Difference between revisions of "Mens Rea (Culpable Mental State)"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Background==
 
==Background==
"Mens Rea", Latin for the term "guilty mind", is the legal requirement that a defendant must have some required mental state before she can be found guilty of a crime.
+
"Mens Rea", Latin for the term "guilty mind", is the legal requirement that a defendant must have some required mental state before she can be found guilty of a crime. There must also be a concurrence between the state of mind and the [[Actus Reus]]. Concurrence has been defined as
  
 
 
==Knowledge==
 
==Knowledge==
 
==Intent==
 
==Intent==

Revision as of 21:01, 15 June 2010

Background

"Mens Rea", Latin for the term "guilty mind", is the legal requirement that a defendant must have some required mental state before she can be found guilty of a crime. There must also be a concurrence between the state of mind and the Actus Reus. Concurrence has been defined as

Knowledge

Intent

Recklessness

Negligence

Strict Liability Crimes

In certain cases, the legislature has decided that no mental state is required to prove a crime. The prosecution is not required to prove any mental state at all. These are called strict liability crimes. Often these are minor offenses, offense involving public safety or regulated industries. The most common strict liability crimes in the United States include parking tickets, sale of alcohol to a minor and statutory rape. Some academics have distinguished strict liability crimes by arguing that these are often Malum Prohibitum (wrong because they are prohibited) but not Malum In Se (wrong in itself). Statutory rape, however, is the one crime that does not fit this distinction very well. In that case, the legislature has made a policy decision to eliminate a burden of proof on the prosecution, making the crime easier to prosecute. The Model Penal Code restricts strict liability crimes to violations and statutory rape of a girl under the age of ten.

Transferred Intent

A defendant who acts with an intent to kill individual A but accidentally kills individual B may still be found guilty of murder with intent to kill under the theory of transferred intent. This doctrine is also explained as "intent follows the bullet". The defendant may not even have to be aware the actual victim existed. Thus, the doctrine typically applies when a defendant fires a weapon at an intended victim and that bullet penetrates a nearby apartment, killing an actual victim. Transferred intent will generally apply to any case in which the required state of mind is either intent or knowledge. However, if the crime is committed with recklessless or negligence, the doctrine is not as clearly established. In these cases, the defense should argue that the doctrine either does not apply, or that a close connection between the intended and actual victim should be proven by the prosecution.