Crime without culpability mental element STRICT LIABILITY statute or ordinance that departs from the criminal law

aw norm, which requires crimes to have actus and mens.

I. Intro

Punish criminal conduct only when that conduct is accompanied by bad thoughts. A. Bad thoughts, in terms of criminal liability, can be defined as: 1. The desire to harm others a. Or violate some other social duty 2. To disregard the welfare of others a. Or for some other social duty. B. Mens Rea requirement 1. Punishment depends on proof: a. That the defendant acted with a guilty mind, or b. To the particular mental state that the prosecution must prove to establish defendants guilt for a particular crime. C. Courts may strike down statutes: 1. For failing to require proof of a guilty mind, or 2. May interpret statutes to require proof of a guilty mind. a. Unclear if they regard their interpretation to be i. Constitutionally required. ii. Reflecting legislative intent iii. Judicially developed notion of justice. D. The question of if the prosecution must prove a guilty mind cannot be separated from: 1. On the basis of some legal authority 2. Deciding what mental state the prosecution must prove 3. To sustain a particular criminal chage. E. Statutory offenses 1. may specify mental element to be what the prosecution must prove a. what defendant desired b. or knew c. or should have known 2. as interpreted by courts, generally require defendants awareness a. of some circumstances, b. the likelihood of some harmful result. 3. Difficulty in defining mens rea requirement often arises a. When atty argues for acquittal because: i. Did not intend or expect (accidental) ii. Was unaware of a circumstance (mistake)

F. Analysis is complicated by two distinctions: 1. Mistakes: a. Negating mental element of offense b. Negating responsibility 2. Distinction between: a. Mistake of fact b. Mistake of law

II.

THE REQUIREMENT OF A GUILTY MIND a. People v. Dillard (CC of A, 1984) F: Jury - Moses Dillard found guilty of carrying loaded firearm in public place. I: knowledge that firearm is loaded an element of the offense? H: knowledge is not an element of offense. D: not requiring knowledge weapon loaded violates due process and to be a crime, act + intent? Question of legislative intent as construed by the court duty to check and see if its loaded. Mistake of law to say not loaded. Denial of due process notice convicted without proof of act ? willfully blind = same as knowledge. R: Certain kinds of regulatory offenses enacted for the protection of public health and safety are punishable despite the absence of culpability or CI in the accepted sense. Part of a statutory scheme ? In the interest of justice, the Legislature has provided that the doing of the act constitutes a crime, even if no knowledge or criminal intent on the part of the D. Acts that are so destructive of the social order, or The ability of the state to establish ECI would be so extremely difficult if not impossible to prove. b. Morissette v. United States, US CT 1952 F: Morissette salvaged scrap metal from an USAF bombing range. Found guilty of unlawfully, knowingly and willingly steal or convert govt property. 18 USC 641. Claimed he thought it to be abandoned ? I: does the guilty act alone make the crime ? D: Thought property was abandoned by govt, not of use. Law seeks to minimize violations: That merely create the danger of a. Direct injury to person b. Direct injury to property c. Immediate injury to person d. Immediate injury to property.

R: In common-law crime statutes, the element of intent is inherent, even if it is not

expressly stated in the statute. Have not found any instance where Congress has expressly eliminated mental intent.

R: Where intent is an element, its existence is a question of fact that must be submitted to jury.

III.

Strict Liability a. w/o moral fault (substantive) b. liability w/o any culpable mental state with respect to i. any objective element (pure strict) ii. at least one such element (impure strict) Example: a) possessing drugs, which are b) controlled c) with hallucinogenic properties if liability doesnt depend on awareness of any elements, it is a pure strict liability. If it depends on awareness of one or two of those elements, it is impure. if not aware of any such conditions, substantive strict liability (even if morally blameless, ie possessing drugs, but not knowing they are controlled or hallucinogenic.)

IV.

Violations versus Crimes: a. MPC defines a violation as: i. An offense punishable only by 1. Fine, or 2. Forfeiture and fine, or 3. Other civil penalty ii. That shall not give rise to 1. Any disability, or 2. Legal disadvantage iii. Based on conviction of a criminal offense Law goes far enough if it permits monetary penalty in a case where strict liability has been imposed.

V.

Key Criterion for determining strict Liability.

th

US v. Wulff US CoA 6 Circuit, 1985) F: Robert Wulff was charged with offering to sell bird parts in violation of a treaty. Felony conviction. District Court declared felony provision unconstitutional. I: Does it violate a Ds right to DP when the govt is not required to prove some degree of knowing? Only had to prove that he was selling migratory bird parts.

R: The elimination of the CI element does not violate DP when: 1. The penalty is relatively small a. Felony-level penalties are not relatively small 2. Conviction does not gravely besmirch R: Due process forbids strict liability for felonies, and Courts cannot read a mens rea requirement where the legislature has not explicitly done so.

US v. Engler (3 Circuit 1986) Same situation as Wulff, except this time Court held that the penalties were not that different between the misdemeanor and felony charges. When the statute is a constitutional strict liability, defendant doesnt get to say they didnt know, no ignorance or mistake. Not relevant as it goes to mental capacity, and mental capacity is not an element. Due process ? Whats fair ? Defendant acts at his peril. Will not be able to plead good faith or didnt know. Lambert v.California (1957) Fair to have registration be strict liability. Just living in LA is not blameworthy. Sex offenders know that they are not an average member of the community. Statute imposes a duty to register, but nothing about it would give notice to the Average person. To be strictly liable, must be possible to comply proper person who has ability to comply.

rd