View
225
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
1/25
Criminal LawTutoringPowerpoint 2Mens Rea Causation
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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?
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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).
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
11/25
Strict LiabilityOffensesA crime that carries no required mental state
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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).
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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)
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
8/2/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Pwrpnt 2
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.
Recommended