Basic Culpability Doctrines
The Traditional Concepts
Facts
Holding
Reasoning
Note
Regina v. Faulkner
D entered ship to steal cargo of rum and feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously set fire to a ship. He alleged no intention of burning the vessel.
Barry – does not want to give consent to so wide a proposal
Mens rea should be taken into account.
Willfully has the same meaning in both statutes.
US v. Yermian
Yermian lied on his resume and on his security clearance form preparatory worksheet. The security officer (SO) typed up the form. Yermian signed the form. The SO mailed the form to DOD. Yermian got charged with making false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of a US agency. He willingly and knowingly falsified facts.
Jurisdictional language does not need to contain the same culpability requirement as other elements of the offense.
“The existence of the fact that confers federal jurisdiction need not be one in the mind of the actor at the time he perpetrate the act.” Congress did not intend the terms “knowingly and willfully to establish the standard of culpability for the jurisdictional element. Language appears in a different phrase modifying the making of false statements.”
The case turned on whether “knowingly and willfully” modified “making false statements” (which knew he was doing) or “matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency” (which Yermian did not know). Powell says the rules of grammar prove that “knowingly and willfully” modifies only “making false statements.”
People v. Hood
A drunk Hood took a gun and sh
ral criminal intent and does not apply to charge of assault with intent to commit murder.
This was an error that was prejudicial in this case. CA cases – reckless conduct could turn into an assault charge. CA Penal Code requires intent to have an assault charge. Specific and general intent crimes are difficult to define. Assault cannot be predicated on reckless conduct. Assault is a general intent crime.
Specific intent is intent to have a specific result happen from the action. The problem with attempt crime is that it charges the offense of trying to commit an offense. Assault is its own crime, but is really an attempted battery.
Garnett v. State
Girl was under 14 and was allegedly said that she was 16. Man was 20 and mildly retarded. IQ – 52. Erica was 13, got pregnant and had a baby.
D is guilty
Crime requires actus reus and mens rea. Model Penal Code allows ignorance or mistake of fact as defense. 17 allows mistake of age as a defense. Some California cases conflict. MD’s statute does not leave room for mens rea. Subsection a2 for mentally handicapped allows for mens rea but a3 for age does not.
Generally there must be intent. General rule is that a mistake of law does not excuse at all, and a mistake of fact excuses if it was reasonable and if the conduct would have been lawful if the mistake were true. Even though you are committing a crime, not every consequence of the conduct is a crime
