Chapter 4: Mens Rea (causation & concurrence)
Principle of mens rea—the mental element (criminal intent) that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (in almost all criminal cases)
Various, complex, and differing definitions and interpretations of mens rea (i.e., state, courts, legislatures)
Mens rea consists of 4 types of criminal intent (differing degrees of culpability)
Different kind of intent might apply to various elements of a specific crime (i.e., actus reus, causation, specific harm)
***Proving mens rea can be/often is especially problematic for prosecutors
--we cannot “see” intent
--proof of intent normally depends on indirect (circumstantial evidence)…action (actus reus) is the most typical type of indirect evidence
4 kinds
1) general intent—applies to crimes of criminal conduct—essentially it means “the intent to commit a crime”
2) specific intent—applies to crimes of criminal conduct resulting in a criminal harm—so, in addition to a general intent (to commit a crime) there is also “the intent to cause a particular result” (i.e., a death)
3) transferred intent—applies to cases in which individuals intend to harm one person but instead harm another (aka…“bad aim intent”); transfer of intent occurs in other types of crimes as well (arson…burning down the wrong person’s house); BUT, generally, intent can ONLY be transferred to similar crimes (i.e., intent to assault cannot transfer to intent to cause property damage)
4) constructive intent—applies to cases where individuals cause harms greater than they intended or expected
So, according to these different kinds of intent, the Model Penal Code (MPC) has defined 4 levels of intent that differ in terms of culpability:
Purpose (most culpable)
Knowledge
Recklessness
Negligence (least culpable)
1) PURPOSE—it is the person’s conscious objective to engage in criminal conduct or to cause a criminal harm
FIRST CASE: State v. Stark
Facts: HIV exposure assault cases
(having unprotected sex with individuals without informing them of HIV-positive status)
Courts: defendant convicted on all accounts and all convictions upheld, however, remanded for re-sentencing as the Court did not think the sentence appropriate (sentenced outside the guidelines)
Issue: Inferred specific intent to inflict bodily harm b/c of witness testimony and engagement (or attempted) in physical activity he was cautioned against performing
SECOND CASE: Commonwealth v. Barnette
Facts: Ethnic intimidation case…was the assault for the purpose of intimidating persons of different ethnicity (Mexican)?
Defendant convicted and the appellate court, based on testimonial evidence and the specific anti-Mexican sentiments expressed by the defendant, affirmed the conviction
2) KNOWLEDGE—a person acts knowingly when he/she is aware that his/her conduct is of that nature (crime of criminal conduct) or he/she is aware that it is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result
***You can know that you are acting a certain way (i.e., illegally) or causing a harm without doing it on purpose (without the conscious objective of causing the harm)
CASE: State v. Barnes
Facts: A fight at a wine festival…leading to serious injury of a security guard attempting to remove drunken individuals from the festival
Question is…did the defendant (one of the festival attendees) knowingly cause injury to the security guard with the intention of a specific result, i.e., serious bodily injury?
STATUTE: 2nd degree assault: intentionally or knowingly causing serious physical injury to another
Appellate Court reversed the conviction
3) RECKLESSNESS—(conscious risk creation)—a person acts recklessly when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his/her conduct….in other words: he/she is aware of that risk that his/her conduct might be criminal or might cause a particular result
***Risk has to be substantial and unjustifiable (not ordinary)
4) NEGLIGENCE—A person acts negligently when he/she should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his/her conduct….in other words: he/she should be aware of a risk that his/her behavior might cause a particular result
CASE: Koppersmith v. State
Facts: killed his wife—pushing her off the porch—recklessly or negligently, unaware?; his intent or disregard of substantial risk
Charged with reckless homicide (aware of the risk of his wife’s death, but disregarded the risk); defendant argued for a charge of negligent homicide (should have been aware of the risk, but was not); Appellate Court agreed and remanded for a new trial
STRICT LIABILITY (liability w/out mens rea)
--NO requirement of intent (at any level); prosecutor only has to prove that the defendant committed a voluntary act that caused harm
--Supreme Court has upheld strict liability offenses (to protect public health and safety) as long as it is made clear that criminal liability is imposed without mens rea in these types of cases
CASE: State v. Loge
Facts: Defendant borrowed his dad’s truck to go to work, on his way home he was pulled over for speeding; there was an open bottle of intoxicating liquor in the car; defendant convicted of misdemeanor
Courts held that proof of knowledge that the opened bottle was in the truck was NOT required (strict liability/absolute liability); essentially, its up to a driver to make certain that there is nothing in the car that should not be there.
Dissent: there was no clear statement in the statute that there is no mens rea requirement for the offense; there was only the absence of the word: knowingly.
PRINCIPLE OF CONCURRENCE
Crimes of criminal conduct—mens rea (intention) triggers the actus reus (criminal act)
Crimes of criminal conduct causing criminal harm—criminal conduct (above) triggers/causes/produces or results in the criminal harm (the harm itself cannot be an accident or coincidence)
PRINCIPLE OF CAUSATION
***Applies only to crimes of criminal conduct causing a criminal harm
***In practice, this principle is usually applied in cases of criminal homicide and other crimes of bodily harm
2 Types of Causation (BOTH have to be proven!)
1) Factual cause (aka, “but for” or “except for” cause)
the defendant triggered the events that eventually hurt or killed the victim…
So, “but for” or “except for” the defendant’s triggering act, the victim would not have been hurt or killed
2) Legal cause (aka proximate cause)
deals primarily with the answer to this question, “Is it fair to blame the defendant for this injury or death?” OR…were there other intervening causes that do not make it fair or just to punish the defendant?
Intervening cause is typically something else, in addition to the defendant’s act, that cause the resulting harm.
4 Sources of intervening acts:
1) victim’s acts
2) defendant’s acts
3) someone besides victim or defendant
4) nonhuman (natural) source
2 Types of intervening acts:
1) coincidental—these are acts, by defendants, that “merely put the victim in a certain place at a certain time” that makes it possible for the intervening act to then harm or kill the victim
***Generally, coincidences break the chain of causality or legal cause (the defendant would not usually be held liable)
2) responsive—these are reactions to the condition created by the defendant’s triggering acts. Normally, these intervening acts do not break the chain of legal cause (the defendant is still held liable for the result)
CASE: People v. Armitage
Facts: defendant and victim (friend) were drunk and messing around on the defendant’s boat, defendant flipped the boat, he made it and his friend drowned while attempting to swim ashore; defendant convicted of felony drunk boating causing death
Defendant appealed and argued that his behavior was not the proximate cause of his friend’s death; he argued that there was an intervening factor (the victim’s decision to let go of the overturned boat and attempt to swim to shore) that was the break in the causal chain…
Court reasoned that the victim’s attempt to swim to safety was a foreseeable and normal act…which does NOT relieve the defendant’s responsibility…conviction affirmed!