crim law_final outline_k8 - Topic Common Law MPC or Modern...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Common Law MPC or Modern Approach Differences/ Distinguishing things/ other notes Mens Rea “guilty mind” One of the four essential elements of a crime [actus reus, mens rea, causation concurrence] Cite: Robinson v. Cali [page 324] Statute made it illegal to be addicted to narcotics; addiction is involuntary; does not meet mens rea req, D found not guilty. (prohibition against status crimes; 8th A) COMPARE: Strict liability: “No intent” crime Strict liability and public welfare offenses are the exceptions to the Mens Rea Requirement. Cite: Morissette v. US Took scrap metal off govt land case. 1) it is D’s conscious object or purpose to engage in certain conduct or produce certain result. 2) D knows with virtual certainty that actions will cause the result. *prof indicates CL mens rea will not be on exam MPC: [D must act with one of these states of mind to each material element of the offense] Purposely: (Intentionally) conscious object to engage in conduct & cause the results. D is aware or hopes or believes that circumstances exist. [desire for a certain outcome] Knowingly: aware that a certain result of conduct is virtually certain although does not wish to cause it. [indifference to a certain outcome] Recklessly: conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that material element exists or will result from conduct. Gross deviation from RP actions. [depraved heart thing] Negligently: D should have been aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk; D’s actions are a gross deviation from RP conduct. [should have known, but didn’t, you idiot.] - MPC splits intentionally into purposely and knowingly - MPC clearly distinguishes between neg and reck based not on actual risk involved but on D’s knowledge of the risk. If a statute replaces a CL crime, but forgets to include mens rea, modern courts will often go back and insert mens rea into decisions. Cite: State v. Rocker The Hawaii case, nude sunbathing one. Note that in light of defenses there are two possible burdens of proof: case-in-chief defense, meant to negate a necessary element. Once asserted, prosecution must disprove BRD. affirmative defense: D has burden to prove (burden less than BRD) Willful Blindness Cite: State v. Carson Note case, page 28. D only has to be aware of probable existence of material element of offense. If there is a HIGH probability that the D avoided knowledge of criminality of conduct, then the D satisfies Mens Rea requirement of knowingly. Specific v. General Intent: applies to mens rea element; defined General intent: volitional doing of a prohibited act. Intent to commit MPC does not distinguish between specific and general - this is specifically a CL issue. Katherine Mohr
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/30/2008 for the course CRIMINAL L 101 taught by Professor Sm during the Fall '08 term at Florida Coastal School of Law.

Page1 / 17

crim law_final outline_k8 - Topic Common Law MPC or Modern...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online