#9195 - Mens Rea - Criminal Law

Mens Rea
1. Nature of Mens Rea
  1. United States v. Cordoba-Hincapie
    1. Generally, a “guilty mind.” Acting with a general purpose
  2. Regina v. Cunningham
    1. Appellant had removed a gas meter from a basement, but had failed to disengage the gas pipe, endangering the life of an older woman who lived in the house.
    2. Lower court instructed the jury that “malicious” merely meant acting wickedly.
    3. Appellate judge disagreed, ruling that malicious must mean, in the absence of specific intent, the knowledge of the likely consequences of one's actions
2. Culpability
  1. Intent
    1. People v. Conley
      1. Defendant had meant to hit one individual with a wine bottle, but ended up hitting and injuring another.
      2. Defendant argues that the statute requires an intent to cause the specific injuries set forth in the statute.
      3. Court finds that the state need not prove that the defendant intended to cause the specific injuries, but may rely on the likely consequences of one's actions.
    2. General (3 uses of each)
      1. Only wickedness is required
      2. Recklessness or Negligence
      3. A mens rea that only relates to the actus reus (common law)
    3. Specific (3 uses of each)
      1. Specific elements of a crime
      2. The mens rea defined in the statute
      3. Common law
        
        The intention to commit some future act (with intent to sell)

Comparison of NYPL, MPC and Common Law Approaches to Culpability

NYPL

MPC

Common Law

1. Intentional – A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statue defining an offense when his conscious objective is to cause such result or to engage in such conduct.

2. Knowledge – A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstances exist.

3. Recklessness - A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The Risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly with respect thereto.

4. Negligence - A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. THe risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

1. Purposely – A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:

(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and

(ii) if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.

2. Knowledge –A person acts knowingly with respect to a material she:

(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and

(ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.

3. Recklessness – A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.

4. Negligence – A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result form his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

1. General Intent - A mens rea that only relates to the actus reus

2. Specific Intent -

a. The intention to commit some future act (with intent to sell)

b. Special motive or purpose for committing the actus reus (with the intent to cause humilation)

c. Proof of the actor's awareness of a situation (known to be under the age of 18 years.)

Special motive or purpose for committing the actus reus (with the intent to cause humiliation)
Proof of the actor's awareness of a situation (known to be under the age of 18 years.)

Transferred Intent (pg. 156 note 4 of People v. Conley)
1. A legal fiction designed to reach a just result.
2. As in Conley, an individual's intent to cause harm to one person may be “transferred” to another if the harm did not come to the intended individual.

Willful Blindness and the “Knowledge” of Attendant Circumstances
1. State v. Nations
  1. Police entered a strip club and noticed an underage girl “dancing” for “tips.”
  2. When questioned, the proprietor lied about her efforts to uncover the girl's age.
  3. The statute states that “knowingly” is a necessary component of endangering the welfare of a child. Therefore, the proprietor can at most be said to have acted recklessly
2. NYPL and MPC approaches

Comparison of NYPL and MPC Approaches to Willful Blindness
NYPL	MPC
Knowledge – A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstances exist.	§ 2.02 (7) Requirement of knowledge of a fact is satisfied by the high probability of that fact existing, unless actor actually believes that it does not exist

Comparison of NYPL and MPC Approaches to Interpreting Culpability in Relation to All Aspects of a Statute.

NYPL

MPC

§ 15.15 “When one and only one of such terms appears in a statute defining an offense, it is presumed to apply to every element of the offense unless an intent to limit its application clearly appears.

§ 2.02 (3) Culpability Required Unless Otherwise Provided. When the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts purposely knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto.

(4) Prescribed Culpability Requirement Applies to All Material Elements. When the law defining an offense prescribes the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of an offense, without distinguishing among the material elements thereof, such provision shall apply to all the material elements of the offense, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears.

Statutory Interpretation Problems
1. Flores-Figuero v. U.S.
  1. Does the term knowingly apply to every aspect of the crime?
  2. The court reasons that, given the normal function of adverbs, the term does.
2. NYPL and MPC Approaches

Strict Liability (pg. 176, note 1)
1. Some offenses do not explicitly state a mens rea requirement. Public welfare offenses are designed to proscribe certain results that are injurious to the public good. However, in what cases is a mens rea assumed?
2. How to identify Strict Liability (Public Welfare) offenses:
  1. Weigh the punishment for the crime. If it is heavy, there is likely a mens rea requirement
  2. If the penalty is light, there is likely no mens rea requirement.
3. U.S. v. Cordoba-Hincapie
4. Staples v. U.S.
  1. Defendant was in possession of an unregistered A-16 rifle that had been altered to be semiautomatic. Defendant argued that he was unaware of the alteration and could not be convicted.
  2. Statute does not state a mens rea requirement. The state argues that the statute is a strict liability offense and the defendant's mental state is irrelevant.
  3. However, the court holds that, given the strict penalties and the abundance of guns in the country, it is unlikely that the legislature intended for the statute to be strict liability
5. Garnett v. State
  1. Defendant was a severely mentally disabled man who was under the impression that an 13 year old girl, with whom he had sexual intercourse, was actually 16. Defendant was 20 at the time of the offense.
  2. Court reasoned that many states and critics have done away with strict liability offenses.

Comparison of MPC and NYPL Approaches to Mistake-of-fact Defenses

NYPL § 15.20 (1)

MPC § 2.04 (1)

1. A person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief of fact, unless:

(a) Such factual mistake negatives the culpable mental state required for the commission of an offense; or

(b) The statute defining the offense or a statute related thereto expressly provides that such factual mistake constitutes a defense or exemption; or

#9195 - Mens Rea - Criminal Law

§ 2.02 (3) Culpability Required Unless Otherwise Provided. When the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts purposely knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto.

About Oxbridge

More Criminal Law Samples