1. The General Principles of Criminal Liability Going beyond actus rea

2. Culpability “Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.” For the most serious crimes the law requires blameworthiness – that the offender deserves to be punished Mens rea – evil state of mind But culpable states of mind can vary First established in the English Common Law

3. The MPC’s four states of mind Purposely – we tried to achieve the harm Knowingly – we knew this would happen Recklessly – we didn’t care Negligently – we should have known better

4. Mens Rea – a “mind bent on moral wrongdoing” Dating back to Plato But it wasn’t until the Middle Ages that the law seemed to consider intent with respect to guilt and then punishment By the mid-19 th Century, “an act and evil intent must combine to constitute a crime”

5. Mens rea today Judge/scholar Jack Weinstein stated in US v Cordoba-Hincapie: “Western civilized nations have long looked to the wrongdoer’s mind to determine both the propriety and the grading of punishment”

6. But it’s not that that simple How do you prove mens rea? What does it exactly mean? – great variation from state to state Differing levels of “intent”. – from purposely to negligently All this worked through guilty beyond a reasonable doubt And then, what about motive?

7. Motive – what causes someone to act A big deal in cop shows on TV, but always in real life. Does it really matter? Not always, but sometimes it’s essential to establishing intent. Can soften or enhance severity of punishment. Also, crucial in some defenses – necessity.

8. Differing types of Criminal Intent Subjective fault – accused had a “bad mind” often framed in moral terms “depravity” or “wicked heart” Objective fault – no need to prove the accused had any kind of evil or bad intent Accused should have known better. Strict liability – no type of fault is needed, if you did it, for whatever reason, trouble.

9. General or Specific Intent General intent – the intent to commit the criminal act forbidden by statute Satisfies the actus rea requirement Specific intent – requires that you have general intent plus the specific intent to cause a criminally harmful result Usually applies only to core felonies

10. Back to the MPC – Levels of Culpability Created to move from moral to behavioral terminology Required years of drafts, debate, revisions, and more debate From most to least blameworthy: 1) purposely 2) knowingly 3) recklessly 4) negligently

11. Purposely Intentionally trying to commit a crime or cause a criminal outcome The most blameworthy mental state Must be proven for serious offenses like burglary or first degree murder State v Stark

12. Knowingly Accused are aware or practically certain that their action(s) are criminal or will cause a bad result Does not require that the accused has the “conscious object” of committing a crime Can be very difficult to distinguish from recklessly

13. Recklessly Accused appreciate that their conduct has “substantial and unjustifiable risks” but don’t intend that a bad outcome might result Maybe they just don’t care Don’t know that harm is likely to follow Risk must be unjustifiable Also, under the MPC, risk must objectively vary from societal “standards”

14. Negligently Creating risks without any conscious awareness Objective test – should the accused have known that their conduct was unreasonable Tough line to draw – Koppersmith

15. Strict Liability For many minor crimes, you can be criminally liable without any type of fault State only has to prove a voluntary action Why? 1) public policy – protects us in the industrial age 2) penalties are relatively minor – fines, not jail But aren’t we forgetting the moral foundation of the criminal law – blameworthyness?

16. Concurrence Their must be a connection between the necessary mental state and the conduct or result Mens rea must trigger the actus reus Law doesn’t punish coincidences Does not apply to strict liability crimes Rarely, if ever, an issue in the “real world”

17. Causation Holding someone responsible for the results of their conduct Applies only to result crimes – homicide, destruction of property through arson, etc. Must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

18. Two Types of Causation Both must be proven Factual causation – also known as “but for” causation “But for the defendant’s actions, the criminal result would not have occurred” Objective question of fact – usually easy to do Necessary but not sufficient

19. Legal or “Proximate” Cause Sure the accused’s action set in motion a chain of events that led to the criminal result – but is it fair to punish them? Was the conduct too far removed from the result? What if there was an intervening cause? Can be very difficult to determine. State v Bauer

20. Failure of Proof Defenses Ignorance of Law – won’t work Ignorance maxim – presumed that everyone knows the law, even though it may not be true

21. Mistake of Fact Sometimes a mistake of fact can work as a defense Only if the mistake prevents having the necessary mens rea

22. The MPC weighs in The MPC has codified mistake defenses Very influential, even in states which have not enacted the MPC In essence, the MPC provides that a mistake of fact can help if it prevents forming the mens rea necessary for the relevant crime But, of course, no type of ignorance defense will work for strict liability crimes

23. Morality and Ignorance of the Law The criminal law loses its power if it lacks the respect of those it governs And if they don’t respect it, they won’t obey it Respect only comes if the law’s procedures are perceived to be fair Is it fair to punish for breaking laws we didn’t know about? After all, there are 1000’s of them, many obscure

24. Should we ignore ignorance? People view this through the prism of morality. If the breaking the law was viewed as immoral, ignorance was no excuse However, if the law was violated by an “ignorant” actor in the context of a moral or neutral action, the defense was viewed as valid and/or the sentence was lessened