1. Elements of a crime – Mens Rea
Class #3

2. People v. Conley, Illinois Appelate Court, 1989
Aggravated battery under the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961 : « a person who, in committing a battery, intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, or permanent disability or disfigurement commits aggravated battery. »
In order to prove that the defendnat had the required mens rea, the State has to prove that the defendant either had a « conscious objective » to achieve the harm defined or the defendant was « consciously aware » that the harm defined was « practically certain to be caused by the conduct »

3. « Intentionally »
Frequently used mens rea. On occasion, the intent to cause a particular result (e.g., to kill another) or to engage in a specified conduct (e.g., drive an automobile) is defined narrowly in a statute to mean that it was the actor’s purpose, desire, or conscious objective to cause the result or to engage in the specified conduct.
Ordinary presumption that one intends « the nature and probable consequences of his action »
Intent inferred from the surrounding circumstances, the offender’s words, the weapon used, and the force of the blow
It’s a rebuttable presumption

4. The transferred intent doctrine
General doctrine: suppose suppose A wrongfully fires a gun at B, intending to kill him, but the bullet instead strikes and kills unintended victim C, a bystander. Is A guilty of intent-to-kill murder of C?
Transferred intent: the law transfers the actor’s state of mind regarding the intended victim to the unintended one.
This doctrine is potentially misleading:
It is unnecessary: « the killing of a human being by another human being »
It is confusing: offenses that do require proof of a specific victim (ex: « assault or beat any person, with intent to disfigure or disable such person »)
The doctrine serves to transfer the intent from the intended victim to the unintended one, but it does not transfer the intent to cause one type of social harm to another

5. Common-law criminal intent
Malice aforethought
Only for one crime, murder. Malice aforethought = intent to kill
Malice aforethough crimes such as first and second degree murders generally mandate the most severe of punishments, including death penalty in jurisdictions that allow it.
General intent
Intent to perform the criminal act or actus reus
If the defendant acts intentionally, but without the additional desire to bring about a certain result, or do anything othern than the criminal act itself, the defendant has acted with general intent.
Specific intent
The defendant acts with a more sophisticated level of awareness.
Three categories:
The defendant intends to cause a certain bad result
The defendant intends to do something more than commit the criminal act
The defendant acts with knowledge that his or her conduct is illegal (which is called scienter)

6. Intent to cause a certain result: A statute defines mayhem as “physical contact with another, inflicted with the intent to maim, disfigure, or scar.”
Intent to do more than the criminal act: A state statute that defines theft as “a permanent taking of property belonging to another”.
Scienter: A statute that makes it a crime to “wilfully file a false tax return” may require knowledge that the tax return includes false information and that it will be unlawful to file it.
General intent crime: Battery is defined by a statute as “intentional harmful or offensive physical contact with another.”

7. Intent should not be confused with motive, which is the reason the defendant commits the actus reus.
Motive can generate intent, support a defense and be used to determine sentencing.
Ex: Isabella, a housewife with no criminal record, sits quietly in court waiting to hear the jury verdict in a trial for the rape of her teenage daughter by Ignatius. Ignatius has been convicted of child rape in three previous incidents. The jury foreman announces the decision finding Ignatius not guilty. Ignatius looks over his shoulder at Isabella and smirks. Isabella calmly pulls a loaded revolver out of her purse, and then shoots and kills Ignatius. In this case, Isabella’s motive is revenge for the rape of her teenage daughter, or the desire to protect other women from Ignatius’ conduct.
The motive generated Isabella’s intent, which is malice aforethought.
But Isabella’s motive can be introducted at sentencing and may result in a reduced sentence such as life in prison rather than the death penalty.
Isabella’s motive may affect a prosecutor’s decision to seek the death penalty at all because this would be disfavored by the public.

8. Common-law intents

9. Model Penal Code criminal intent
Four states of mind, listed in order of culpability: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently
A person may not be convicted of an offense unless « he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense ».
The legislature may choose to require different levels of culpability for each material element: « It is a felony to purposely do X and knowingly do Y, so as to recklessly cause Z »
The common law distinction between general intent and specific intent is discarded.

10. Purposely
In the context of a result or conduct, one who acts purposely intends to engage in conduct of that nature or intends to cause a certain result.
In the context of an attendant circumstance, a person acts purposely if he or she is « aware of the existence of such circumstances or believes or hopes that they exist. »

11. Knowingly
A result is knowingly caused if the actor is « aware that it is practically certain that his condct will cause such a result. »
With respect to attendant circumstances and conduct elements, one acts knowingly if he is
Aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such (attendant) circumstances exist OR
if the person is aware of a high probability of the attendant circumstance’s existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist

12. Recklessly
The person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material element exist or will result from the conduct.
A risk is substantial and unjustified if 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.

13. Negligent
A person’s conduct is negligent if the actor « should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. »
The definition of substantial and unjustified is the same as that provided for in the definition of « recklessness » except that the term « reasonable person » is substituted for « law-abiding person »
Negligence and reckless require the same degree of risk-taling. The difference between them lies in the fact that the reckless actor « consciously disregards » the risk, whereas the negligent actor’s risk-taling is inadvertent – ie he is not aware of the risk.

14. Examples
Fred and his new wife, Betty, decide to go to Hawaii on their honeymoon. Wilma, Fred’s jealous ex-wife finds out what flight they are on and plants a bomb on the plane with the intent of killing Fred and Betty. Wilma knows that there will be ninety-eight other passengers on the flight and, though she feels bad that they will die too, her hatred of Fred and Betty is so strong that she decides to proceed with her plan anyway. Sure enough, the bomb explodes in the middle of the flight, and all one hundred people on board are killed.
Wilma acted purposely with regard to the death of Fred and Betty
Wilma acted knowingly with regard to the killings of the other ninety-eight passengers
Fred and his new wife, Betty, decide to go to Hawaii on their honeymoon. Wilma, Fred’s jealous ex-wife, finds out what airline they are taking and what day they are flying and what plane they will be flying on, and she plants a bomb on that plane. Wilma has no idea what time the flight takes off, but she sets the bomb to go off at 7:00 in the morning. Sure enough, the bomb goes off at 7:00 in the morning, killing a baggage handler who is loading luggage onto the plane.
Wilma acted recklessly with regard to the killing of the baggage handler.

15. Examples
Victor and Tanya are in a subway train that has no passengers. Victor brags to Tanya that he can shoot a crumpled napkin on the floor. Tanya challenges him to try it. Victor shoots at the napkin and misses, and the bullet ricochets three times off three different seats, travels backward, and strikes Tanya in the forehead, killing her instantly.
Victor negligently killed Tanya.
Victor brags to his girlfriend Tanya that he can shoot into a densely packed crowd of people on the subway train without hitting any of them. Tanya dares Victor to try it. Victor removes a concealed weapon from his waistband and shoots, aiming at a group of people standing with their back to him. The shot kills Monica, who is standing the closest to Victor.
Victor recklessly killed Monica.

16. Model Penal Code mens rea

17. Principles of statutory interpretation under the MPC
According to section 2.02(4), if a statute defining an offense « prescribes the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, without distinguishing among the material elements thereof, » a court will interpret such culpability provision as applying to every material element of the offense « unless a contrary purpose plainly appears. »
Ex : false imprisonment: it is an offense to knowingly restraint another unlawfully
In contrast, if a single culpability term is placed by the drafters in the middle of the statute, this would likely suggest a contrary purpose.
Ex: burglary : to enter an occupied structure with purpose to commit a crime therein
Remember that when the definition of a criminal offense is silent regarding the matter of culpability as to a material element, the MPC provides an interpretative solution: the material element is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly, or recklessly
BUT NOT negligently

18. Concurrence of the actus reus and the mens rea
In order to be convicted of a crime, the defendant must have had the requisite intent at the moment he performed the act.
Ex: the crime of burglary is defined as the breaking and entering into the dwelling of another at night with the intent of committing a felony therein.
If Fred breaks into Barney’s house and steals Barney’s bowling ball, the prosecution will have to prove that Fred intended to steal the bowling ball when he broke into Barney’s house.
If, however, Fred is a homeless person and breaks into Barney’s house on a cold night with the intent of simply warming up and only then, after he has broken into the house, decides to steal the bowling ball, Fred will not be convicted of burglary because there is no concurrence between his act of breaking and entering and his intent.

19. The willful blindness problem
Situation in which a person seeks to avoid criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally keeping himself or herself unaware of the facts that would render him or her liable.
The issue is whether proof of willful ignorance satisfies the requirement of knowledge.
« Ostrich instruction »
State v. Nations, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, 1984 :
The legislature rejected the expansion of the definition of « knowingly » to include wilfull blindness of a fact and chose to limit the definition of « knowingly » to actual knowledge of the fact.
MPC’ proposed definition of knowingly encompasses wilfull blindness of a fact : knowledge is established if « a person is ware of a high probability of the attendant circumstance’s existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist. »

20. Strict Liability Garnett v. State, Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1993:
Maryland’s second degree rape statute defines a strict liability offense that does not require the State to prove mens rea.
Arguments in favor of an implicit mens rea requirement?
Arguments against an implicit mens rea requirement?

21. Strict Liability
Supreme Court in US v. United States Gypsum CO warned that offenses that do not contain a mens rea element have a generally disfavored status and « at least with regard to crimes having their origin in the common law, an interpretative presumption exists that mens rea is required » in federal statutes.
Generally speaking, state courts apply the same presumption against strict liability as do federal courts. But it is often difficult to predict when a cour will accept a statute on its own terms and permit it to be strictly enforced.
Public welfare offenses: not selling alcohol to minors, being in possession of an unexpired license when driving a motor vehicle, etc.
Non-public welfare offenses: principally statutory rape
MPC rejects criminal liability.
The sole exception is found in section 2.05, which provides that the voluntary act and mens rea requirements need not apply to offenses graded as « violations » rather than « crimes ». Violations are offenses that cannot result in imprisonment or probation but may result in fines.

22. Mistakes of law
People v. Marrero, Court of Appeals of New York, 1987: The defense of mistake of law should not be recognized, except where the specific intent is an element of the offense or where the misrelied-upon law has later been properly adjudicated as wrong
Exceptions to the general rule: when mistake of law is a defense:
Reasonable reliance doctrine: reliance on a faulty interpretaiton of the law by the government
But no defense if the defendant relies on its own interpretation of the law or on the advice of a private counsel
Ignorance or mistake that negates mens rea: « different-law mistake » when the defendant’s lack of knowledge of, or misunderstanding regarding the meaning or application of another law will negate the mens rea requirement element in the definition of the criminal offense
Only a defense with regard to specific intent crimes
MPC: only three cases where mistake of law is recognized as a defense
Reasonable reliance doctrine
Fair notice: a defendant is not guilty of an offense if she does not believe that her conduct is illegal and the statute defining the offense is not known to her AND was not published or otherwise made available
Mistake that negates mens rea