in D’s position (objective) (gross deviation requires more than disregard of reasonable behavior)
Common Law Culpability
Purposefully and Knowingly
TPC Tit. 2 Ch. 6 Culpability
Intentional
Knowing
Reckless
Criminal Negligence
Strict Liability
No mens rea requirement
Defense must be that defendant did not commit the Act
MPC Absolute Liability
Mens Rea does not apply to offenses that constitute violations (like fines) OR offenses defined by statutes other than the MPC where there is a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability for such offenses plainly appears.
Common Law Strict Liability
Must use statutory interpretation. Presumption is not to use strict liability. Needs to be expressly stated in the statute that it is strict liability.
If Mens Rea is merely omitted, then legislative hisotry should be consulted.
Common Law Strict Liability two categories
Public welfare offenses (i.e. handling food, traffic violations, drunk driving)
Morality offenses (i.e. statutory rape, bigamy)
TPC 28.02 Arson
A person commits arson if he starts a fire, regardless of whether the fire continues after ignition, or causes an explosion with INTENT to destroy or damage.
Common Law Intoxication Analysis
Can negate mens rea for specific intent but not general intent crimes
Analysis:
1. Determine if the jurisdiction allows intoxication or drugged condition as a defense in any circumstance
2. if yes, does it use general/specific intent test to determine whether the criminal offense is a specific intent crime?
a. If yes, then determine if the defendant was sufficiently intoxicated or drugged to not be able to possess the intent required by statute.
b. if no, what is the test
MPC 2.08 Intoxication
- Voluntary intoxication is a defense if it negates an element of an offense
- If recklessness is an element, then D’s intoxication is immaterial if due to the intoxication
Intoxication as a Defense Generally
If voluntary intoxication is allowed as a defense, D must establish that he was SO SEVERELY INTOXICATED or DRUGGED that he did NOT in fact possess the NECESSARY MENS REA for the offense
Involuntary intoxication can be a complete defense because it goes to the act not the mental state but D still must show more than mere ingestion of drugs or alcohol
TPC 8.04 Voluntary Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense
Mistake of Fact Generally
If defendant’s honest mistake of fact precludes the existence of the mental state required, then it is a good defense. Some jurisdictions require the mistaken factual belief to be reasonable. Also not a defense to strict liability crimes.
Mistake of Law Generally
Defendant’s mistake of the lawfulness of his actions is not a good defense unless D was OFFICIALLY told the conduct was not criminal OR where the knowledge of the illegality of an offense is an element of the crime.
