Criminal Law Tutoring

Powerpoint 2 Mens Rea Causation

Mens Reaa guilty or wrongful purpose; criminal intent.

GENERAL Mens Rea A generally culpable mind; wickedness/maliciousness. ELEMENTAL/SPECIFIC Mens Rea Does the defendant have a particular mental state provided for in the statute/CL def. of crime?

Regina v. Cunningham
The mens rea was: Maliciously Defined as wickedly at the trial level. Malice should be taken as more specific than just wickedness, it should be (i) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done, or (ii) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not. Illustrates the problems inherent in having a really general mens rea.

People v. Conley
intentionally or knowingly causing great bodily harm, or permanent disability or disfigurement. The use of a bottle, the force or the blow, and the lack of warning are all facts from which the jury could reasonably infer the intent to cause permanent disability. Illustrates the problems inherent in having a really specific mens rea.

Transferred Intent People v. Scott

You can transfer intent from one victim to another, BUT not one offense to another (that would be the general mens rea concept that modern criminal law has rejected). You can transfer intent so long as the social harm remains the same.

Model Penal Code

4 Mental States Purpose Knowledge Recklessness Negligence Modern criminal law favors the top three. We generally want to use the criminal law to punish people for things they really intend, not just accidents.

Common Law
Whatever mens rea is listed in the definition of the crime. Specific Intent Small category of crimes, Requires the general intent to commit the actus reas and some further specific intent.
Ex: an intention to commit a future act, special motive or purpose, or an awareness of particular circumstance.

General Intent Most crimes, The gov. has to prove that the defendant has to prove the statute/CL def. of crimes mens rea.

No Mens Rea
Under the model penal code, when mens rea is not specified in the statute, we assume the State must prove at least recklessness.

Under the common law, if no mens rea is specified, no mens rea is required (ex: statutory rape).

Willful Blindness
Deliberate Ignorance State v. Nations The State needed to prove that she actually knew the dancer was underage. Knowledge, Purpose, all these things are proved using reasonable inferences from the facts. If the dancer was a toddler, the State would have the knowing part would be in the bag.

On The Exam
QUESTION for mens reaWas the actus rea committed with the requisite mental state? Does the Ds behavior match the actus reus?
Meets the description of proscribed behavior Volitional, etc.

And does the Ds mental state match the mens rea?

The D must have the requisite mens rea at the point when she is committing the actus reus. The Ds mental state must be connected to the actus reus.

Strict Liability Offenses

A crime that carries no required mental state

Staples v. United States

Where the punishment is heavy, the court assumes that congress did not intend to eliminate a mens rea requirement. DISSENT: Stevens and Blackmun feel that because these guns are particularly dangerous, their regulation falls into the public welfare category and it makes sense to impose strict liability. United States v. FreedPossession of a Grenade is a strict liability offense (statute is silent as to mens rea).

Garnett v. State
Statutory Rape law The plain language, legislative intent, and drafting history all point to strict liability. Dissent: The harsh punishment is an indicator that the legislator did not intend for it to be a strict liability offense. The example with the unconscious 20 year old.

 The underage victim is a member of the protected class (long-standing common law rule), As a member of the class the statute is designed to protect, you cannot be guilty of the offense. Otherwise the victim in a statutory rape case is ALWAYS an accomplice, The model penal code rarely has strict liability crimes Except with statutory rape of victims under 10.

Mistake and Mens Rea

Mistake of Fact Mistake regarding the facts of the situation
Ex: I thought those were my keys, not yours.

Mistake of Law Mistake regarding the legality of the situation

Ex: I thought prison guard meant prison guard

Caveat Mistakes generally have to be reasonable to be believed by the jury, so legally speaking, an unreasonable mistake could sometimes work. But the less reasonable the mistake, the less likely it is that the jury will believe the mistake was honest.

Common Law Mistake of Fact

Strict Liability Crimesmistake never works. Specific Intent CrimesAn honest (or good faith) mistake of fact will negate the specific intent even if it the mistake is unreasonable. If the mistake goes to the general intent element, the mistake must be both honest AND reasonable. General Intent Crimesmust be reasonable and honest.

Common Law cont.

Moral Wrong/Legal Wrong Doctrines Moral Wrong:
If you have a mistake of fact, you are still liable for that crime if you are still morally culpable.

Legal Wrong:
If you are guilty of an offense, but you thought you were only committing a lesser offense, you are still liable for the greater offense. Example: Child pornography. Its a felony to give child porn to a kid, its a misdemeanor to give child porn to an adult. Under the legal wrong doctrine, if youre convicted of the lower offense, you lose the mistake of fact defense for the greater offense. (The model penal code rejects this)

MPC Mistake of Fact

A mistake of fact is valid where it prevents you from forming the requisite mens rea. Example: I thought the gun was empty. You probably wont be convicted of acting purposefully or knowingly. You might be convicted of acting recklessly, and youre at least going to be convicted of acting negligently.

Common Law Mistake of Law

Ignorance of law is not an excuse unless youre Reasonably Relying on an official statement of the law that is afterwards found to be invalid, OR, the crime requires knowledge that the behavior is criminal Example: Certain Tax Code violations.

MPC Mistake of Law

Never a defense except in reasonable reliance on an official interp. of the law, Or where it prevents you from forming the requisite mens rea.

 People v. Navarro Statute requires that he feloniously took them. State had to prove that D had the intent to steal the property. If he honestly, but unreasonably believed them to be abandoned, then he did not have the intent to steal them. People v. Marrero Mistake of law is not an adequate defense 99% of the time Ignorance of the law is not an excuse unless youre relying on an official statement of the law that is afterwards found to be invalid. Cheek v. U.S. If the statute requires knowledge that the actus reas is illegal, then an honest mistake of law DOES undercut the governments proof of mens rea.

CAUSATION
There can be no criminal liability for result-type offenses unless it can be shown that the defendants conduct was a cause-in-fact of the prohibited result. Courts traditionally use the But For test. Sometimes, the Substantial Factor test.
With Homicide, the acceleration test. Model Penal Code:
Conduct is the cause of a result when:
(a) It is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred; and (b) The relationship between the conduct and result satisfies any additional causal requirements imposed by the Code or by the law defining the offense.

Proximate Cause
The causal chain can go backwards forever, but not everyone should be criminally liable. Proximate cause issues generally arise when there is an intervening force. Intended Consequences Doctrine Apparent Safety Doctrine Di Minimus Cause Example Case with the guy on the side of the road

 Oxendine v. State
The acceleration theory of causation would have worked, but it was not presented during the States case in chief, so they failed to meet their burden of proving causation.

People v. Rideout
D was the factual, but not the proximate cause of the social harm.

Velasquez v. State
Ds participation in the drag race was technically a cause in fact of the victims death, but the court doesnt hold him responsible.

*Foreseeability is important, but where to draw the line is tricky.

Concurrence of the Elements

State v. Rose He was negligent when he drove away, but not necessarily when he hit the victim. If the victim died at a point when the defendant was not negligent, then there is no concurrence of the elements.

The Actus Reas has to be committed with the requisite mens rea. AND The Actus Reas must be causally connected to the Social Harm.