Chapter 5 Mens Rea, Concurrence, and Causation

Mens Rea (Criminal Intent)  The mental part of crimes:  Mens rea (guilty mind)  Scienter (guilty knowledge)  Reasons for requiring moral blameworthiness:  Responsibility  Deterrence  Punishment

The Evidentiary Burden  The most reliable indication of intent is a defendant’s confession or statement to other individuals.  In most cases, we examine the surrounding circumstances & apply our understanding of human behavior.  Evidence that helps use to indirectly establish a criminal intent or criminal act is termed circumstantial evidence.

The Model Penal Code Standard  General intent  Specific intent  Crimes of “cause & result”  Transferred intent  Constructive intent

Four Types of Criminal Intent  Purpose (most serious)  Knowledge  Recklessness  Negligence (least serious)

Purposely  The most serious category of criminal intent.  A defendant must possess a specific intent or “conscious object” to commit a crime or to cause a result.  Commonwealth v. Barnette (1988)

5.1. You Decide: Perez-Gonzalez  What evidence supports the prosecution’s charge that Perez-Gonzalez knew that the passengers he was transporting were illegal aliens? How so?  How would you rule in this case regarding Perez-Gonzalez’s level of mental intent? Why?

Knowingly  An individual satisfies the knowingly standard when he/she is “aware” that circumstances exist or that a result is practically certain to result from his/her conduct.  State v. Nations (1984)

5.2. You Decide: Hypolite  Discuss the legal issues surrounding Hypolite’s knowledge of the products he imported into the US?  Given the case circumstances, would you find him guilty of knowingly importing illegal drugs into the US? Why or why not?  What about a different charge/offense requiring a lesser level of mens rea? Why or why not?

Recklessly  Reckless individuals engage in obviously risky behavior that they know creates a risk of substantial & unjustifiable harm, & yet do not expect that injury or harm will result.  Test for reckless conduct:  A conscious disregard of a substantial & unjustifiable risk.  A gross deviation from the standard that a law- abiding person would observe in the same situation.  Hranicky v. State (2004)

5.3. You Decide: Suarez  Discuss the various legal complexities surrounding holding Suarez liable for recklessly causing her daughter’s death.  If you were a judge, how would you rule in this case?  Consider also the possibility of a lesser charge against Suarez that requires only a negligent level of mens rea as opposed to a recklessness requirement.

Negligently  Negligence involves engaging in harmful & dangerous conduct while being unaware of a risk that a reasonable person would appreciate.  Important issues: mental state & objective standard  People v. Baker (2004)

5.4. You Decide: Strong  Discuss the moral blameworthiness of Strong in this case.  Although he was convicted for reckless manslaughter, would you agree with his argument that the jury receive instructions regarding criminally negligent homicide also (or instead)? Why or why not?

Strict Liability Offenses  An offense that does not require mens rea; an individual may be convicted based solely on the commission of a criminal act (actus reus).  Public welfare offenses—intended to protect society against impure food, defective drugs, pollution, & unsafe working conditions.

Strict Liability Offenses (cont.)  Malum prohibita—an act is wrong because it is prohibited  Malum in se—inherently wrong acts such as rape, robbery, & murder  US v. Flum (1975)

5.5. You Decide: Walker  Discuss whether or not the prosecution should be responsible for proving that Walker possessed a knowing or purposeful intent to sell/deliver drugs within a certain area (school grounds) in order to get a conviction.  Should the prosecution also be required to prove a certain level of intent in order to get a sentence enhancement if the defendant is convicted? Why or why not?  Discuss the pros/cons of making this type of an offense a strict liability offense instead.

Concurrence  There must be concurrence between a criminal act & the criminal intent.  Chronological concurrence—a criminal intent must exist at the same time as a criminal act.  State v. Rose (1973)

5.6. You Decide: Jackson  Where should Jackson be criminally prosecuted for the intentional killing of Bryan since the autopsy revealed that his poisoning of her (in Ohio) was not fatal but rather the beheading (which occurred in Kentucky) actually resulted in her death?  Provide support for your opinion regarding which state possesses jurisdiction over this case.

Causation  Central to the criminal law & must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Causality is based on two considerations:  Individual responsibility  Fairness  Two main types of causation:  Cause in fact (Factual cause)  Legal cause (Proximate cause)

Factual Cause  Simply requires a person to ask whether “but for” the defendant’s act the victim would have died (been injured, etc.).  Defendant’s act must be the cause in fact or factual cause of a harm to be criminally convicted.  This connects the defendant to the result.

Legal (Proximate) Cause  Analysis requires the jury to determine whether it is fair or just to hold a defendant legally responsible (liable) for an injury or death.  Is the defendant liable if death results from an intervening cause or outside factor?  Two types of intervening causes:  Coincidental intervening act  Responsive intervening act

Coincidental Intervening Acts  Arise when defendant’s act places a victim in a particular place where the victim is harm by an unforeseeable event.  A defendant who commits a crime is responsible for the natural & probable consequences of his/her actions.  This does not extend to unforeseeable coincidental intervening acts.  The defendant generally is legally liable for foreseeable coincidental intervening acts.

Responsive Intervening Acts  The response of a victim to a defendant’s criminal act.  The issue is the foreseeability of the victim’s response rather than the reasonableness of the victim’s response.  Medical negligence has been viewed as foreseeable & does not break the chain of causation.

5.7. You Decide: Herman  Were Herman’s actions the proximate cause of the firefighter’s injury?  Was the firefighter’s injury a result of the fire itself?  Relying on the legal rules & criteria surrounding causation & intervening factors, provide support for your opinion.

Key Issues  Defining mens rea  Reasons for mens rea/moral blameworthiness  Evidentiary burden  The Model Penal Code Standard (categories)  Types of intent  Purpose  Knowledge  Recklessness  Negligence

Key Issues (cont.)  Strict liability offenses  Concurrence  Causation  Cause in fact (factual cause)  Legal cause (proximate cause)  Intervening causes/acts  Coincidental intervening acts  Responsive intervening acts