crim law: feb 8 class notes

nature of mens rea.

actus reus elements related to mental state: the complicated part of actus reus is how they apply to the mens rea.
actus reus elements: conduct, result, attendant circumstances
MPC homicide: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causing the death of another human being.
for there to be a crime, there must be a voluntary act (that's a given). actus reus instead is the elements.
actus reus: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently (mens rea) causing the death (actus reus - result) of another human being (actus reus - attendant circumstances)


example.
burglary: breaking and entering (actus reus - house) a dwelling house (actus reus - attendant circumstances) of another (actus reus - attendant circumstances) at night (actus reus - attendant circumstances) with the intent to commit a felony inside (mens rea)

not so important what you call the element, so long as you identify it as an element of the legal analysis.
the challenge is determining if the mental state only apply to the conduct or also to the intent of the attendant circumstances.

20 questions on mens rea readings... 

regina v. cunningham. also, see these brief notes.
unlawfully -
maliciously - mens rea
administer -
by another person -
any poison/ noxious thing -
thereby to endanger

common law mental states
"culpability" concept of mens rea:
immoral state of mind, general "wickedness"
malicious for this purpose means wicked - something which he had no business to do and perfectly well knows it."
result: cunningham was guilty of poisoning (even if his intent was only to steal)

the appellate court takes this case on as a matter of law - what does malice mean?
was the j
"elemental" conception of mens rea:
specifically defined state of mind
the court is recognizing a changing in law...
"malice" requires "either (i) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done, or (ii) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e., the accused has foreseen that the particular harm might be done, and yet has gone on to take the risk of it)."
n.b. -- cannot say *probably/should have known* because that establishes an out because doesn't assert intent

common law mental states (to be compared with penal law mental states later)
general intent (most difficult area to establish mens rea)

• battery: the unlawful application of force to another resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.

malice 

• arson: the malicious burning of another's dwelling... 
• "the defendant acts intentionally or with reckless disregard of an obvious or known risk"
• murder: killing someone with malice of forethought

specific intent (specific mental requirement/ conduct objective that the defendant must have to be culpable)

• burglary: breaking and entering the dwelling of a another at night with the intent to commit a felony inside.
• larceny 

strict liability (no mental state required)

• statutory rape: sex with someone under the age of consent.

utilitarian --> need mens rea to be deterrable. intent is.
retributive --> need mens rea to be culpable. intent is. negligence

people v. conley.
conley was at a big high school party where there was unlimited beer. he went with a group of friends, including sean, who got injured. at some point, there was some kind of bruhaha, and sean and his friends left. when they were leaving the party, a group of people going towards the party, shouted after them. conley came out of the group and approached them - marty specifically - and demanded beer. marty wouldn't give it to him,

common law mental states

problem:
problem: hunter has intent to kill birds, and that is unlawful hunting. he instead hits another hunter and kills him. NOT TRANSFERRED INTENT. may be a reckless homicide, but will not transfer the culpability of murder.

causes: great bodily harm or permanent disability or permanent disfigurement

people v. navarro
california penal codes essentially just codify the common law rules.
navarro took some wooden beams from a construction site. he was charged with violation of penal code and convicted of petty theft
"every person who shall feloniously steal the personal property of another is guilty of theft"
what does feloniously stealing mean?
cali defines as common law definition of larceny - "trespassory (attendant circ) taking and carrying away (attendant circ) of personal property of another (attendant circ) with intent to steal (specific intent)"

is navarro's mistake a defense? 

defendant A (refused by court): navarro contends that he believed in good faith that the property was abandoned. NO INTENT. prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
defendant B (refused): good faith belief that the defendant had permission to take the property then NOT THEFT.

modified jury instructions A: *reasonable* and good faith belief that the property had been abandoned or discarded, NOT THEFT
modified B:

should narvarro be acquited if there's reasonable doubt that he had good faith? what does good faith mean? "honest"

see wetmore: SC reviewed erroneous refusal to consider the evidence that because of a mental illness the defendant could not have intent to commit burglary as defined.
see devine: when felonious intent must be proven it can be done only by proving what the accused knew -- can't steal what you think you have a right to.
here, the defendant belived that the beams were bandoned and so he lacked intent to deprive the owner of his rightful property.

the proper rule of this case: "if no specific intent or other special mental element is required for guilt of the offense charged, a mistake of fact will not be recognized as an excuse unless it was based on reasonable grounds... one does not commit theft by carrying away someone else's chattel in the mistaken belief it was his own."

common law rule of mistake:
a) for a general intent element, only a reasonable mistake is a defense
b) for a specific intent element, any mistake (even if unreasonable) is a defense

because theft is a specific intent crime, navarro's defense is (b): for a specific intent crime,

navarro should be convicted if his belief was not reasonable --> incorrect instruction
the correct instruction was "if navarro didn't

common law battery "the unlawful application of force to another resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching."
statutory battery (conley) "a person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual"

problem dean simons pats a female colleague on the butt for a job well done. she is offended. dean did it in mistake. battery is a general intent crime. under common law (yes - battery) under illinois stat (no - not intentionally or knowingly)

do class #8 hypo problems.