2. Mens Rea

Front 1

MR:
An _______ act without a _____ ______ is no crime.

(some _____ _____ of the harm for which D is being punished is necessary)

Back 1

An UNWARRANTABLE act without a VICIOUS WILL is no crime

(some ACTUAL FORESIGHT of the harm for which D is being punished is necessary)

- Blackstone

Front 2

If there is no foresight then......?

Back 2

If no foresight....then there can be no blame and justifications for punishment do not work.

Front 3

Cunningham case holding?

(D stole gas meter from pipes in the basement of house he shared with other lady)

(D was convicted of maliciously administering a toxic substance to lady when the gas seeped from the basement)

Back 3

Court reversed conviction; held that malicious means actual intent rather than wickedness

Front 4

Faulkner case fact scenario?

Back 4

Whule stealing rum from ship, D sailor lit a match to see better and burned down the motha fuckin' ship!

Front 5

What view of MR did Judge Barry take under Faulkner case?

Back 5

Subjective Standard
[D actually aware of prohibited behavior: intent; knowing or reckless (MR]

(b/c he gets up close & personal with the berries ;))

Front 6

Barry / Subjective Standard of MR? (4 main points)

Back 6

1. D actually foresaw the behavior prohibited

2. D intended act

3. D knew he was engaged in act

4. D knew his act MIGHT cause the prohibited behavior

Front 7

Judge Fitzgerald's view distinguished from Barry's?

Back 7

Agrees with Barry but would add an OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR BLAME.

Front 8

Fitzgerald's Objective Basis for Blame for MR says,,,?

Back 8

D is blameworthy if he SHOULD have known his act MIGHT cause the prohibited behavior.

Front 9

Fitzgeral's Objective Basis for Blame is similar to _____.

Back 9

Negligence

Front 10

Main Point of MR:

Arguably, "blame contemplates choosing to do act; to choose one must be _______ aware of ______"

Back 10

Arguably, "blame contemplates choosing to do act; to choose one must be SUBJECTIVELY aware of ALTERNATIVES"

Front 11

In considering Silent Statute, ________ is the minimum MR required.

Back 11

Goddamn Recklessness.

Front 12

_____ and _____ will also satisfy silent statute.

Back 12

"purposefully"

or

"knowingly"

Front 13

Feola holding?

(No MR as to 'federal officer' b/c only jxdnal element)

(Fact that D did not know that they assaulted fed officer not a defense)

Back 13

MR must only be proven for material elements.

Front 14

According to Feola, a jurisdictional elements does not deal with.....?

Back 14

Does not deal with the ESSENCE OF THE WRONG (not a material element)

Front 15

Circumstance: Aware of such circumstance or hope that it exists

AND


Conduct/Result: D hoped it would happen OR D wanted to engage in the conduct.

Back 15

Purposeful (subjective)

Front 16

MR MPC Terminology (2.02(2))?

Back 16

Purposeful
Knowing
Recklessness
Negligence

Front 17

Aware of conduct/attendant circumstances

Aware prohibited result is practically certain from act

Back 17

Knowledge (subjective)

Front 18

Actor must consciously (subjectively) disregard risk that material element exists

Risk must be substantial and unjustifiable (objective) such that law abiding citizen would call it gross deviation

Back 18

Recklessness

Front 19

Actor should be aware of risk material element exists (objective)

Risk must be substantial and unjustifiable such that a reasonable man would call it gross (objective)

Back 19

Negligence

Front 20

Distinction between intent of crimes?

Back 20

General Intent Crimes
Specific Intent Crimes

Front 21

intent to commit further crime/cause further harm beyond the act prohibited

Back 21

Specific intent crimes

Front 22

Examples of Specific Intent Crimes

Back 22

Larceny
Burglary
Assault with intent to kill

Front 23

No MR required beyond that MR required to do the prohibited act.

Back 23

General Intent Crimes

Front 24

Examples of General Intent Crimes

Back 24

General intent crimes: no mens rea required beyond mens rea required to do prohibited act
Rape
Assault
Breaking and entering
Receiving stolen property

Front 25

Intoxication may be a defense to a ____ intent crime, but is no defense to a ____ intent crime.

Back 25

Intoxication may be a defense to a SPECIFIC intent crime but intoxication is no defense to a GENERAL intent crime

Front 26

Mistake of fact may be defense to _______ intent crime if it negates ______ _______(EVEN IF unreasonable); but mistake of fact may be defense to_______ intent crime if it negates ____ ____, but ONLY if it is reasonable.

Back 26

Mistake of fact may be defense to SPECIFIC intent crime if it negates SPECIFIC INTENT (even if unreasonable); but mistake of fact may be defense to GENERAL intent crime if it negates MENS REA, but only if it is reasonable.

Front 27

The difference between purposely and knowing (MPC)?

Back 27

is that D has to be practically certain that the result will occur to be "knowing".

??????

Front 28

The difference between reckless and knowing (MPC)?

Back 28

s that you do not have to be as certain as to the result for recklessness

Front 29

The difference between negligence and recklessness (MPC)?

Back 29

For recklessness D is actually aware of the risk

For negligence D should have been aware of the risk

For Negligence: the nature and degree of the risk and the disregard are a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a REASONABLE MAN in the actor's situation

Recklessness: THE LAW ABIDING CITZ.

Front 30

Two Questions to ask under RECKLESSLY?

Which question is SUBJECTIVE; which question is OBJECTIVE?

Back 30

(1) Was D aware of the risk?
- Awareness of the risk: Measured subjectively
- (Says consciously disregard) - If D was not aware that he could kill somebody, then it does not matter. - You must prove that D was aware of the risk that he could kill somebody


(2) Was D's disregard for the risk substantial and unjustifiable?
- Level of the risk: Measured Objectively:
- - D's disregard for the risk, must be a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a LAW-ABIDING citizen would observe in the actor's situation
- - Substantial and Unjustifiable refer to the size or level of the risk - - - Not just the probability
The size or level of the risk must be of a nature AND degree that disregarding would be a gross deviation from the behavior of a law abiding citizen
NOT whether D thought it was substantial and unjustifiable - whether it is substantial and unjustifiable in the eyes of a law abiding citizen

Front 31

Which level of culpability under MPC is purely OBJECTIVE?

Back 31

Negligently!

Circumstance: SHOULD be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists OR

Result : that it will result from his conduct

Front 32

Ignorance, or Mistake of FACT OR LAW is a defense if (2)?

Back 32

Negates the purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence, to establish a material element of the offense

The law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes such a defense

Front 33

Defense is not available if D would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed- In this case he can be convicted of ________________.

Back 33

Defense is not available if D would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed- In this case he can be convicted of THE LESSER OFFENSE.

Front 34

A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense when...(2)?

Back 34

(1) The statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged

(2) He acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous

Front 35

Barry View is concerned with _____.

Back 35

Blameworthiness

Front 36

Fitzgerald View is concerned with _____.

Back 36

Crime Prevention

Front 37

General Rule of Transferred Intent?

Back 37

D guilty only where D shown to have contemplated the actual harm that resuted from his conduct

Front 38

Transferred Intent Hypothetical:

A throws stone at B with itent to hit B, but misses and beaks window instead.

A is guilty/not guilty of causing harm to property?

Back 38

A is NOT guilty of causing harm to property because A didn't contemplate reslt reqired by crime charged and therefore A lacked MR.

Front 39

Rationale for Transferred Intent General Rule?

Back 39

Where actual result differs from one intended, there's insufficient indication of the D's abilty and willingness to act successfully on his criminal intent to justify holding him criminally liable.

This is so even where unintended result is harmful.

Front 40

Exception to Transferred Intent General Rule?

Back 40

Where contemplated harm is criminal andthere's a GREAT SIMILARITY between harm contemplated and the harm that actually occurs.

D will be treated as though he contemplaed the result that occurred.

D's intent is transferred!

Front 41

Variation on original hypothetical to demonstrate the EXCEPTION to Transferred Intent?

Back 41

Try to shoot A, miss A and hit B.
Most jxdns say doctrine of transferred intent applies.
Intent was to kill person and I ACTUALLY DID kill A person.

Same kind of intent - so it CAN transfer!

Front 42

Trend of:

Greater the Punishment....greater the _____ Prosecution must prove.

Back 42

Blame

Example?

Hint 42

Rob a bank with what you THINK is an UNLOADED gun.
Someone bumps into you and gun goes off, killing someone.

ARE YOU GUILTY OF MURDER?

(1) Strict Liability -- Yes.
(2) Fitzgerald -- Maybe.
(3) Barry --- No.

Front 43

[MPC MR]

Material Elemet of an Offense does NOT relate to (3)?

Back 43

(1) SOL
(2) Jxdn
(3) Venue

Front 44

[MPC MR]

Material Element of an Offense DOES relate to (2)?

Back 44

(1) Harm or evil caused by conduct.

(2) Existence of a justification or excuse for such conduct.

Front 45

[MPC MR]

What is needed to establish deliberate blindness? (2)

Back 45

(1) D is aware of HIGH PROBABILITY of existence of the material element.

(2) D CANNOT believe that it actually does not exist

(If D **does** indeed believe that material element does not exist, then it IS a defense)

Front 46

[MPC MR]

If NO MR is stated, then ____ is the default mental element.

Back 46

RECKLESSNESS

(is the default mental element if no MR exists)

Front 47

What if it's unclear to which part of the act MR applies?

Back 47

Assume that the culpability applies to ALL the MATERIAL ELEMENTS of the offense UNLSS a contrary purpose plainly appears.

Front 48

Rule to "Apply MR to every Element of Crime" EXCEPTION?

(case)?

Back 48

YERMIAN: Jxdnal Element

Front 49

Definition/Nature (effects) of Intoxication?

Back 49

(a) Frees inhibitions, typically with no effect on MR (dancing on table

(b) In extreme cases, my prevent formations of MR.

Front 50

With SPECIFIC Intent Crime Voluntary Intoxication is...?

Back 50

If vol. intoxication is a SPECIFIC intent crime...then MAY be a defense IF it NEGATES SPECIFIC INTENT.

Front 51

Rule of Voluntary Intoxiction with Specific Intent Crimes?

Back 51

Vol. Intoxication is one factor jury can consider in a spcific intent crime and can be a good defense if it negates specific intent.

Front 52

Rationale for Voluntary Intoxication as Specific Intent Crime possibly being good defense if it negates S.I.?

Back 52

(1) SI is purely mental element, more easily negated by intoxication.

(2) We don't mind letting intoxication being a defense for a SI crimes because usually a lesser - included defense
(typ. D won't walk; but be convicted of a lesser crime)
(ex. instead of assault with intent to kill, just assault)

Front 53

With GENERAL Intent Crimes,Voluntary Intoxication is...

Back 53

With GENERAL Intent Crimes, Vol. Intox. is NOT a defense!

Front 54

Rationale for voluntary intoxication not serving as a defense for a general intent crime? (5)

Back 54

(1) D VOLUNTARILY got drunk.

(2) Difficult for jury to determine when inox. becomes "Exteme"

(3) Little injustice in negating this defense because few D's reach "Extreme" point required to negate MR.

(4) Wastes courts time because few actualy reach this point

(5) Many harms from intoxication - not allowing as defense encourages people to be responsible for behavior.

Front 55

Arguments AGAINST not allowing vol. intox. as a defense to general intent crimes?

Back 55

(1) Permits conviction of blameless D (although small #)
- Rape ex.

(2) Any factor that serves to negate MR should go to jury.

Front 56

Not allowing vol. intox. as a defense to general intent crimes demonstrates a balance of....?

Back 56

Balance between protecting society and only punishing those who are blameworthy.

Front 57

[MPC APPROACH]

Intoxication as a defense to MR?

Back 57

Vol. Intox can be used to show an absence of MR if the statute requires proof of purpose or knowledge (i.e., subjective MR elements)

Vol. Intox not a good defense to negligence.

Vol. Intox. no good defense to a crime that requires recklessness EVEN IF D was not aware of risk b/c he was drunk.

Front 58

[MPC APPROACH TO INTOX.]

Be careful to remember (what??) under MPC 2.08(2)?

Back 58

That recklessness is both subjective (awareness of the risk) and objective (level of the risk)

Front 59

[NON-MPC Jxdn]

What is an example of application of Intoxication as a defense in non-MPC jxdn (case)?

Back 59

Hood:

- Specific and General Intent Distinction
- Intoxicated D is charged with assault with deadly weapon (general intent crime)
* AND *
- assault with intent to kill (specific intent crime)

Front 60

[Non-MPC Intox]

Hood rationale?

Back 60

Assault (general intent) is characterized by rash and impuslive behavior

Intoxication also characterized by rash and impulsive behavior.

Doesn' make sense to ue intoxication as a defense for assault!