Criminal Law - Strict Liability

Strict Liability Crimes

1. Crimes that do not require mens rea. Only actus reus and causation apply. 

2. Common in regulatory malum prohibitum contexts, not moral malum in se offenses. 

Malum in Se

acts inherently wrong (murder, raper) requires mens rea 

Malum Prohibitum

acts wrong because prohibited by statute (selling unlicensed goods) may not require mens rea 

Presumption against strict liability

1. Courts generally presume mens rea is required unless clearly excluded by legislature 

2. Courts often read in a mens rea term if the statute is silent, just as they do with voluntariness with actus reus. 

3. If no mens rea term, the court analyzes whether to infer intent or apply strict liability. 

Morrisette Factors [5] (determines strict liability) 

1. Crime is newly created (not derived from common law) 

2. Offense is a public welfare (regulatory) offense. 

3. Aimed at protecting public health, safety, or welfare. 

4. Penalties are light or non-serious. 

5. Low stigma associated with conviction. 

6. Note: these are factors, not elements; not all must be met 

7. Examples of Strict Liability 

   1. Selling alcohol to minors 

   2. Traffic violations 

   3. Environmental or food safety violations

Specific Intent vs. General Intent 

This distinction focuses on how mens rea operates in the statute, not the defendants actual mental state or the facts of the case. 

1. Developed for leniency toward intoxicated defendants 

2. The distinction primarily matters for (2) case-in-chief defenses 

   1. Voluntary intoxication 

   2. Mistake of fact 

Voluntary Intoxication

1. Rule 

   1. Voluntary intoxication is a case-in-chief defense only to specific intent crimes. 

   2. It can be used to negate mens rea, but not to excuse its conduct. 

2. Application 

   1. If a statute requires proof of a further purpose or intent (specific intent crime), the defendant may argue intoxication prevented formation of that intent. 

      1. If D is charged with burglary, D may argue intoxication prevented formation of that intent. 

      2. If the crime is general intent, intoxication evidence is inadmissible to negate mens rea 

      3. People v. Atkins 

Mistake of Fact Defense 

A case-in-chief defense that, if credible, negates mens rea. Based on a factual misunderstanding that relates to an element of defense. 

1. Example: Larceny (Specific Intent) 

   1. Larceny = intentional taking and carrying away of another's property with intent to permanantly deprive. 

   2. If D honestly (though unreasonably) believed the property was his, mens rea is negated. 

2. Example: People v. Atkins (Arson – General Intent) 

   1. Arson statute requires only intent to set fire – no further intent. 

   2. Because it is general intent , mistake-of-fact and intoxication defenses are not available unless mistake is both honest and reasonable.