CL Ch 5 PDF

Chapter Overview

• Title: Contemporary Criminal Law, 6th Edition

• Focus: Mens Rea, Concurrence, Causation

Page 1: Introduction

• Actus reus and mens rea must have concurrence.

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

Page 2: 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.

Page 3: Historical Context of Mens Rea (2 of 6)

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

• Key principles:

  • Responsibility

  • Deterrence

  • Punishment

Page 4: 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.

Page 5: The Model Penal Code Standard (4 of 6)

• Classifications: Common law mens rea categories include:

  • General intent

  • Specific intent

Page 6: 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.

Page 7: Descending Order of Culpability (6 of 6)

• Hierarchy of Mens Rea:

  • Purposely

  • Knowingly

  • Recklessly

  • Negligently

Page 8: 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

Page 9: 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.

Page 10: 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

Page 11: 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.

Page 12: 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.

Page 13: Relevant Case Law (3 of 3)

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

Page 14: 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

Page 15: 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).

Page 16: 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.

Page 17: 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.

Page 18: 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.

Page 19: 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.

Page 20: Concurrence

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

• Legal Reference: California Penal Code.

Page 21: Causation Overview (1 of 7)

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

• Focuses on individual responsibility and fairness.

Page 22: Cause in Fact (2 of 7)

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

Page 23: Legal or Proximate Cause (3 of 7)

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

Page 24: Categories of Intervening Causes (4 of 7)

• Broadly categorized into:

  • Coincidental intervening acts

  • Responsive intervening acts

Page 25: 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

Page 26: 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.

Page 27: 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.