Mens Rea

Knowingly
Actor is
aware of a
high
probabilit
y of its
existence.
Recklessly

Negligentl
y

COMMONLAW INTENT

Purposely
Actors
conscious
objective

Common Law
- If MR unclear, look for leg intent
conscious obj to:
- If no MR for jurisdiction, SL
-engage in conduct;
- If MR listed in middle, modifies
-hopes circm exist;
elements after
-to cause result
Default: knowingly - stapleton
INTENTION
- Gen Int: any MR will do
- Spec Int: (1) requires proof of
Aware that:
-conduct is of such s objective/purpose to bring
about the harm OR listed in
nature;
statute
-circum exist;
Intentionall
- s conscious
-result virtually cert to
y,
objective; OR
occur.
Purposefull virtually certain to
y
occur.
deliberate ignorance
=
Knowingly
awareness,
positive knowledge
correctly believes,
Conscious disregard of sub and
or awareness of
risk that:
- engaging in such conduct;high probability to
exist AND
-proscribed circumstances exist;
deliberate action
-result will occur.
to avoid OR fails
SBJ STD
to investigate
(i) S&U risk; &
(Ostrich)
(ii) gross deviation of Std of Care

MPC
-

Supplied MR applies to every

element of crime under MPC
If no MR mod: K, P, or R suffice
If MR placed in middle, mods
elements after.

of reasonable person.
- just SHOULD have known,
doesnt need Willfully
to know
Act done w/ bad
OBJ STD
motive;
sometimes
intentional
Malice
Similar to
reckless, but
many times
requires intention
Reckless
Disregard of sub
and unj risk; not
give a damn
Negligence

Voluntary Act

Causation
p.25

Deviation of std of
care; fails to
appreciate risk;
obj std

Need at least 1 vol act for crimeif none, cant prove for even strict liability crime
- Involuntary act never blameworthy reflex/convulsion; acts during hypnosis;
unconsciousness or sleep; bodily movement not the product of conscious
effort or habit.
- Possession IS a vol act
Common Law
MPC
Actual Cause
- But for the actors conduct, would
the result have occurred?
- Concurrent when two actions
inflict same result (two gunshots
at same time both equally
culpable)
Proximate Cause
- Is result foreseeable from actors
conduct?
- Extremely unusual event prox.
Intervening Causes must supersede s

MPC uses but for test for actual case;

however, uses the requisite mens rea for
proximate cause.
rejects dependent and independent
causes
P liable if causes harm intended
(death by wolves instead of plane); liable
if same action but different victim
K same harm contemplated & not too
remote to have just bearing on actors
liability
R & N result cannot be too remote

Vol Act; must break the chain

- Responsive/Dependent Act still
liable Coincidental/Independent
is not liable unless it was
foreseeable
- Free human action is not liable
- Simple Neg IS foreseeable and
still liable
- takes V as he finds him
Omission

Common Law
-

Mistake of Fact

Mistake of Law

Generally, no duty to act.

UNLESS: (1) legal duty, (2)
status relationship; (3)
voluntarily assumed care of
another and secluded help, (4)
creation of peril, or (5) statute.
Common Law
- Strict Liability = NOT A DEF.
- Specific Intent = Must negate
MR
- Gen Intent = Must be
reasonable
- Exception: Moral Wrong
Doctrine
- Legal Wrong Doctrine = mistake
as to degree of crime; guilty to
level as of crime committed; run
risk of greater crime
Common Law
- NOT A DEFENSE

MPC
-

MPC
-

MPC
-

Vicarious Lia.

Attempt
p.28

Liability for omission only when

duty to perform the omitted act is
otherwise imposed by law; OR when
defined by law
2.04(1)
MOF defense if negates MR to
establish element of crime; OR law
provides mistake as def.
MPC doesnt distinguish between
gen/spec intent
Strict Lia - Must prove culpability to
each element; true strict liability
doesnt exist at MPC

NOT A DEFENSE
Ex: Law is not known to actor AND
not published or made available
Ex: Acted on reliance from: statute,
case, ad. order, off. interpretation
by individual who is officially
charged w/ interpret law
Ex: Lambert law is reg in nature,
passive in character, punishes
omission, and no notice.

Conviction in absence of conduct;

however, no liability for crime punished by imprisonment where individual
didnt commit, have knowledge, or give consent to crime

Common Law

MPC

NEED: must have SPECIFIC INTENT to

commit the target offense mere
recklessness will not suffice intent can
be inferred by conduct, risk to V so great
as to assume intent to kill
Intent Plus Test: Att = intent + some act
- look at how much movement
away from from of intent and how
it establishes intent
Equivocality Test: Att = intent + uneq act
- the point when s action shows
intent his action is taken alone
when his actions unambiguously
manifest criminal intent
Last Act Test: Att = performing last act
necessary
- e.g. pulls trigger

NEED:
1. SPECIFIC INTENT
2. Substantial Step (strongly
corroborates w/ s intentlying in
wait, searching for V)
ABANDONMENT DEFENSE: ONLY MPC
- Valid if (1) abandons crime or
prevents it from being committed,
and (2) s conduct manifests
complete renunciation of criminal
purpose.

Proximity Test: Att = act in suff. prox.

That creates reas prob. crime will occur
- actor has ability to commit almost
immediately

Rape
p.10

Common Law

Sexual intercourse
w/o consent
- can be shown by females
resistance OR by failure to
resist due to fear
- by force
- Traditional: no force w/o
resistance to utmost. No
threats.
- Thompson: Force
coercion/threats; must be
actual physical force
- Rusk: force w/ reasonable
resistance or verbal resistance
- MTS: force = lack of consent
- Mistake = a reasonable mistake as
to consent is def.
Some courts now require affirmative
yes to show consent

MPC

Mens Rea: P, K, or R
Gross Sexual Imposition:
compelling by threat that would
prevent resistance by woman of
ord. resolution = guilty

Fraud in Factum if isnt aware shes

consenting to sex, is a defense.
Fraud in Inducement if is aware she
is consenting to sex, not a defense
Homicide
16

p.

Common Law

MPC

Unlawful killing w/ malice af.

MURDER
[No mal af. Req]
1. The killing of a human being by
another human being either:
i. purposely;
ii. knowingly; or
iii. recklessly under
circumstances
manifesting
extreme indifference to the value of
human life; OR
2. Felony Murder jury decides if acts
show extreme recklessness
[no premed req in mpc]

Actus Reus: Issues rare, maybe if not a

human being < MOF?
Malice Aforethought = ex or implied
intent to kill, Intent GBI, Extreme
reckless murder
How to Prove Premeditation: (Planning
activity, evidence of motive, manner was
exacted)
How to Prove Intent:
How to Prove Substantial: Look at the
TEST FOR EEDgravity of the harm not necessarily %
1. Did the actor act under
EED?
game
is the actors conduct
2. If so, was there a reasonable
MURDER I
explanation for the actor to be
in the state of EED?
intentional
- Lying in wait, kill by explosives
acted under EED (sbj)
(etc)
- EED=intense feelings sufficient
- Willfull & delib & premed
for loss of control
- Fel Murder (inherit danger fel.)
Reasonable explanation for the EED
(spec enumerated fel)
(obj) NOT REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR
MURDER II
THE HOMICIDE!! REASONABLE EXCUSE
[Intentional/unint]
FOR THE REASON THE ACTOR FEELS
- Intent to kill w/o premed
LIKE HE DOES!!
- point
Intent to inflict GBI
- Determined from the the
of view from a person in- the
Gross Recklessness/Depraved
actors position under the heart:
circumstances as he believes
(i)
death us likely to result
them to be.

MANSLAUGHTER
1. Murder mitigated by Extreme
Emotional Distress
2. Mere reckless killing
Did the act from intense feelings
[subjective component] for which a
reasonable person in the actors position
would believe to be reasonable
[objective component]?
NO CRIM NEGLIGENCE shouldnt be
punished w/ MS for lacking conscious
disregard, neg killing = lesser crime of
neg homicide
NO FEL MURDER BUT, if death occurs
during crime, might prove recklessness