November 5 Notes and Briefs - November 6 2008 Chapter 5...

November 6, 2008
Chapter 5
Mens Rea
A. Nature of Mens Rea
US v. Cordoba-Hincapie US District Court E.D. NY, 1993
• Mens rea means a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent
• An act does not make the doer of it guilty, unless the mind be guilty; that is, unless the intent be
criminal.
• Elemental mens rea of the crime: look specifically to the definition of the crime to look for the
mens rea, look for adverbs
Regina v. Cunningham Court of Criminal Appeal, 1957
Law: Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or take
by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life
of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of
felony.
Facts: S is the mother in law of C. They were going to the be the tenants of the house beside S. On Jan
17, C went to the cellar of the house and wrenched the gas meter from the gas pipes and stole it. C did
not turn off the gas and some seeped in the room where S was sleeping.
Reasoning: It should have been left to the jury to decide whether C intended to injure S.
Issue: Did C have intent?
Procedure: C was convicted on an indictment framed under section 23 of the Offences against the
Person Act, which charged that eh unlawfully and maliciously caused to be taken by Sarah Wade a
certain noxious thing, namely coal gas, so as thereby to endanger the life of the said S.
Holding: Allow the appeal and quash the conviction.
Notes from the Case:
• Instruct on mens rea, we need something more specific then a wicked state of mind because it’s
not a crime to think bad thoughts, you need a specific thought to be guilty.
B. General Issues in Proving Culpability
1. Intent
People v. Conley Illinois Appellate Court, 1989
Law: A person who in committing a battery intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, or
permanent disability or disfigurement commits aggravated battery.
Facts: S’s group was confronted and him and his friends left the party. A group of people were
walking towards the party and pointed out S and his friends. C asked M for his beer and M refused. C
took a wine bottle and knocked S in his face. S has a permanent condition called mucosal moth and

permanent partial numbness in one lip. C says that the court failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that he intended to inflict permanent disability.
Reasoning: The problems of proof are alleviated by the ordinary presumption that one intends the
natural and probably consequences of his action. Intent can be inferred from the surrounding
circumstances the offender’s words the weapon used, and the force of the blow.
Issue: Can intent be proved?