Chapter 4 The General Principles of Criminal Liability: Mens Rea, Concurrence, Ignorance, and Mistake

general intent

the intent to commit the criminal act forbidden by statute

specific intent.

Actual intent to perform some act, along with a wish for the consequences that result from that act. Depending on the offense alleged, criminal prosecutors may need to prove that Defendant acted with specific intent.

General intent.

Actual intent to perform some act, but without a wish for the consequences that result from that act. Depending on the offense alleged, prosecutors may need to prove that Defendant acted with general intent.

objective fault requires no purposeful or conscious bad mind in the actor

requires no purposeful or conscious bad mind in the actor You buy a new iPod in its original package for $10. You honestly don't know it's stolen. You should know it was stolen; a reasonable person would know it was stolen, and in fact it was stolen. So, even though you had no "bad" mind, you're held criminally accountable because you didn't live up to the norm of the average person.

MPC two pronged test for determining recklessness

1. Was Defendant aware of how substantial and unjustifiable the risks that they disregarded were? Under this prong, notice that even a substantial risk isn't by itself reckless. For example, a doctor who performs life-saving surgery has created a substantial risk. But the risk is justifiable because the doctor took it to save the life of the patient. This prong doesn't answer the important questions of how substantial and how unjustifiable the risk has to be to amount to recklessness. So the second prong gives guidance to juries. 2. Does Defendant's disregard of risk amount to so "gross a deviation from the standard" that a law-abiding person would observe in that situation? This prong requires juries to make the judgment whether the risk is substantial and unjustifiable enough to deserve condemnation in the form of criminal liability.

Kinds of Culpability Defined : Negligently

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 risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. (ALI 1985, 1:2, 229) negligently the mental attitude that 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 risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involved a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

Kinds of Culpability Defined : Purposely

A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when: i. if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and ii. if the element involves the attendance circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist. purposely the most blameworthy mental state requiring the actor's "conscious object" to be to commit crimes or cause criminal results

Kinds of Culpability Defined : Recklessly

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. The risk must be of such a 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 observe in the actor's situation. recklessly conscious creation of a "substantial and unjustifiable" risk of criminal harm

Minimum Requirements of Culpability

A person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently with respect to each material element of the offense.

Kinds of Culpability Defined : Knowingly

Knowingly. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: i. if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and ii. if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result. knowingly the mental state of awareness in conduct crimes and, in result crimes, awareness that it's "practically certain" that the conduct will cause the bad result

mens rea

Latin for guilty mind, the mental element (also called "criminal intent," "evil mind," "mental attitude," or "state of mind") in crime

strict liability.

Strict liability exists when a defendant is in legal jeopardy by virtue of a wrongful act, without any accompanying intent or mental state. In criminal law, possession crimes and statutory rape are both examples of strict liability offenses. Suppose a statute reads, "whoever receives stolen property" commits a crime. You buy an iPad for $45 that looks used, but you honestly and reasonably believe it wasn't stolen. It doesn't matter; under this statute, you're liable without either subjective or objective fault.

mistake of fact

a defense to criminal liability whenever the mistake prevents the formation of any fault-based mental attitude—namely, purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently

legal ("proximate") cause

a subjective question that asks, "Is it fair to blame Defendant for the harm triggered by a chain of events her action(s) set in motion?"

factual cause

also called "but for" cause or "cause in fact"; if it weren't for an actor's conduct, the result wouldn't have occurred

intervening cause

an event that comes between the initial act in a sequence and the end result Take our rock-pushing example, and change the facts. On the way down the hill, the rock runs into a tree and lodges there. A year later, a mild earthquake shakes the rock free and it finishes its roll by killing the victims at the bottom. Now, the no-brainer isn't a no-brainer anymore. Why? Because something else, facts in addition to my pushing, contributed to the deaths. We call this "something else" an intervening cause, an event that comes between the initial act in a sequence and the criminal resul

causation

holding an actor criminally accountable for the results of her conduct Proving causation requires proving two kinds of cause: 1. Factual cause (also called "but for" cause or "cause in fact") of death, other bodily harm, and damage to and destruction of property 2. Legal cause (also called "proximate" cause) of death, other bodily harm, and damage to and destruction of property

strict liability

liability without either subjective or objective fault Suppose a statute reads, "whoever receives stolen property" commits a crime. You buy an iPad for $45 that looks used, but you honestly and reasonably believe it wasn't stolen. It doesn't matter; under this statute, you're liable without either subjective or objective fault.

failure-of-proof defenses

mistake defenses in which defendants usually present enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved the mens rea required for criminal liability

principle of concurrence

some mental fault has to trigger the criminal act in conduct crimes and the cause in result crime Suppose you and your friend agree to meet at her house on a cold winter night. She's late because her car won't start. So she texts, "break front door lock, go in 2 keep warm." But once you're inside, you decide to steal her Blu-ray DVR. Have you committed breaking and entering? No, because in crimes of criminal conduct, the principle of concurrence requires that a criminal intent (mens rea) triggers a criminal act (actus reus). You decided to steal her HDVR after you broke into and entered her house. Breaking and entering requires that the intent to commit the actus reus of breaking and entering set in the motion the act of breaking and entering your friend's house. That's how concurrence applies to breaking and entering, a crime of criminal conduct.

motive

something that causes a person to act

subjective fault fault

that requires a "bad mind" in the actor For example, suppose in your state, it's a crime to "receive property you know is stolen." You buy an iPod from another student who you know stole it. We call that bad state of mind "knowingly," which is more culpable than "recklessly" and less culpable than "purposely."

specific intent

the general intent to commit the actus reus of a crime plus the intent to cause a criminally harmful result Specific intent applies only to bad result crimes, Most are applied to core felonies

culpability or blameworthiness

the idea that it's fair and just to punish only people we can blame. Justice Holmes (1963, 4) put it this way: "Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked."

ignorance maxim

the presumption that defendants knew the law they were breaking