recap.
mistake
a) for general intent element, only a reasonable mistake can be defense.
b) for a specific intent element, any mistake (even unreasonable) is a defense.
common law burglary is breaking and entering (remember, larceny is not breaking into a dwelling) ----> c
the dwelling of another house ---> attendant circumstances
tof another ---> attendant circumstances
at night ---> attendant circumstances
with the intent to commit a felony therein ---> specific intent
problems.
a) adams breaks into a building at night believing it to be a warehouse and looking for something to steal. but adams is mistaken. the building is in fact an artists' loft where vincent lives. adams steals vincent's laptop.
mens rea: burglary of a non-dwelling
actus reus: burglary of a dwelling
b) baker's laptop has been stolen, and baker thinks vincent did it. so baker breaks into vincent's loft at night, and takes what baker believes is his own laptop. but baker is mistaken. vincent hadn't stolen baker's laptop and the laptop baker "took back" is in fact vincent's.
mens rea: trespassing
actus reus: burglary
if we're going to distinguish culpability, we'll do it by what they were thinking: adams thought he was burgluring a store, and baker thought he was recovering his chattel.
how to analyze mistake: if what the defendant thought what he was doing was less serious than what he did ---> mistake.
what's adam's mistake? the premises being a dwelling instead of a store.
the dwelling of the house is an attendant circumstance, and so it is a general intent element and so it may be a defense only if it was a reasonable mistake to make. if the mistake is unreasonable, adams is guilty of burglary (i.e., mistake is no defense).
what's baker's mistake? the computer that he believed was his is not.
baker is mistaken about whether or not he is stealing. therefore, even if his mistake is unreasonable, he is not guilty because he is mistaken about the specific intent element.
what reasons are there for excluding mistake from specific intent? common law rule about mistake tends to perform like an on/off switch. adams is guilty, even though he didn't think he was committing something not as serious. baker is not guilty even though he knew he was doing something wrong (trespass).
moral wrong doctrine ("clean hands" approach).
legal wrong doctrine.
common law mental states in mistake: only a reasonable mistake will be a defense.
general intent ---> the defendant is aware of the act.
see definition of battery
n.b. update these with the slides from class
modal penal code approach (btw, this is the whole list).
general intent --> only a reasonable mistake will be a defense.
malice --> only a reasonable mistake will be a defense.
specific intent --> any mistake will be a defense.
problem.
jacob wants to kill his wife vanessa. he drove his car at a very high rate of speed into vanessa, who was holding xavier, their infant son. jacob hoped that xavier would survive the collision. the car struck vanessa and xavier, killing both instantly. according to MPC 2.02 with what mental state ("purposely", "knowingly", recklessly", or "negligently") did jacob kill vanessa?
PURPOSELY a person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:
i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and
ii) if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existance of such circumstances and believes or hopes that they exist.
with what mental state did he kill xavier?
KNOWINGLY a person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:
i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and
ii) ifthe element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.
culpability definitions.
mpc.
PURPOSELY subjective mental state. conscious object (for attendant circumstances, awareness)
KNOWINGLY subjective mental state.(for results, practically certain)
RECKLESSLY has a subjective (what was your intent) and objective (how reasonable is the risk) determination mental state. conscious disregards with substantial and unjustified risk
NEGLIGENTLY should be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk
nypl has four states defined as well, however PURPOSEFULLY becomes INTENTIONALLY.
nypl 15.02 and 15.05 -- know these suckers inside and out!!!!!
INTENTIONALLY
KNOWINGLY
RECKLESSLY
problem.
roberta despised modern architecture. she decided to burn down sam's modern residence. roberta did not want sam to die, whom she knew was inside, so she toassed salt over her shoulder immediately before she torced the residence. roberta genuinely believed this would protect sam. much to her surprise, sam was burned to death in the fire. with what mpc mental state did roberta kill sam?
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE: a person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. the risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
caveat discipuli para exam: don't inflate culpability after doing the analysis. think of regina v. cunningham --> if you want to argue recklessness, you must prove cunningham knew. if you want to prove negligence, you have to prove that he knew or should have known. but don't cross the paths.
mpc 2.02 (3) culpability required unless otherwise provided. when the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly, or recklessly with respect thereto.
problem.
"a person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he (a) inflicts serious bodily injury upon another" is toby guilty of robbery if, while committing a theft, he negligently inflicts serious bodily injury upon ursula? look carefully at section 2.02
toby is not culpabile because he is negligent. there are few statutes that will hold one to the criminal culpability, with the exception of negligent homicide which is a lesser felony.
nypl does not provide a default mens rea. the mental state is in the statute if the legislature wants it in the statute.
problem.
jacob wants to kill his wife vanessa. he drove his car at a very high rate of speed into vanessa, who was holding xavier, their infant son. jacob hoped that xavier would survive the collision. the car struck vanessa and xavier, killing xavier instantly. vanessa survived. according to MPC 2.02 with what mental state ("purposely", "knowingly", recklessly", or "negligently") did jacob kill xavier?
mpc 2.03
(2) when purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose or contemplation of the actor unless: (at this point, with purpose, the element is not established because jacob did not want xavier to die)
(a) the actual result (xavier's death) differs from that designed or contemplated (that vanessa would die) only in the respect that a different person or property was injured (which is what happened here, and so mpc 2.03(2)(a) TRANSFERS INTENT)
nypl does not have transferred intent. instead, see 125.25, murder in the second degree: transferred intent is written directly into the penal code statutes.
what does it mean to know something? how do we prove someone knew something?
see state v. nation
