Criminal

Front 1

Mens Rea

Back 1

Mental State

Front 2

Criminal liability is based upon the congruence of two factors:

Back 2

1) The actual, physical act constituting the offense.

2) The DF's criminal intent.

Front 3

Elements Requiring Intent

Back 3

*Decide which elements have a mens rea element.

The level of mens rea for each of the elements in a statute may be different.

Front 4

Specific Intent

Back 4

-An extra mental state above and beyond those mental states connected to a non-mental state element.

-Is the highest level requiring proof that DF had a particular state of mind that involved the commission of the offense.

Front 5

General Intent

Back 5

Only requires the DF engaged consciously in the act that constitutes the offense, but the government need not prove that the DF sought a particular result or was fully conscious that he was committing a crime.

Front 6

Why does it matter whether it is specific or general intent?

Back 6

The distinction can be important in jurisdictions that use the common law approach for determining the quality of evidence the government must submit and the defenses available to a charge.

Front 7

Is there general and specific intent in the MPC?

Back 7

No, according to section 2.02(1) the MPC only recognizes four types of intent/mens rea. MPC 2.02(1) states:

" 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."

Front 8

MENS REA: Purposely

Common Law- DF has the desire to cause harm.

Knowledge that harm will occur.

Back 8

MPC §2.02(a)

A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:

(i)It is his conscious object to engage in conduct of a nature or to cause a particular result; AND

(ii) He is aware of the existence of certain attendant circumstances, or he believes or hopes that they exist.

§2.02(6): Requirement of purpose is satisfied with conditional purpose. (Give me the money or I'll shoot") Intentionally.

Front 9

MENS REA: Knowingly

Common Law- Knowingly causing harm

Knowledge of certain attendant circumstances.

Back 9

MPC §2.02(b)

A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:

(i) He is aware that his conduct is of a certain nature or that certain circumstances exist; AND

(ii) It is practically certain that his conduct will cause a certain result.

§2.02(7) Requirement of Knowledge Satisfied by knowledge of high probability.

Front 10

MENS REA: Recklessly

Common Law- Conscious disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk.

NEGLIGENCE; PLUS

KNOWING DISREGARD OF THE RISK

Back 10

MPC §2.02(c)

A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when:

He consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.

Such disregard involves a gross deviation from the normal standard of conduct for the situation.

Front 11

MENS REA: Negligently

Common Law- D takes an unjustifiable risk

Deviation from ordinary reasonable standard of care.

Back 11

MPC §2.02 (d)

A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he:

Should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.

The actor's failure to perceive the risk involves a gross deviation from the ordinary standard of care.

Front 12

How do we determine whether a risk is substantial and unjustifiable?

Back 12

-By assessing the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct relative to how substantial the risk is.

-In addition, a substantial and unjustifiable risk must constitute a gross deviation from the reasonable standard of care.

-A substantial and unjustifiable risk must constitute gross deviation from the reasonable standard of care in order to justify the criminal sanctions imposed for criminal negligence or reckless conduct as opposed to the kind of deviation from the standard of care that results in civil liability for ordinary negligence.

(People v. Hall 119-123)

Front 13

Negligence v. Recklessness?

Back 13

Negligence- You act negligently if you SHOULD HAVE known the harm and failed to prevent it.

Front 14

Negligence v. Recklessness?

Back 14

Recklessness- You act recklessly if you are negligent plus you had conscious awareness of the harm.

Front 15

MENS REA: Strict Liability

NOT RECOGNIZED UNDER THE MPC

Back 15

Common Law- No mental state required. Liability is imposed without the need to infer intent.

Strict liability is used for malum prohibitum offenses.

Front 16

Factors to decide if a statute is a Strict Liability Statute

Back 16

-Legislative Intent

`Did the legislature intend for this crime to be SL?

-Legislative history

`Does the legislative history show SL was intended?

-Public welfare offense

`If the offense arise from public welfare then it is likely SL

-Severity of punishment

`If the offense is punished only by a fine a few weeks in jail then it is likely SL

pg 146

Front 17

Doctrine of Harmless Error

Back 17

As long as the error is not harmful then the conviction stands.

Front 18

Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine

Back 18

The jury may infer intent by finding the DF intended a particular result because it is the natural and probable consequences of his or her action.

Front 19

Willfull Blindness Doctrine

Back 19

When knowledge of a particular element is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence.

Front 20

What if a common law statute is silent as to the mens rea?

Back 20

It may be Negligence or, Strict Liability, or, Look to another CL crime with the same language.

Front 21

What if an MPC statute is silent as to the mens rea?

Back 21

The default mens rea in MPS is Recklessness.

EX: There is a rape statute without the mens rea clearly indicated. What kind of a mens rea should you apply?

Under the MPC the mens rea would be recklessness.

Front 22

Some Indirect Ways of Getting to Mens Rea

Back 22

Intentionally- Can get to it through the Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine

Knowingly- Willful Blindness Doctrine

Purposely- Inferring Purpose. Need knowledge plus a stake in the outcome.