Mens Rea
Intent/Purpose:
1.
i. desire to cause social harm
ii. acts with knowledge that the social harm is virtually certain to occur as a result of his conduct
2.
i. “conscious object to engage in such conduct”
ii. AND “aware of attendant circumstances”
3.
i. General: intent to do something on undetermined occasion, only state of mind required is an intent to commit the act constituting the crime (e.g. statutory rape and rape).
1. Only have to do the act with a culpable mind.
ii. Specific: scienter above and beyond that required for the act. (e.g. murder – not just intent to pull the trigger but intent to kill).
1. When statute requires that actor know some particular circumstance
2. So has “2” intents
4.
a. However, unconstitutional to give this as a presumption in a jury instruction.
5.
i. Ford v. State
ii. Shooting to kill one person but accidentally killing another = 2 crimes
a. Attempted murder of the first (with intent to kill)
b. And another crime (manslaughter?) of the second (since no specific intent).
Transferred Intent:Rule that “one intends the natural and probably consequences of his act” General v. Specific Intent (only CL, MPC doesn’t make distinction)MPC definition- [15]Meaning: (subjective)
Knowingly
Recklessly
Negligence
Strict liability –
12.
Meaning:
i. Objective – reasonable person – should have been aware of the risk
1. MPC [16]- the risk is a “gross deviation…”
2. Unreasonable, gross deviation from what was reasonable, going through red light
ii.
1. If thinks gun is unloaded, points and kills someoneｨreckless
2. If thinks it’s a toy gun and kills someoneｨnegligence
13.
a. Morrisette
14.
i. Only exception is §2.05: voluntary act and mens rea requirements don’t apply to offenses graded as violations, violations are offenses that cannot result in imprisonment
15.
16.
a. 8 Examples/Categories – Outlined on page 181.
17.
a. Language of the statute
b. Legislative history of statute
c. Seriousness of the penalty
d. Purpose of the statute
e. Practical requirements of effective law enforcement.
Stepniewski Dissent [177] – 5 factors to decide if strict liability was intended by legislatureUsually only intended in certain types of offenses (public welfare ones)No mens rea, so court will assume legislature meant mens rea in statuteMPC 2.02(1) abolishes strict liability and requires some kind of mens reaThere is a strong presumption against it. Must appear plainly in the statute – Good way to think about difference between reckless and negligent.
10.
i. Under MPC [16] – “consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk…” So level of awareness is important
a. Conscious: aware of the risk(subjective)
b. Unjustifiable: weigh probability, gravity of harm, burden (reason)
c. Substantial: gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do
ii. Definition – “having knowledge of a risk involved in specific conduct but not being aware of the risk at that moments, that is, not stopping to think of the consequences, may be negligent but it is not reckless”
11.
a. actor was aware of the risk and consciously disregarded it
b. Goldfarb example – driving down Cooper Street
c. Don’t care about the consequences – disregarded them
Subjective and thus more culpable than negligence:Meaning:
6.
7.
i.
ii.
iii.
1. “aware that his conduct of such a nature”
2. AND is “practically certain his conduct will cause such a result”
MPC approach [16]Meaning: Knowledge of a material fact (an attendant circumstance) is a required element of an offense or person correctly believes it exists.subjective std
8.
a. discussion of ostrich instruction
b. difficult to prove bc/ knowledge is subjective (drug deal with hood up, also man rented house to gangsters, drove by)
9.
i.
a. Hidden compartment cases- must be additional evidence.
“possession of recently stolen propert
al and proximate causation
Factual
Usually a ‘but-for’ test will suffice, but when there are 2 possible causes can use “substantial factor” test
Accelerating a result than person has caused the social harm
Example – actions may not have caused death but eliminated any chance of survival, so defendant is guilty.
Proximate Cause
Proximate cause problems arise primarily when an expected result occurs in a manner not contemplated by the D.
The issue is whether the difference btw the anticipated sequence of events and what actually transpired is enough to “break the chain of causation.”
Generally, D will not be relieved of liability simply bc the harm that he intended was occasioned by an unanticipated sequence of events. [Kibbe]
Breaking the chain of causation
Intervening acts of 3rd parties
: – (policy determination) : “But for” the acts of the D the forbidden result would not have happened.
“eggshell skull rule” does not break chain
An act (commission) – must be conscious and volitional (absence of unconsciousness, insanity, duress, etc. is presumed. State only has burden of disproving them if raised by the defendant. – epileptic driving knew risk.)
volitiona
cognitive
: awareness of conduct must be present, if there is a failure of cognition there is always going to be a failure of volitionl: must have will to conduct, reflexes, convulsions, movements during sleep and hypnosis are not sufficient “acts” bc they are not volitional (MPC 2.01)
an omission
(failure to act) – duty usually in statute (mental state)- guilty mind, “scienter”
