Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2

8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2

1/25

Criminal LawTutoringPowerpoint 2Mens Rea Causation


2/25

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?


3/25

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.


4/25

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 thejury could reasonably infer the intent to cause

permanent disability.

Illustrates the problems inherent in having a

really specific mens rea.


5/25

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 conceptthat modern criminal law has rejected).

You can transfer intent so long as the social harm

remains the same.


6/25

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 topunish people for things they really intend, not

just accidents.


7/25

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 reasand 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.


8/25

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).


9/25

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.


10/25

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 sheis committing the actus reus.

The Ds mental state must be connected to the actus reus.


11/25

Strict LiabilityOffensesA crime that carries no required mental state


12/25

Staples v. United States Where the punishment is heavy, the court assumes

that congress did not intend to eliminate a mens rearequirement.

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 mensrea).


13/25

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.


14/25

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.


15/25

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, anunreasonable mistake could sometimes work.

But the less reasonable the mistake, the less likelyit is that the jury will believe the mistake washonest.


16/25

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.


17/25

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 toa 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)


18/25

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.


19/25

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 thebehavior is criminal

Example: Certain Tax Code violations.


20/25

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 therequisite mens rea.


21/25

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 believedthem 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 thetime 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 ofmens rea.


22/25

CAUSATION

There can be no criminal liability for result-typeoffenses 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.


23/25

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


24/25

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 ofproving 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 courtdoesnt hold him responsible.

*Foreseeability is important, but where to draw the

line is tricky.


25/25

Concurrence of the Elements

State v. Rose

He was negligent when he drove away, but notnecessarily when he hit the victim.

If the victim died at a point when thedefendant was not negligent, then there is noconcurrence 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.

Documents

Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2