Mens rea

Criminal Negligence

*Gross* deviation from the standard of care. --> Significant deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable perso would have been aware of.

MPC: Negligently

- A person acts negligently when they fail to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm. - 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. - No requirement of actual awareness of harm. - Objective Standard - What would a "reasonable person" have perceived the risk of harm? Negligence is not really a mental state at all: a negligent actor *should* have had a mental state but did not.

MPC: Recklessly

- A person acts recklessly when he *consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.* - The risk must be of such nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its *disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would have observed in the actor's situation*. - Objective standard - Raises a question of balancing social utility and probability of a particular type of harm happening.

Strict Liability Crimes

- A strict liability crime does not contain a mental element requirement regarding one or more elements of the actus reus - Allows for the imposition of criminal liability based on social harm, not moral fault - Courts have imposed a strong presumption against strict liability offenses --> Typically found in public welfare offenses (where it regulates health, safety, or welfare), traditional strict liability offenses (i.e., statutory rape), regulatory offenses --> usually leads to light penalties because of low stigma. No mental state required, just punishing for conduct. --> Crimes not rooted in the common law (newly created)

General Intent

- Intent/purpose to engage in prohibited conduct -Anything less than intent (recklessness or negligence) is a general intent crime. - The D need not intend the consequences of his acts -MPC Equivalent: Recklessly - Usually the lowest level of mens rea for common law crimes because can be inferred from actions. - Examples: Battery --> "intentional application of unlawful force"

MPC: Purposefully

- It is D's conscious object to cause result, if the element involves a result of his conduct. - D is aware of the existence of attendant circumstances or believes or hopes that they exist -D's goal or aim is to engage in particular conduct or to achieve a certain goal. example: Burglary --> (a) breaking and entering (b) a dwelling (c) with the purpose of committing a felony therein. (Common law equivalent of *intent*)

MPC: Knowingly

- Knowledge to a virtual and practical certainty that conduct will lead to a particular result. - Result need not be desire of the individual. --> ex. D shoots an occupied apartment to break a window, but is certain it will probably hit the occupant. D acted knowingly in respect to death. -Deliberate or Willful Ignorance --> Conscious/deliberate avoidance of confirming the existence of a fact constitutes knowledge (elevates reckless thought into knowledge) --> Act with an awareness of a high probability of the existence of the fact in question. (Common law equivalent of *intent*)

Intent

- Purpose to cause a specific harmful result -Awareness that harm is likely (almost certain) to result from action(s), although that harm is not the primary purpose in acting. --> Includes both conditional and unconditional intent. -May be "transferred" in limited circumstances, such as homicide.

CL: Willfully

--> Doing an act with the purpose of violating the law OR --> Intentionally acting while aware of the likely circumstances --> Can mean that D intended his act and that act had harmful or illegal consequences

Strict Liability under MPC

--> MPC abolishes idea of strict liability in almost all instances, requiring at least a mens rea of recklessness unless one has otherwise been provided by legislature.

CL: Intentionally

--> Purpose to cause a specific harmful result. --> Awareness that harm is likely (almost certain) to result from action(s), although that harm is not the primary purpose in acting. --> Includes both conditional and unconditional intent

CL: Malicious

--> Requires some foresight of the consequences --> Awareness of a risk of harm and a disregard of that risk (roughly equated with recklessness)

Specific Intent

-Crime is one that requires proof that the actor's conscious object (i.e. purpose) was to cause social harm. -Must act with either the intent to commit a crime or intent to cause a specific result -MPC equivalent: Purposely or Knowingly SI crimes, a D can introduce evidence of intoxication to negate specific intent of a statute. ex. 1: Burglary --> Breaking and entering with intent to commit felony.

MPC Kinds of Culpability (Mental States)

-Purposely -Knowingly -Recklessly -Negligently

Factors for the application of Strict Liability

-no mens rea specified in the statute -regulates health, safety or welfare -omissions -d is in a position to prevent harm and it is reasonable to expect D to so act -Light penalties -little stigma -crime not rooted in common law (newly created) -legislative policy undermined by mens rea

Common Law Mens Rea Categories

1) Malicious 2) Intentionally 3) Recklessly 4) Negligently

Mens Rea and the MPC

A person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposefully, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, so as the law may require, with respect to each element of the offense. --> MPC abolishes common law terminology and the use of specific and general intent categories. --> Uses four mental elements that range from most difficult burden (i.e., purpose) to the least (i.e., negligence) --> Those crimes that carry the most significant penalties generally have a mental element that contains the most difficult burden (i.e., purpose)

Old/Broad Conception of Mens Rea (Culpability)

An actor possesses "mens rea" if he or she realized that he or she was doing something wrong.

Modern/Narrow Conception of Mens Rea (Elemental)

An actor's mens rea consists of the mental state or states described in the statute. Those mental states "attach to" objective elements (i.e., result and attendant circumstances elements) of the offense

If no indication of mens rea in statute

Apply recklessness as a minimum

Strict Liability and Crimes Rooted in Common Law

Crimes rooted in common law have a history of interpretation with a mental state. So even if a crime's statute does not include a mental state, but it is rooted in common law (i.e., larceny) then we attach a mens rea to the crime. At least recklessness.

Regina v. Cunningham

D almost asphyxiated woman when he tore a gas meter off a wall adjoining her building. Statute: " Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer [something poison that endangers life]..." Although the law required that D act "maliciously," the court held that malicious does not mean of evil or wicked intent. *Malicious means that D foresaw that his acts might cause harm but nevertheless engaged in them, i.e. D acted recklessly.

State v. Fugate (intent)

D charged with armed robbery and 1st degree murder; intended to rob garage and during the process hit the owner in the head and shot and killed him. Under state law, a killing must be committed "purposely" for conviction. Court held that those circumstances and all evidence shows D had intent to kill. The fact that D used a gun = intent to kill.

Santillanes v. New Mexico

D charged with child abuse under statute that made it an offense to "negligently cause a child to be placed in a situation that may endanger the child's life or health." Trial court said orindary negligence. Supreme court said criminal negligence. Because the stakes in the case were higher, we want the mens rea standard to be higher as well. *When something is done that is so morally reprehensible, you must lift the culpability standard from civil negligence to criminal negligence.*

U.S. v. Jewell (MPC: Knowingly)

D charged with transporting weed. Said she had no knowledge of weed but evidence was presented that she may have had constructive knowledge. Court held that deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable. Willful ignorance = knowledge. D has to be aware of a high probability that fact exists, and deliberately avoids learning it.

People v. Scott

D intended to kill mother's boyfriend. Instead, killed multiple people. Issue is whether the doctrine of transferred intent may be used to assign criminal liability to D who kills an unintended victim when the D is also prosecuted for attempted murder of an intended victim. Court held that transferred intend applies when D intended to kill one person and unintentionally shoots and kills 2 people because D is still culpable and should get higher penalty. *D who shoots an intended victim with intent to kill, but misses and hits bystander instead should be subject to the same criminal liability that would have been imposed had he hit his intended mark.

Civil Negligence

D is not aware of the risk and should have been aware of the risk. --> A reasonable person would have been aware of the risk. Deviation from the standard of care.

People v. Atkins

D lit forest fire and charged with arson. Argues that evidence of voluntary intoxication should have been allowed as defense for arson because it would show that he lacked requisite mental state for arson. "Any person who willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned any forest land is guilty of arson...the word willfully means intentionally." Arson is a general intent crime. Court held evidence of voluntary intoxication is inadmissable to negate the existence of general intent crimes.

Commonwealth v. Barone

D waited 2-3 minutes before crossing intersection. When she crosses she hits another person and kills that person. She is convicted in violation of a statute with no mens rea element that says basically that anyone who kills someone while driving is guilty of homicide and sentenced to a max of 5 years in prison (Strict liability). She appeals. Court finds the statute is designed to regulate criminally negligent conduct that was not being punished. Given that this case is a homicide, they interpret the statute to have a mens rea of negligence and read that into the statute. Because D acted reasonably under the circumstances, she was not negligent and not guilty under the statute.

State v. Hazelwood

D was captain of Exxon Valdez when the ship ran aground and spilled 11 million gallons of oil. D charged under statute with ordinary negligence. Appellate court says should have been tried using criminal negligence. Supreme court said ordinary negligence standard was sufficient in this case. D commits ordinary negligence when he fails to perceive a risk of such nature and degree that his actions constitute a deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the same situation. Criminal negligence requires a D to deviate from a risk so gross and of such a nature and degree as to be deserving of punishment. No need to be aware of risk.

Morisette v. U.S.

D was junk dealer who was on govt property. D assumed used bomb casings on ground were abandoned and had no intent of stealing from govt. Statute itself sis not actually indicate intent. Rule: Mere omission from the statute of any mention of intent will not be construed as eliminating that element from the crimes denounced. For acts of larceny, criminal intent must be present for the crime to be punishable, not a strict liability offense.

CL: Negligently

In general, this means not exercising the standard of care a reasonable person should under the circumstances.

Mens rea Requirement

Latin for "guilty mind" As a general matter, each material element of a crime must have a mental element. Mens rea is the mental element of a crime whereas actus reus is the physical element. *The act does not make one guilty unless the mind follows.* Why don't we punish without regard to mental state? --> it helps us to identify the appropriate level of blameworthiness to assign to a harmful act.

Regina v. Faulkner

Man attempting to steal rum unintentionally burns down the ship when he lit a match to see. D charged for "maliciously" setting fire to a ship. Did the judge properly instruct the jury on the meaning of "malicious"? The instructions said that if they found that he engaged in the act of stealing the rum and that the fire took place, they should find him guilty. This was incorrect. Must put forward evidence that D ignored a known risk and did the act anyway (malicious/reckless). Presume D knows safety standard of ship as seaman. Should know not to light a match around rum.

CL: Wantonly

Reckless disregard for the consequences of one's behavior

Transferred intent

Typically, the intent to cause one kind of harm cannot serve as proof of intent for another kind of harm, however the exception is when the D attempts to harm one victim, but unintentionally harms a second victim. This is limited to completed crimes. Without intent to kill, court cannot convict murder of second victim. Doctrine of transferred intent only applies when the victim dies.

Malum prohibitum

Wrong because we say it is wrong (i.e., speeding, giving alcohol to minor) --> These are usually recent offenses that do not have history in common law with historic mens rea requirement.s

Malum in se

Wrong in and of itself (i.e., murder, rape theft). These crimes have inherent mens rea requirements, even if not dictated in statute. --> We all intuitively know that these are wrong