Mens Rea

ACTUS REUS: The physical element of a crime; that is, the voluntary, conscious or
volitional movement or action that, when combined with the reuisite mental frame of
mind, ma!es the actor punishable for havin" committed a crime#
$E%S REA: The mental element of a crime, which encompasses performin" the
proscribed act with a "uilty or morally blameworthy state of mind
United States v. CordobaHincapie &%'( &)**+( ,E-.%.T./% /- $E%S REA E0/10ES /0ER
T.$E ,UE T/ S/C.ET'2S C3A%4.%4 0.E5S /- $/RA1 5R/%4,/.%4
To be "uilty of a crime which has as one of its elements, 6mens rea,7 the criminal must
have a "uilty8culpable state of mind#
5hat is mens rea9 : 6"uilty mind; a "uilty or wron"ful purpose; a criminal intent7
Regina v. Cunningham &E%4( &)*;<( $E%S REA RE=U.RES $/RE T3A% 65.C>E,%ESS7
A thief &nei"hbor( was bro!e so he stole a "as meter from the basement of a house,
which caused the "as to lea! into an ad?oinin" house and partially asphy@iate an elderly
woman who lived there# There was a shut:off valve nearby, but he did not turn off the
"as#
.ndicted for violatin" Section A+ of the /ffenses a"ainst the Berson Act ma!in" it a
felony to )( unlawfully and maliciously administer poison to a person, or A( cause poison
to be administered to a person, so as to endan"er the person2s life#
The trial ?ud"e instructed the ?ury that the term 6malicious7 in the statute meant 6wic!ed#7
Cury found him "uilty
5ill a mens rea reuirement of 6maliciousness7 be satisfied by a findin" that the actor
acted 6wic!edly7 when he performed the proscribed acts9 %/
The mens rea reuirement is satisfied by a showin" of either intentional or rec!less
conduct; a showin" of malice or wic!edness will not suffice#
, certainly !new he was doin" somethin" wron" when he stole the meter# The uestion
is whether his !nowled"e that he was doin" somethin" wron" when he stole the meter
was enou"h to constitute the maliciousness that was reuired to hold him accountable
for the much "reater offense of endan"erin" a person2s life#
.%TE%T./%A11': A state of mind indicatin" that a person performed an act purposefully
or willfully, and not accidentally#
$A1.CE: A state of mind showin" an evil intent, or one that causes a person to
purposely or willfully commit an act with no re"ard for its effect on others#
REC>1ESS%ESS: A state of mind indicatin" a callous disre"ard for the foreseeable
conseuences of performin" an act#
Intent
People v. Conley &.ll( &)*D*( .%TE%T E%C/$BASSES E.T3ER A ,ES.RE T/ ER.%4 AE/UT
SBEC.-.C 3AR$ /R >%/51E,4E T3AT 3AR$ .S BRACT.CA11' CERTA.% T/ /CCUR
After an altercation at a hi"h school party where they could drin! unlimited amounts of
beer, two boys "ot into a fi"ht where one boy hit the other in the face with a wine bottle,
which caused e@tensive in?uries to the other boy2s mouth and teeth#
After leavin" the party, a "roup confronted two boys and demanded a beerFone boy
refused and the other attempted to hit him with a wine bottleFhe duc!ed and his friend
was hit in the face# ##upper and lower ?aw were bro!en, alon" with four other bones in his
face, and messed up teethF
, was char"ed with a""ravated battery based on permanent disability and "reat bodily
harm# An e@pert testified that Sean sustained a permanent condition called 6mucosal
mouth7 and permanent partial numbness in one lip as a result of the blow#
.n order to satisfy the reuirement of intent, is it necessary to find that the actor
consciously desired to brin" about a particular harm9 %/
A person acts with .ntent if it is his conscious ob?ect to cause a social harm or he !nows
that such harm is almost certain to occur as a result of his conduct#
3eld that the state was reuired to show that , intended to cause a permanent disability,
because that is the standard that is enunciated in the statute#
Cury can loo! at the circumstances, such as the force of the blow, the weapon used, and
the absence of a warnin", to infer that he intended to cause a permanent disability or
!new that a permanent disability could certainly result#
Transferred intent doctrine
Sandstrom v. Montana &Sp# Ct( &)*<*( : A ?ud"e is not constitutionally permitted to instruct the
?ury that it may presume intent from the resultin" outcome# .nstead, the ?ury is permitted to infer
intent# Brosecution reuired to prove every element beyond reasonable doubt#
MPC 2.02: General Requirements of Culpability
Burpose
>nowled"e
Rec!lessness
o Cury must
)( e@amine the ris! and the factors that are relevant to its substantiality
and ?ustifiability
A( ma!e the culpability ?ud"ment whether the defendant2s conscious
disre"ard of the ris! ?ustifies condomnation
%e"li"ence
o Cury must
)( e@amine the ris! and the factors that are relevant to its substantiality
and ?ustifiability
A( ma!e the culpability ?ud"ment whether the failure of the defendant to
perceive the ris!s ?ustifies condemnation
Problems
C wants to !ill his wife 0# 3e drove his car at a very hi"h rate of speed into 0, who was holdin"
G, their infant son# C hoped that G would survive the collision# The car struc! 0 and G, !illin"
both instantly# Accordin" to $BC A#HA with what mental state &IpurposelyI, I!nowin"lyI,
rec!lesslyI, or Ine"li"entlyI( did C !ill 09
BURB/SE1' a person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense
when:)( if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his
conscious ob?ect to en"a"e in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and A( if
the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the e@istance of such
circumstances and believes or hopes that they e@ist#
5ith what mental state did he !ill G9
>%/5.%41' a person acts !nowin"ly with respect to a material element of an offense
when: )(( if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant
circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances
e@ist; and A( if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is
practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result#
R despised modern architecture# She decided to burn down S2s modern residence# R did not
want S to die, whom she !new was inside, so she tossed salt over her shoulder immediately
before she torched the residence# R "enuinely believed this would protect S# $uch to her
surprise, S was burned to death in the fire# 5ith what $BC mental state did R !ill S9
%E41.4E%CE: a person acts with criminal ne"li"ence with respect to a result or to a
circumstance described by a statute definin" an offense when he fails to perceive a
substantial and un?ustifiable ris! that such result will occur or that such circumstance
e@ists# the ris! must be of such a nature and de"ree that the failure to perceive it
constitutes a "ross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would
observe in the situation#
.f R was 6"enuinely convinced7 that the salt would protect S, she would not be aware
that her conduct was ris!y# Ar"uably rec!lessly: R was aware of the ris! to S before
throwin" the salt# $i"ht constitute sufficient awareness to establish rec!lessness
%ot sure salt would protect J rec!lessly : She was only optimistic &but not convinced(
that S would be protected by the salt over the shoulder# Thus, the ris! was advertently
created
State v. Nations &$o(&)*DK( $E%S REA RE=U.RE$E%T 6>%/5.%41'7 $EA%S 3A0.%4
ACTUA1 >%/51E,4E /- ATTE%,A%T C.RCU$STA%CES
A ni"htclub owner was char"ed with endan"erin" the welfare of a child less than
seventeen years old when she hired a si@teen:year:old to dance in her club# She
claimed that she had as!ed the "irl for identification and that she thou"ht the "irl was
ei"hteen#
.f a statute reuires a person to act 6!nowin"ly7 with re"ard to a certain fact, can she be
convicted if she does not have actual !nowled"e of the fact9 %/
Unless the applicable criminal code states otherwise, a reuirement that a person
commit a certain act 6!nowin"ly7 with respect to a particular fact will not be satisfied
unless the person had actual !nowled"e of the e@istence of the particular fact#
FloresFigueroa v. United States &AHH*( .,E%T.T' T3E-T ,E-E%,A%TS $UST 6>%/57
T3E ., EE1/%4S T/ A%/T3ER
The defendant was convicted under a federal criminal statute that imposes a mandatory
consecutive two:year prison term on individuals convicted of certain predicate crimes, if,
durin" or in relation to the commission of such other crimes, the offender !nowin"ly
transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification 6of
another person#7 The "overnment ar"ued that the term 6!nowin"ly7 did not apply to the
6of another person7 part of the statute#
,oes L )HAD&a(&)( reuire the prosecution to show that the defendant !new that the
means of identification he or she unlawfully transferred, possessed, or used did in fact
belon" to another person9 'ES
Courts ordinarily read a phrase in a criminal statute that introduces the elements of a
crime with the word 6!nowin"ly7 as applyin" that word to each element of the offense#
United States v. CordobaHincapie &%'( &)**+( $E%S REA .S %/T RE=U.RE, -/R STR.CT
1.AE.1.T' /--E%SES
.n some limited circumstances, criminal liability can e@ist absent any mens rea#

Staples v. United States &Sp#Ct( &)**K( -/R CR.$.%A1 1.AE.1.T' T/ EG.ST, A ,E-E%,A%T
$UST >%/5 /- T3E -ACTS T3AT $A>E 3.S C/%,UCT .11E4A1
A man was char"ed with violatin" a federal statute that reuired re"istration of
automatic weapons because police found a modified ARM); civilian rifle &similar to the
$M)N military machine "un( in his home#
.f a federal criminal statute is silent as to the mens rea reuirement, will it be construed
as a strict liability offense9 %/
.f a federal crime does not e@pressly state a mens rea reuirement, the determination of
the necessary mental state is made by construin" the statute itself and by e@aminin" the
intent of Con"ress#