Mens Rea Non Mpc Jurisdictions - Criminal Law

Mens Rea: Basic Conceptions and Applications In Non-MPC Jurisdictions

• Requirement of a certain mental state (awareness/intent) during the criminal act

• Underlying idea that conscious choice is party of culpability/blameworthiness

• Common Law - subjective culpability is bedrock principle of common law MR approach

  • Term: "maliciously"

    • Subjective awareness

    • Cunningham - malice is not wickedness, but foresight of consequences of the act (and subsequent disregard of risk by committing the act)

      • In MPC, this is the "recklessness" definition

    • Faulkner: intended to set rum but accidently set ship on fire; conviction quashed because jury did not inquire into malice

    • Policy (why using subjective standard is good)

      • Retributivist concern: should not punish person if no conscious wrongdoing

        • Ex. Cunningham genuinely did not know that removal of gas meter would cause a gas leak that endangered life > not punish

  • Term: "negligently"

    • Objective standard of reasonable person: reasonable person under circumstances should/would have been aware of the risk (even though defendant was actually not aware)

    • Policy

      • Utilitarian concern: this standard would incentive people to take extra steps to raise their behavior to the level of reasonable person's exercise of due care

    • Criminal VS. Civil Negligence (ordinary vs. gross deviation)

      • Both involves failure to perceive a substantial/unjustifiable risk that a result will occur

      • Criminal: requires a greater risk, the failure to perceive of which is a gross deviation from the behavior and standard of care a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances [grossly unreasonable]

        • Santillanes

        • Policy: Retributive justice requires moral culpability

      • Civil: lesser showing of carelessness required, deviation from standard of care a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances [unreasonable]

        • Hazelwood

        • Policy: utilitarian justification in encouraging reasonable care when conduct can be deterred

      • How to decide which to use if statute says "negligence"?

        • Penalty?

          • (retributive justice requires moral culpability) The higher penalties of the crime, the higher the standard of proof should be, not use a civil negligence standard

        • Possibility of deterrence?

          • (utilitarian encouragement of due care) Are the targets of crime sophisticated actor who is informed of punishment and can be deterred/Can the conduct be deterred? If so, use of civil negligence would incentivize people to refrain from wrongful act

  • When there is no MR term > read it in!

    • Based on bedrock principle that wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal

    • Elonis - D did not intend to constitute true threat, gov did not prove awareness,...