Mens Rea

Common Law
Purposely conscious obj
- If MR unclear, look for leg
to:
intent
-engage in
- If no MR for jurisdiction, SL
conduct;
-hopes circm - If MR listed in middle,
modifies elements after
exist;
-to cause result Default: knowingly stapleton
INTENTION
- Gen Int: any MR will do
Knowingl Aware that:
- Spec Int: (1) requires proof
y
-conduct is of
of s objective/purpose to
such nature;
bring about the harm OR
-circum exist;
listed in statute
-result virtually
Intentionall - s conscious
cert to occur.
objective; OR
deliberate y,
Purposefull virtually
ignorance =
y
certain to
positive
occur.
knowledge
Recklessl Conscious Knowingly awareness,
correctly
y
disregard of sub
believes, or
and unj risk
awareness of
that:
high probability
- engaging in
to exist AND
such conduct;
deliberate
-proscribed
action to avoid
circumstances
OR fails to
exist;
investigate
-result will
(Ostrich)
occur. SBJ STD
Willfully
Act done w/
Negligent (i) S&U risk; &
bad motive;
ly
(ii) gross
sometimes
deviation of Std
intentional
of Care of
Malice
Similar to
reasonable
reckless, but
person.
many times
- just SHOULD
requires
have known,
intention
doesnt need to
Reckless
Disregard of
know
sub and unj
OBJ STD
risk; not give
a damn
Negligence Deviation of
std of care;
fails to
appreciate risk;
obj std

MPC
- Supplied MR applies to every
element of crime under MPC
- If no MR mod: K, P, or R
suffice
- If MR placed in middle, mods
elements after.

Voluntary Act

Causation
p.25

Need at least 1 vol act for crimeif none, cant prove for even strict
liability crime
- Involuntary act never blameworthy reflex/convulsion; acts
during hypnosis; unconsciousness or sleep; bodily movement not
the product of conscious effort or habit.
- Possession IS a vol act
Common Law
MPC
Actual Cause
- But for the actors conduct, would the result have occurred?
Concurrent when two actions inflict same result (two
gunshots at same time both equally culpable)
Proximate Cause
- Is result foreseeable from actors conduct?
- Extremely unusual event prox.
Intervening Causes must supersede s Vol Act; must break the chain
- Responsive Act still liable
- Coincidental is not liable unless it was foreseeable
- Free human action is not liable
- Simple Neg IS foreseeable and still liable
- takes V as he finds him
@MPC = But for is used for causation, but factors MR for prox.

Omission

Mistake of
Fact

Common Law
- Generally, no duty to act.
- UNLESS: legal duty, status
relationship; voluntarily
assumed care of another
and secluded help, or
creation of peril
Common Law
-

Mistake of
Law

Strict Liability = NOT A

DEF.
- Specific Intent = Must
negate MR
- Gen Intent = Must be
reasonable
- Exception: Moral Wrong
Doctrine
- Legal Wrong Doctrine =
mistake as to degree of
crime; guilty to level as of
crime committed; run risk
of greater crime
Common Law
-

NOT A DEFENSE

MPC
- Liability for omission only
when duty to perform the
omitted act is otherwise
imposed by law; OR when
defined by law
MPC
-

2.04(1)
MOF defense if negates MR to
establish element of crime;
OR law provides mistake as
def.
MPC doesnt distinguish
between gen/spec intent
Strict Lia - Must prove
culpability to each element;
true strict liability doesnt
exist at MPC

MPC
-

NOT A DEFENSE
Ex: Law is not known to actor

Quasi Mistake
Strict Liability
Vicarious Lia.

Attempt
p.28

Intoxication

AND not published or made

available
Ex: Acted on reliance from:
statute, case, ad. order, off.
interpretation by individual
who is officially charged w/
interpret law
Ex: Lambert law is reg in
nature, passive in character,
punishes omission, and no
notice.

Conviction in absence of fault

neither knew nor had reason to know anything about behavior
was wrong
- Conviction in absence of conduct;
- however, no liability for crime punished by imprisonment where
individual didnt commit, have knowledge, or give consent to
crime
Common Law
MPC
NEED: must have SPECIFIC
INTENT to commit the target
offense
Intent Plus Test: Att = intent +
some act
- look at how much
movement away from from
of intent
Equivocality Test: Att = intent +
uneq act
- the point when s action
shows intent watching TV
on mute
Last Act Test: Att = perf last act
- e.g. pulls trigger
Proximity Test: Att = act in suff.
prox. That creates reas prob.
crime will occur
- actor has ability to commit
almost immediately
Common Law
- Generally, voluntary intox is NOT
a defense to general intent.
- Traditional rule is vol intox IS a
def to spec intent b/c it could
negate a specific mens rea of the
crime.
- unconsciousness normally
defense, but not when brought on

NEED:
1. SPECIFIC INTENT
2. Substantial Step (strongly
corroborates w/ s intent
lying in wait, searching for
V)

MPC
-A person is not guilty of an
offense if as a result of intox (vol
or invol) he lacked req mens rea
for an element.
-EXCEPT: When recklessness is an
element and actor would have
been aware of the risk had he not
been intox, still guilty.

by vol intox.
Invox is defense to all situations
vol is defense.
occurs: (1) coerced to take subst;
(2) ingests by innocent mistake;
(3) unexpected intox from
prescribed med; (4) intox grossly
excessive in proportion to the
amount of substance the def
thinks he is susceptible.

Rape
p.10

Common Law
-

Sexual intercourse
w/o consent
- can be shown by proof of
resistance; lack of res
excused if threat
- by force
- Traditional: F w/ utmost
resistance; no threats
- Rusk: force w/ reasonable
resistance or verbal
resistance
- Thompson: Force
coercion/threats; must be
actual physical force
- MTS: force = lack of
consent
- Mistake = a reasonable
mistake as to consent is def.
Some courts now require
affirmative yes to show
consent
Homicide
p. 16

Common Law

Unlawful killing w/ malice af.

Actus Reus: Issues rare, maybe if
not a human being < MOF?
-Mal Af. = ex or implied intent to
kill, Intent GBI, Extreme reckless
murder
Murder I
intentional
- Lying in wait, etc.
- Willfull & delib & premed
- Fel Murder (inherit danger
fel.) (spec enumerated fel)
Murder II
[Intentional/unint]
- Intent to kill w/o premed
- Intent to inflict GBI
- Unintentional depraved
heart (knew risk, but did it
anyway) w/ reckless indiff to
human life
- Fel mur unenumerated
VMS
any killing w/o Mal Aff
TEST FOR EED:
[intentional]
1. acted under EED (sbj)
Voluntary
= intentional kill,
-EED=intense feelings
sufficient for lossbut
of provocation
TEST:
ctrl
- Was the actor in
2. Reas expl for EED (obj)
HOP?
-determine from POV of
- Was there trigger/ad.
actor
provocation? (words,

MPC
-

Mens Rea: P, K, or R
Gross Sexual Imposition:
compelling by threat that
would prevent resistance by
woman of ord. resolution =
guilty

MPC
Murder
[No mal af. Req]
-K, P, or Extreme R kills another in
manner manifesting extreme indiff
to human life; OR
-fel mur poss. jury decide if acts
show ex reck
MS
-Murder mitigated by EED
- EED = intense feelings to
cause to lose control; words
CAN be eed. No need for
triggering event; no need
for cooling off time;
Reasonableness from s
situation (person handicaps,
NOT morals)
-Mere reckless killing
NO CRIM NEGLIGENCE shouldnt
be punished w/ MS for lacking
conscious disregard, neg killing =
lesser crime of neg homicide
NO FEL MURDER BUT, if death
occurs during crime, might prove
recklessness