Crim Law (Chapter 6: The State Of Mind)

Front 1

TPC § 6.03 Definitions of Culpable Mental States (intentionally #1)

Back 1

- A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result

Front 2

TPC § 6.03 Definitions of Culpable Mental States (knowingly #2)

Back 2

- A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result

Front 3

TPC § 6.03 Definitions of Culpable Mental States (Reckless #3)

Back 3

- A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist o the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.

a. Aware of a risk and disregards it, and the disregarding it is a gross standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances

Front 4

TPC § 6.03 Definitions of Culpable Mental States (Criminal Negligence #4

Back 4

- A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result f his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.

a. he ought to be aware of the risk, but he is not

Front 5

TPC § 6.02 Requirement of Culpability

Back 5

i. A person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires.
a. Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows:
a. Intentional
i. conscious objective or desire
b. knowing;
i. aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist.
c. reckless;
i. aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.
d. criminal negligence.
i. risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

b. OBJECTIVE STANDARD – should have been aware

ii. If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required unless the definition plainly dispenses with any mental element (i.e. unless it is a strict liability offense).

iii. Thus, if it is a non-strict liability offense, but the definition doesn’t prescribe a mental state, intent, knowledge, or recklessness suffices to establish criminal responsibility.

iv. Proof of a higher degree of culpability than that charged constitutes proof of the culpability charged.

Front 6

TPC § 19.05 Criminally Negligent Homicide

Back 6

i. A Person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence

ii. An offense under this section is a state jail felony

Front 7

TPC § 8.02. Mistake of Fact

Back 7

a. It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.

b. Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.

Front 8

TPC § 2.05 Presumptions

Back 8

a. If there is sufficient evidence of the facts that give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the presumed fact must be submitted to the jury, unless the court is satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and

b. If it is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge the jury as follows:
i. The facts giving rise to the presumption must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
ii. If the facts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury may find that the element of the offense sought to be presumed exists
iii. Even so, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the other elements of the offense
iv. If the jury has reasonable doubt as the existence of a fact or facts giving rise to the presumption, the presumption fails and the jury shall not consider it for any other purpose.

Front 9

TPC § 2.03 Defense

Back 9

a. A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phase: “It is a defense to prosecution….”

b. The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.

c. The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.

d. If the issue of existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the Δ be acquitted

e. A ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense

Front 10

TPC§ 8.03 Mistake of Law

Back 10

a. It is no defense to prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has taken effect.

b. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor reasonably believed the conduct charged did not constitute a crime and that he acted in reasonable reliance upon:
i. An official statement of the law contained in a written order or grant of permission by an administrative agency charged by law with responsibility for interpreting the law in question; or
ii. A written interpretation of the law contained in an opinion of a court of record or made by a public official charged by law with responsibility for interpreting the law in question.

c. Although an actor's mistake of law may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of a lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the law were as he believed.

d. Must be proved by preponderance of the evidence