J

CL Ch 5 PDF

Chapter Overview

  • Title: Contemporary Criminal Law, 6th Edition

  • Focus: Mens Rea, Concurrence, Causation

Introduction

  • Actus reus and mens rea must have concurrence.

  • Contemporary justice is limited to legally and morally blameworthy acts.

Mens Rea Overview (1 of 6)

  • Definition: "No crime without an evil mind."

  • Meaning of Mens Rea: Represents a guilty mind or intent.

  • Related term: Scinter: denotes guilty knowledge.

Historical Context of Mens Rea (2 of 6)

  • Religious Law's Influence: Introduced the concept of moral blameworthiness.

  • Key principles:

    • Responsibility

    • Deterrence

    • Punishment

Evidentiary Burden (3 of 6)

  • Requirement: Mens rea must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court.

  • Case Reference: People v. Conley

  • Circumstantial Evidence: Used to indirectly support claims of criminal intent or act.

The Model Penal Code Standard (4 of 6)

  • Classifications: Common law mens rea categories include:

    • General intent

    • Specific intent

Additional Intent Categories (5 of 6)

  • Other intent categories include:

    • Transferred intent: The intent is transferred if a person intends to harm one individual but inadvertently harms another.

    • Constructive intent: Implied intent based on the outcome of an act.

Descending Order of Culpability (6 of 6)

  • Hierarchy of Mens Rea:

    • Purposely

    • Knowingly

    • Recklessly

    • Negligently

Purposely (1 of 2)

  • Severity Level: Most serious category of criminal intent - characterized by deliberate actions.

  • Focus: Specific intent to commit a crime.

  • Case Reference: State v. Sanborn

Transferred Intent (2 of 2)

  • Historical origin: Developed in 1575 England.

  • Primarily applicable in cases of homicide and battery.

  • Case Reference: People v. Scott states, "intent follows bullet."

  • Emphasizes individual accountability.

Knowingly

  • An individual is aware of the circumstances or the outcomes that are practically certain to occur.

  • Case References: United States v. Haupt and State v. Fuelling

Recklessly (1 of 3)

  • Defined by engagement in risky behavior without expectation of causing harm.

  • Not as blameworthy compared to purposely or knowingly acting individuals.

Recklessness Criteria (2 of 3)

  • Model Penal Code Test:

    • Involves conscious disregard for a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

    • Deviates from the standard of a law-abiding person.

: Relevant Case Law (3 of 3)

  • Case References: Include Durkovitz v. State and Williams v. State

Negligently

  • Involves conduct that is harmful or dangerous while the person is unaware of reasonable risks.

  • Defined by two aspects: Mental orientation and an objective standard.

  • Case References: Tello v. State and People v. Stanfield

Strict Liability Overview (1 of 5)

  • Definition of Strict Liability: Offenses that do not require mens rea.

  • Differentiates between: Mala prohibita (wrong because it is prohibited) vs. Mala in se (wrong in itself).

Characteristics of Strict Liability (2 of 5)

  • Key factors for determining strict liability offenses include:

    • Not classified as common law crimes.

    • Poses a danger to public safety.

    • The risk of conviction is outweighed by the need to prevent social harm.

Further Factors of Strict Liability (3 of 5)

  • Additional factors include:

    • Minor penalties involved.

    • Conviction does not adversely affect reputation.

    • Laws generally do not infringe on personal rights.

    • Aimed at acts typically avoided by the public.

Social Implications (4 of 5)

  • Strict liability laws serve to prevent unqualified individuals from engaging in dangerous acts.

  • A growing trend toward strict liability in non-public-welfare offenses.

Legal Cases Concerning Strict Liability (5 of 5)

  • Case References: Staples v. United States, State v. Pinkham

  • Model Penal Code: Limits strict liability crimes to "violations" only punishable by civil penalties.

Concurrence

  • Definition: Criminal intent (mens rea) must coincide with the criminal act (actus reus) at the time of occurrence.

  • Legal Reference: California Penal Code.

Causation Overview (1 of 7)

  • Central to criminal law; must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Focuses on individual responsibility and fairness.

Cause in Fact (2 of 7)

  • Defined as 'factual cause' - asks, "But for the defendant’s act, what would have happened?"

Legal or Proximate Cause (3 of 7)

  • Refers to legal responsibility that may be influenced by outside factors (intervening causes).

Categories of Intervening Causes (4 of 7)

  • Broadly categorized into:

    • Coincidental intervening acts

    • Responsive intervening acts

Coincidental Intervening Acts (5 of 7)

  • Generally, the defendant is not responsible for unforeseeable coincidental intervening acts but may be held accountable for foreseeable acts.

  • Case References: United States v. Main and Kibbe v. Henderson

Responsive Intervening Acts (6 of 7)

  • Accountability is often based on the foreseeability of the victim's response to a harmful act.

  • The defendant is liable for natural and probable consequences, focusing on foreseeability rather than reasonableness.

Key Cases Concerning Responsive Acts (7 of 7)

  • Case References: Include People v. Armitage, People v. Schmies, People v. Saavedra-Rodriguez, United States v. Hamilton, and State v. Pelham.