I.Means Rea: General PrinciplesA.Meaning of “mens rea”
– The term has both a general and a specific meaning. Be careful toknow what is being asked with regard to its meaning.
i.
Broad Meaning – Culpability
a.
A person has acted with “mens rea” in the broad sense of the term if shecommitted the actus reus of an offense with “vicious will”, “evil mind”, or “culpable” state of mind.
ii.
Narrow Meaning – Elemental
a.
“Mens rea” exists in the narrow sense if, and only if, a person commits theactus reus of an offense with the particular mental state set out expressly in the definition of that offense.
B.Rationale behind the “mens rea” requirementi.
Utilitarian Argument – It is frequently asserted that a person who commits the actusreus of an offense without a mens rea is not dangerous, could not have been deterred, and is not in need of reform. Punishment would be counter-utilitarian.
a.
A contrary argument is that some people may be accident prone; although theymay not be able to help themselves; they represent a danger to the community that may merit theapplication of the criminal law.
b.
Additionally, there may be a deterrence value in punishing someone whoinnocently commits the actus reus. Might serve as a lesson to others.
ii.
Retributive argument - Principle of just deserts. A person who commits the actus reusof an offense in a morally innocent manner, i.e. accidentally, does not deserve to be punished, as she did notchoose to act unlawfully
C.Common Law Mental Statesi.Intentionally
- A person commits the social harm of an offense “intentionally” if: (1) Itwas her conscious purpose to cause the result; or (2) She knew that the harm was substantial certain tooccur as a result of her conduct.
a.
This illustrates a subjective look into the mind of the actor.
b.
Remember that there is no such thing as transferred intent in crim law.
ii.Knowingly
- a person acts “knowingly” regarding an existing fact is she either: (1) isaware of the fact; (2) correctly believed that it exists; or (3) suspects that it exists and purposely avoidslearning if her suspicion is correct (willful blindness).
a.
Deliberate ignorance
: an deliberate attempt not to know information can makea person liable as if they did know (up to the jury to decide)
iii.Recklessly
- When a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial andunjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstances exist.
a.
In order to determine whether someone has acted recklessly, one must look atthe specific behavior, and balance the potential for harm against the social utility.
iv.Criminal Negligence
- Is any conduct, except conduct intentionally harmful or recklessly disregardful of an interest of others, which falls below the standard established by law for protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.
a.
One must determine by using either an objective or subjective test theawareness of the risk taken. Therefore, negligence uses a two part test of:
·
Balancing of social utility against the potential for harm
·
Awareness determination of the risk.
v.Malice
- Means an intent to do the very harm done, or harm of a similar nature, or awanton and willful disregard of an obvious likelihood of causing such harm, with and implied negation of any justification, excuse, or mitigation.
D.Intent: General, Specific, and Conditionali.General Intent
- When there may be no specific mens rea term in the definition; may be enough the defendant committed the actus reus with a culpable state of mind.
a.Good example is battery.ii.Specific Intent
- most often is when a definition contains one of the following mensrea elements in its definition: (1) the intent to commit some act over and beyond the offense; or (3)awareness of a particular attendant circumstance.
a.Good example is larceny.iii.Conditional Intent
- when a criminal puts a condition on her intended action,normally that of cooperation under duress of the victim. Most consider it as satisfying specific intent.
Defendant may not negate a proscribed intent by requiring the civtim to comply with a condition thedefendant has no right to impose. (think the carjacking case).
iv.Intent is based on the intended victim not the accidental victimE.Motivei.
That which gives birth to purpose. It is something in the mind, or a condition of themind, which induces the action.
ii.
Proof of motive is never necessary, though it may prove helpful and relevant to to whyan actus reus was committed.
iii.
The court will never supplant motive for intent, because people could create their ownlaws, using motive as a justification and avoid facing the consequences of their actions.
F.Culpable Mental States under the MPCi.Purposely-
when it is her conscious object to cause the result.
ii.Knowingly-
To cause a result when one is aware that the result is “substantiallycertain” to result from her conduct.
iii.Recklessly-
When the actor consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.
iv.Negligently-
a person acts negligently when he should be aware of a substantial andunjustifiable risk, but is not.
G.Strict Liabilityi.
Most commonly will see them as regulatory offenses (mala prohibita- conduct that iswrongful only because it is prohibited).
ii.
The others are considered malum in se- inherently evil crimes).
iii.
Since these regulatory offenses are not true crimes, they do not have a requisite mentalstate attached.
iv.
When looking at these crimes, consider three things:
a.
Is it a civil offense or a true crime?
b.
If it is a civil offense, does the wording of the statute add a mens rea of somekind?
c.
If it is a true crime, has the wording of a statute eliminated the mens rearequirement?
v.
Most commonly applies to “public welfare” offenses.
vi.
Rare occasions will give rise to non-public welfare offenses, such as statutory rape.
vii.
Not unconstitutional per se. States may in the maintenance of a public policy providethat he who shall do acts shall do them at his peril.
viii.
Vicarious liability is the same as tort doctrine of respondeat superior. Unlike strictliability, normally it will retain the need for mens rea on the part of the employee.
ix.
Absolute vicarious liability- no mens rea, and responsible for employee’s actions.Think violation of liquor code for a restaurant.
II.Concurrence of Mens Rea and Actus reusA.
They must concur to constitute a crime. There must be more than coincidence, as the mens reamust trigger the actus reus.
B.
Best example: you are on your way to kill someone, but on the way there you kill themaccidentally. You are not guilty of murder. However, if you are on your way there, you see them, and thenrun them over, you are guilty of murder.
III.CausationA.General Principles
-
i.
A person is not guilty of an offense unless she is an actual and proximate cause of theensuing harm.
ii.Actual Cause
- The but for or sine quo non. To determine the actual cause, one mustfigure out what the relevant acts or omissions were necessary for the result to occur.
a.
As the question, “
but for
D’s voluntary act or omission would the social harmhave occurred when it did?”
·
If yes, then D cannot be the actual cause.
·
If no, D is the actual cause of harm.
iii.Proximate or legal cause
- the purpose of “proximate causation” is to determine whoamong these candidates determined to be actual causes should be held accountable for the harm.
a.
It is an attempt by a jury to determine if it is just to hold this personresponsible for the harm.
b.
Intervening causes- Here, one must determine whether the intervening causewas dependant or independent, and whether this intervening cause was disruptive enough to break thechain.
·
Dependent- it occurs in response to the defendant’s earlier conduct.Think of the doctor negligently treating a gunshot victim(still liable for harm). More than likely will not break the chain of liability.
·
Independent- it would have occurred even in the absence of thedefendant’s conduct. More than likely will break the chain of liability.
c.
Remember there is no dispositive test for proximate cause.
IV.HOMICIDEA.Definition-
The killing of a human being by another human being. May be innocent or criminal:
i.
Innocent
a.
Will not impose penal sanctions
b.
Two types of innocent homicide
·
Justifiable
- things that are commanded or protected by law.i.Examples: Warrant, War, Self-Defenseii.Oddities- Killing an escaped felon.
·
Excusable-
i.Below a certain age (rule of 7).ii.Lacked capacity.iii.Pure accident.iv.Innocence.v.They were not negligent or committed an unlawful act.
ii.
Criminal (homicide committed without justification or excuse)
a.
Court will look to 4 elements
·
Some conduct
-
an act or omission.
·
Malicious state of mind
·
Causation on the part of the accused that cause the death
·
Death must have occurred within a year and a day of the event.
B.Murderi.Definition-
The unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought,expressed or implied.
ii.Proving Intenta.
Intent is a subjective form of fault. A prosecutor must prove beyond areasonable doubt that the killer purposely or knowingly took another’s life, or that this person subjectivelyknew with substantial certainty that death would result from his conduct.
b.
How to determine whether it was a conscious objective to take a life?
·
Natural and probably consequences inference - Most simply, absentevidence the actor is of subnormal intelligence, mentally unstable, or intoxicated, it is reasonable to infer that a person intends the natural and probably consequences of her actions.
·
Deadly weapons doctrine - It allows a jury to infer an intent to kill, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon.
iii.Unlawfula.
Again, this is basically just without justification or excuse
iv.“Human Being”a.In the beginning-
A fetus is not a human being until it is born alive. In order for something to be considered alive, must have:
·
Quickened
·
Born alive
·
Lives for a brief interval
·
Then dies
of 00
Criminal Law Outline
748 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 09/03/2009 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment