Mens Rea

The MPC categorizes intent into what 4 tiers of culpability?

• Purposely:  acting w/conscious objective to produce the offense specified in statute

• Knowingly: acting while being practically certain of the offending result

• Recklessly: acting w/conscious disregard for the risk of causing the offending result 

• Negligently: causing the offending result when the actor should’ve been aware of the risk

What does State v. Blurton elucidate?

compound statutes (chaining of the statutes if one statute is not met the other one can’t be met)

State v. Blurton (who wins, statute, phrase that pays, facts, points of analysis remem)?

• State v. Blurton -Helping us understand compound statutes (chaining of the statutes if one statute is not met the other one can’t be met)

  • Who wins: Blurton

  • What’s the statute: he kind of relies on MPC for robbery, idk why. One in case was SC Code section 16-23-410 focusing on if def needed specific mental state when pointing/presenting a firearm to another person

  • Phrase that pays: “theft” –keys you into to look at a different statute = compound statute. 

  • Facts:

    • Memorable fact: Walmart people would believe they were part of a secret CIA op

    • Blurton worked at Wally’s where James Mayfield mngr

    • Mayfield falsely told blurton he was connected to CIA and events part of op

    • Blurton believed Mayfield and participated in what he thought was CIA op 

What does People v. Conley elucidate?

Transferred intent 

People v. Conley (who wins, statute, phrase that pays, facts, points of analysis remem)?

•  Who wins: People

• What’s the statute: III Rev. Stat. 1983 ch. 38 par 12-4(a) para 10 "a person who in committing a battery, intentionally, or knowingly causes great bodily harm or perm disability or disfigurement commits aggravated battery?" 

• Phrase that pays: “intentionally/knowingly”

• Facts:

  • Memorable fact: damn a wine bottle to the face

  • Will conley went to hs party where many drinking 

  • Group confrontation and derogatory remark alleged

  • Conely emerged from group demanded beer from Sean O’Connel guy ducked or something and he hit another guy with wine bottle

  • Lead to lasting numbness in vics mouth and mouth condition 

• Analysis:

  • Look at how intent can be infer’d from surrounding circums 

    • Sure he mistook the guy but he intended to hit someone with wine bottle 

    • Wound up hitting someone doesn’t matter that he was trying to hit someone else he still intended to hit someone

What does State v. Nation elucidate?

that you need to look at the statutes def for the mens rea term (Ex: Knowling in MPC included willful blindness v. Missouri did not have the willful blindness in there so knowingly was only actual)

State v. Nation (who wins, statute, phrase that pays, facts, points of analysis remem)?

• Who wins: Nations

• What’s the statute: "a person commits the crime of endangering the welfare of a child if he knowingly encourages aids or causes a child less than 17 yrs old to engage in any conduct which causes or tends to cause child endangerment"  

• Phrase that pays: “knowingly”

• Facts

  • Memorable fact: Disco dancing queen at 16

  • Police went into Main St Disco found scantily clad 16 yr old dancing for tips

  • When questioned for ID Nations said had believed when hired her she was 18 

  • Nations was unable to check for ID before police brought girl into custody 

  • Girl claimed 18 but had no ID police later learned she was 16

• Analysis: 

  • In Missouri you just have to have actual knowledge “aware attendant circumstances exist” 

  • No need for high probability to know creating willful blindness issues. 

  • Bc she didn’t actually know she can skate by on just reckless behavior instead of knowing court acknowledges legs should maybe rethink this.

  • In MPC land this wouldn’t fly bc willful blindness issue included w/high prob lang so would fit under knowingly 

What does State v. Miles elucidate?

what the verb of mens rea modifies (ig maybe it depends on specificity of the statute - take statute individually)

State v. Miles (who wins, statute, phrase that pays, facts, points of analysis remem)?

• Who wins: State

• What’s the statute: "any person who knowingly sells..." 

• Phrase that pays: “knowingly”

• Facts:

  • Memorable fact: oxy in the boxy 

    • Miles left apartment walked toward apt after woman briefly came outside and looked at box and returned inside

    • Went back and picked it up and walked back apt 

    • Attempted to abandon box when police came at him bc he knew it was a controlled substance

  • Analysis:

    • Miles contended that knowingly applies to each element of the trafficking offense including that he had to know the specific type of drug in the box, but the court finds that the legs didn’t intend requirement that state prove that each def knows specific drug type during trafficking 

      • Otherwise court would have to prove that in any charge X knew Y was the specific substance 

What does Morissette v. US elucidate?

strict liability applies if so says v. mens rea the auto assumption

Morissette v. US (who wins, statute, phrase that pays, facts, points of analysis remem)?

• Who wins: Morissette 

• What’s the statute: 18 USC section 641

• Phrase that pays: “knowingly converts”

• Facts:

  • Memorable fact: I didn’t know these were the gov’s bombs!

  • Morissette went deer hunting on fed gov bomb rage

  • Spent bomb cases lying around rusting looked unwanted junk to him thought abandoned

  • Collected 3 tons and transported to scrap dealer got $84

  • Well known land for hunting despite keep out and like signs 

  • Morissette convicted and sentence impris for 2 monts in violation of statute. Trial court refused allow submit to jury he acted w/innocent intention

• Analysis:

  • Got to think about the mens rea here

  • He did not knowingly take someone else's property so he did not have the adequate mens rea

    • If think about applying it to him it would be under strict liability logic if you did it you did it

What does People v. Navarro elucidate?

objective v. subjective instruction in evaluating mens rea

People v. Navarro (who wins, statute, phrase that pays, facts, points of analysis remem)?

• Who wins: Navarro -jury improperly instructed 

• What’s the statute: "every person who shall feloniously steal...the personal property of another...is guilty of theft”

• Phrase that pays: "feloniously steal" 

• Facts:

  • Mem fact: abandoned beams

  • Navarro charged w/stealing 4 wooden beams 

  • Evidence could’ve supported he honestly believed they were worthless and owner didn’t care if took them OR he knew they were valuable and knew he had no right to take

  • Navarro defense proposed a rule of if how he in good faith believed they were abandoned he should be acquitted

  • The trial judge instructed and added that Navarro’s belief had to be reasonable. 

• Analysis:

  • Confusion around reasonable and good faith belief using both of these tests. 

    • Reasonability has nothing to do with the internal understanding of a plaintiff so use of subjective good faith belief test is different then reasonability objective test.

      • Ex: can unreasonable mistake could’ve been made in good faith; can also have a reasonable mistake in good faith.

What does People v. Snyder elucidate?

specific intent v. strict liability so mistake of fact is off the table 

People v. Snyder (who wins, statute, phrase that pays, facts, points of analysis remem)?

• Who won: the people 

• What's the statute: "any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the state of CA who owns or has in his/her possession or under his custody or control any pistol revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is guilty ofa public offense" 

• Phrase that pays: can't argue mens rea at all there is no intent in this statue at all  = Strict Liability  

  • You can't argue mistake at all here  

  • Mistake of fact: wrong about something in the world. 

    • Not strict liability  

  • Mistake of law: wrong about what the law means 

    • Not a defense  

    • Ex: I didn't know murder was illegal –you are expected know the law and it applies to everyone 

    • In this case the court says that your mistake of whether had misdemeanor or not is a mistake of law