Criminal Law CJ 220 Chapter 4

1
Criminal Law CJ 220Chapter 4

• The General Principles of Criminal Liability
  Mens Rea, Concurrence, Causation
• Andrew Fulkerson, JD, PhD
• Southeast Missouri State University

2
Mens Rea

• Criminal intent, mens rea, must accompany actus
  reus.
• To be punishable, action must be blameworthy
• Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled
  over and being kicked.
• - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

3
Complexity of Mens Rea

• Confusing terminology
• Four levels of mens rea.
• Mens rea can relate to one or more elements of
  crimes
• Proving intent has practical problems

4
Determining mens rea

• Intent is invisible
• Confession is the only direct evidence of mens
  rea
• Proving mens rea relies on circumstantial evidence

5
Four Levels of Mens Rea

• General intent to commit the criminal act
• Specific intent to cause the particular result
• Transferred intent bad aim intent
• Constructive intent harm greater than intended

6
General Intent

• Crimes of criminal conduct
• Intent to commit the criminal act

7
Specific Intent

• Crimes of cause and result
• In addition to intent to commit criminal act,
  person also must intend to cause particular
  result.

8
Transferred Intent

• Offender intends to harm one person, but harms
  another.
• Also called bad aim intent.
• Only intent to cause similar harm can transfer.

9
Constructive Intent

• Person causes harm greater than intended

10
Mens Rea

• People v. Disimone, 650 N.W.2d 436 (2002
  Mich.App.)

11
Four mental states(Model Penal Code levels of
culpability)

• Purpose
• Knowledge
• Recklessness
• Negligence

12
Model Penal Code Levels of Culpability

• All crimes which require mental element must
  include one of the four mental states.

13
MPC Minimum Levels of Culpability

• Person is not guilty of offense unless he acted
• purposely, or
• knowingly, or
• recklessly, or
• negligently

14
Purposely

• Conscious object to engage in the conduct or
  cause the result (Model Penal Code)

15
Knowingly

• Aware that his conduct is of that nature or
• Aware that it is practically certain that his
  conduct will cause that result.

16
Recklessly

• consciously disregards substantial and
  unjustifiable risk that harm exists or will
  result from his conduct or
• his actions are gross deviation from standard of
  conduct that one should observe in the actors
  situation.

17
Negligently

• he should be aware of a substantial and
  unjustifiable risk
• and his failure to perceive the risk is a gross
  deviation from the standard of care that a
  reasonable person would observe in the actors
  situation.

18
Case

• State v. Stark, 66 Wash. App. 423, 832 P.2d 109
  (1992)

19
Case

• Commonwealth v. Barnette, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 486,
  699 N.E. 2d 1230 (1998)

20
Standards for Determining Purpose and Knowledge

• Subjective standard (majority rule)
• Culpability depends upon what person actually
  knew or intended,
• not upon what reasonable person would have known
  or intended.

21
Standards for Determining Purpose and Knowledge

• Objective standard
• Culpability depends upon what person knew or
  should have known
• Objective standard may also be used to determine
  purpose or for inferring purpose.

22
Knowledge

• State v. Jantzi, 56 Or.App. 57, 641 P.2d 62 (1982)

23
Recklessness

• . Reckless person consciously causes risk of
  harm
• 1. Requires conscious action
• 2. Not as blameworthy as intending harm
• 3. Involves probability of harm
• 4. Requires more than ordinary risk
• (substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm)

24
Model Penal Code 2-pronged test for recklessness

• Person must be aware of substantial and
  unjustifiable risk
• Persons disregard of risk must be gross
  deviation from standard that reasonable person
  would observe in that situation

25
Negligence

• Creates risk of harm
• Negligent wrongdoers should know they are
  creating risk, but do not know
• Negligence involves unconscious creation of risk

26
Negligence

• Standard is objective- they should know, but do
  not know they creating risk of harm
• Risk must deviate from ordinary standard of
  behavior

27
Case

• Koppersmith v. State,
• 1999 Wl 463469 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999)

28
Criminal Law CJ 220Chapter 4

• Strict Liability
• Andrew Fulkerson, JD, PhD
• Southeast Missouri State University

29
Strict Liability

• Strict liability offenses do not require any mens
  rea (no mental element)
• Prosecution must only prove that Defendant
  committed the act

30
Strict Liability-Justification

• Strong public interest justifies eliminating mens
  rea from certain offenses
• Strict liability offenses usually have lesser
  penalties, such as fines
• They are offenses such as traffic violations, and
  commercial regulations

31
Strict Liability-Opposition

• Too easy to expand beyond traffic and other such
  regulatory matters
• Too many innocent persons are convicted, which
  lessens public confidence in the criminal law
• Strict liability is inconsistent with criminal
  law which is based upon blameworthiness and
  culpability

32
Strict Liability

• State v. Loge,
• 589 N.W. 2d 491 (Minn. App. 1999)

33
Concurrence

• Criminal intent (mens rea)
• must trigger a criminal act (actus reus)

34
Concurrence

• In crimes of criminal conduct,
• mens rea must precede actus rea.

35
Causation

• Causation applies only to crimes of cause and
  result

36
Causation

• Does criminal conduct cause a particular result?
  
• Was the conduct the cause in fact of the harmful
  result? If so
• Was the conduct the legal cause of the harmful
  result?

37
Causation

• But for or sine qua non causation, or factual
  causation
• Ds conduct sets in motion events that cause the
  harm
• But for Ds conduct, the harm would not have
  occurred

38
Causation

• Cause in fact is necessary, but not sufficient.
• State must also prove legal cause, also known as
  proximate cause.
• Proximate cause is decided on case-by-case basis
• Does justice demand that D be held accountable
  for harm caused by chain of events that D set in
  motion

39
Proximate Cause

• Factual Causedefendants actions triggered a
  chain of events that resulted in injury defined
  in statute
• Legal Cause (proximate cause)policy decision
  whether its fair to blame defendant
• Factual cause is necessary but not sufficient

40
Causation

• Intervening cause (also called a supervening
  cause)
• Actions started by D have ended with no harm.
• Separate and independent event has substantially
  contributed to this harm.

41
Causation

• Commonwealth v. McCloskey, 835 A.2d 801
  (Pa.Super. 2003)

42
Causation

• People v. Armitage,
• 239 Cal.Rptr. 515 (1987)

43
Causation
44
Causation

• A shoots at B B successfully dodges A's bullet
  by jumping into the river B cannot swim and
  drowns. Is A the proximate cause of Bs death?

45
Causation
46
Causation

• Velazquez v. State,
• 561 So.2d 347 (Fla.App. 1990)

47
Ignorance and Mistake

• Ignorance of the law not an excuse
• People are encouraged to know the law

48
Ignorance and Mistake

• Mistake of fact may be defense
• Facts exist
• Facts differ from Ds impression of facts
• Mistake of fact is accepted as true
• Mistake is later recognized

49
Reason for Defense of Mistake of Fact

• No intent to commit crime