Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mens Rea
MPC 2.02(2)
MR for each element
General
Purposely
Knowingly
Recklessly
Negligently
Strict
Liability
No MR
Common Law
Court apply named culpability provision to
every material element unless contrary
purpose appears
Intentionally = purpose/knowledge
Not should have been aware, but actually
aware
See above
No transferred intent when lighting match to see rum better when stealing and burning down ship
(Faulkner)
o Spilling oil while steering ship over reef is held to the looser standard of negligence in civil liability than
the stricter standard of criminal negligence, aka gross negligence (Hazelwood)
Mens Rea Conditional Intent
- When a particular purpose is an element of an offense, the element is established even if the purpose is
conditional, unless the condition negatives the harm sought to be prevented in the offense
- Test: imagine the conditions are met and see if D would be committing a crime
o Yes conditional intent is just as good as specific intent and D is guilty (ex: carjacking)
o No existence of condition means the crime disappears, so there is no crime and D not guilty (ex:
consensual sex)
Mens Rea Willful Blindness/Deliberate Ignorance
- When knowledge is element of offense, it is established if person is aware of a high probability of a facts
existence unless actually believing it doesnt exist (MPC 2.02(7))
- Common Law
o More willing to hold D responsible for willful blindness
o 1) D aware of high probability of existence of the fact
o 2) Deliberately fails to investigate to avoid affirmation of the fact
o Deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable when D knowingly transports
marijuana while purposely avoiding knowledge of the drugs (Jewell)
Willful blindness is as bad as knowledge and thus, makes sense to convict for it
Not applied equally; a lawyer can avoid finding out clients guilt and thats okay
Mens Rea Transferred Intent
- Transfer MR as to the intended victim to the unintended one
- Does not apply to:
o Attempts
o If statute requires intent to be directed toward actual victim (bribing official)
o Resulting harm is different social harm than what was intended
o More harm occurs then D purposefully wanted to happen (both victims die)
- Common Law
o Intent does not transfer to different social harm when intending to steal rum and lighting a match to see
but result is ship burning down (Faulkner)
Mens Rea Strict Liability
- Generally disfavored by both MPC and common law
- Used in certain types of cases:
o Public welfare offenses (regulatory crimes)
Involves malum prohibitum conduct, rather than malum in se (10 commandments)
Violation would injure many people, so dont require mental state
o Representation for something else (the immaturity of the victim statutory rape)
o Relative ease of compliance
o Low level of punishment and low level of stigma
- Common Law
o Dont need proof that Ds knowingly sold derivatives of opium in violation of federal statute, but
possibility that people would be harmed > possibility people who didnt know would be convicted
(Balint)
o Dont need mens rea for mislabeled drugs because burden should go on those who have the
opportunity of informing themselves (i.e. president and general manager of company) than helpless
innocent public (Dotterweich)
In a case of conversion of government property, must know that conversion is wrongful to be convicted
(Morissette)
o Strict liability inappropriate when buying a gun and not realizing worn-down metal made the gun
automatic (Staples)
Presumption that a crime has a mens rea element unless clear legislative intent to dispose of it
Mens Rea Mistake of Fact
MPC
Common Law
General
Mistake of fact is defense if it negates the mental state
Strict Liability Guilty no matter what
required to establish any element of the offense
Specific Intent not guilty if mistake of fact
negates specific intent portion of the crime
General Intent not guilty if mistake is
reasonable; guilty if unreasonable
Exceptions 2.04(2) Defense of mistake of fact not available if actor Moral Wrong Doctrine guilty of unintended
would be guilty of another offense, had the
outcome if D has intent to commit an immoral
circumstances been as he supposed
act (Prince)
- 1) Mistake unreasonable (convict) /
reasonable
- 2) Consider facts through Ds
perspective
- 3) Evaluate morality of conduct based
on facts as D believed them (if immoral,
convict)
Legal Wrong Doctrine substitute immoral
for illegal
Result
Guilty of only the lesser offense
Guilty of the offense committed, even if more
serious than MR
- MPC
o Each material element has a mens rea requirement, and if not met, then not guilty
o Mistake of fact is a defense if it negates mental state required to establish any element of the offense
Exception: Mistake of fact not available if actor would be guilty of another offense had the
circumstances been as he supposed
Punish at the level of the lesser offense
- Cases
o Taking a 14 y.o. is guilty even though told shes 18 because D intended an action that was also wrong
(Prince)
o Having sex with a minor is strict liability, even though thinking she was 16 b/c public policy of protecting
victims of tender years (Olsen)
o Intent applies to assault and not the status of the victims (federal officials) because the status isnt a
material element and thus doesnt require mens rea (Feola)
Mistake of Law
- Excuse Defenses
o Reasonable Reliance (entrapment by estoppel)
Not excused for relying on a personal, even reasonable, misreading of a statute
Not excused for relying on advice of private counsel
Excused for relying on official interpretation of the law
1) statute later declared to be invalid
2) judicial decision of the highest court in the jurisdiction later determined erroneous
3) Official but erroneous interpretation of the law from public officer in charge of its
interpretation, administration, or enforcement (ex: attorney general)
o Fair Notice
Failure-of-proof
MPC
Do not read the MR of the offense into statute
General
Reliance
Notice
Different/
Collateral
Law
Express
Exception
-
Lambert Principle Due process limits common law rule that mistake of law is no excuse
Factors to considerDoes the law punish:
o An omission
o A status rather than an activity
o A malum prohibitum offense, rather than malum in se
Common Law
Exceptions to no-tolerance rule
1) Reasonable reliance (excuse)
2) Fair notice (excuse)
3) Mistakes of different law (exculpatory;
negates MR)
Reasonable Reliance: official interpretations
later determined to be erroneous
- Statute later invalidated
- Judicial decision of highest court in
jurisdiction later invalidated
- Official but erroneous interpretation of
the law from a public officer in charge of
its interpretation, administration, or
enforcement (ex: Attorney General)
Doesnt work when D relies on own
interpretation or that of attorney
Fair Notice
Lambert Test Law punishes
- An omission, rather than act
- Status, rather than act
- Malum prohibitum, not malum in se
Cases
o Narrow due process exception requires actual knowledge of the duty to register as a prior felon
(Lambert)
o Reliance exception doesnt work if relying on own interpretation; collateral civil law exception doesnt
work because definition of correctional officer isnt in another law and neither criminal nor civil
(Marrero)
o Reliance exception works if an official interpretation of law is wrong; cannot rely until final court has
made its decision (Albertini)
o (Cheek) is an example of a specific intent offense that falls under express/statutory exception
Law of fixtures is a collateral civil law, and ignorance of it leads to a failure to meet MR requirement for
the criminal damage law when removing an improvement from apartment; (Smith)
Homicide
General
Murder
MR: purposely/knowingly
Common Law
Murder, manslaughter
Grading:
Murder (PA model): murder 1; murder 2
Manslaughter: voluntary; involuntary
MR: malice aforethought; (intentional or unintentional)
Mental states of malice:
1) Intent to kill
a. Murder 1
b. Natural and Probable Consequences Rule
i. Ordinary people intend the natural
and probable (foreseeable)
consequences of actions
ii. D is ordinary person
iii. D intended the natural and
probable consequences of actions
c. Deadly Weapon Rule
i. When D intentionally uses deadly
weapon directed at vital part of
human anatomy, can infer intention
to kill
2) Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm
a. Usually Murder 2
3) Extremely reckless disregard of life (depraved
heart)
a. Almost always Murder 2
b. Extreme indifference to human life
c. Implied malice b/c wanton and willful
disregard of the risk of death
4) Felony-murder (strict liability for death)
a. Death that results from
commission/attempted commission of a
felony
Manslaughter
Reckless
Extreme mental/emotional
disturbance with a reasonable
Voluntary
o Intentional in sudden heat of passion
(mitigates murder) from adequate
provocation
explanation or excuse, as
determined by viewpoint of
person in actors situation
Provocation
- Can include words alone
o Match insult to persons
physical traits
o Imagine insult that
would be equally
enraging to average
person
o Assess if act was
reasonable compared to
normal person
- No idiosyncratic moral values of
D can be taken into account
Provocation
- Words only dont count (unlike physical assault,
witnessing adultery, etc.)
- Special exception for age and sex
Negligent
Negligently-committed criminal
Not in common law
Homicide
homicide
- Provocation cases
o When taunted by wife and killing her, provocation works if it would inflame passion of a reasonable man;
standard shouldnt account for frailties of the D; words shouldnt count as adequate provocation to
reduce the charge (Girouard)
o Minority view that circumstantial evidence, suspicion, and someone telling him about wifes adultery is
enough evidence of provocation; reasonable man standard (Maher)
o Sexual infidelity as provocation is narrow; being in a sexual embrace doesnt count, but only counts if
wife and lover were having sex at the time D witnessed the incident (Dennis)
o Hours between provocation and killing too long to justify manslaughter; too much cooling time
(Bordeaux)
o Reasonable person standard should include characteristics that have a bearing on how the person was
provoked in the case of a 15 y.o. boy being sodomized and teased by middle aged man (Camplin)
- Premeditation cases
o Premeditation = intent (gets rid of premeditation requirement, just like in MPC); irresistible impulse isnt
a defense for shooting military wife in back of head twice while asleep (Carroll)
o Need to have opportunity for some reflection on the intent to kill to prove premeditation when stabbing
a guy in the neck for teasing about fetishized nose (Guthrie)