CRIMINAL LAWSUMMER 2011TA SESSION NOTES

Chapter 5

Mental State

MODES OF CULPABILITY

Specific Intent Purposely Knowingly

General Intent Recklessly Negligently

Strict Liability

IN THE MATTER OF RONNIE L. VOLUNTARINESS V. MENTAL STATES

Juvenile Ronnie L. was charged with criminally possessing a loaded handgun in the 3rd degree.

Strict liability offense – does not matter if he “knowingly” possessed the drugs. No mental state required

Statute: “Voluntary act” as awareness of possession or control thereof for sufficient time to terminate Defendant had “awareness” of the “object”:

Statement – “not mine” Weight of the object in pocket

Voluntary act is being aware of possession

WILLFUL IGNORANCE AND CONSCIOUS AVOIDANCE

Pg. 310 Having a conscious purpose to disregard or avoid

learning the truth. E.g. A mother’s son brings home a new car and

other lavish gifts despite not having any legal means of income. The mother does not ask questions as to where the money comes from for these expensive gifts. If son is found to be a drug dealer and ultimately charged. The mother could also be charged with willful ignorance.

“Ostrich” – Judge informs jury that if person ignored what they saw then they are deemed to have knowledge.

CONCURRENCE

Requires a union or joint operation between actus reus and mens rea

Act and mental state must concur. Criminal conduct and criminal intent must

concur. Must concur in time and by offense.

REGINA V. FAULKNERCONCURRENCE

D was convicted for setting fire to a ship on the high seas (arson).

State required act to be done intentionally and willfully OR recklessly.

Setting fire to the ship was accidental. Conviction was reversed because the jury

was given a mandatory instruction directing them to find D guilty even though fire was accidental.

MISTAKE

Mistake of fact is not a defense in a strict liability offense.

Can be used as a defense if it negates the mental state that is a material element of the offense. MPC: “Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or

law is a defense if the ignorance or mistake negates the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense.”

Mistake of law is no defense to criminal conduct. EXCEPT: If not known to the actor AND has not

been published or reasonably made available.

UNITED STATES V. BAKERMISTAKE

D was convicted of trafficking in counterfeit goods

D admits knowing that the “Rolex” watches that he sold were counterfeit.

Statute – Knowingly use counterfeit mark. D argued he had no knowledge his conduct

was criminal. IGNORANCE of the law is no DEFENSE.

COMMONWEALTH V. DOANE

D was tried for stealing property from a shipment that he helped unload.

D wanted to offer evidence (inadmissible) that it was a custom to take a small part of the cargo.

It was also inadmissible evidence that others had committed the same offense.

Such a custom was neither a legal custom nor a legal defense.

LAMBERT V. CALIFORNIA

D was convicted of violating a L.A. ordinance requiring any “convicted person” to register with the police within 5 days of arriving in the city.

Court held that “ignorance of the law will not excuse” a wrongdoer.

Due process requires notice of duty to register. Due process requires actual knowledge or proof

of the probability of knowledge of duty to register and subsequent failure to register as necessary elements for a valid conviction.

INTOXICATION

Voluntary intoxication is NO DEFENSE to a crime.

Voluntary intoxication can negate intent element of a crime, even if it can not excuse conduct that is otherwise criminal. Specific Intent Only

No defense to STRICT LIABILITY offense. Drunkenness is no excuse for criminal

conduct.

STATE V. CAMERONINTOXICATION

Voluntary intoxication is admissible to disprove the requisite mental state of a “purposely” or “knowingly” act.

Intoxication is a defense to a “specific intent” (purposely or knowingly) crime, but not to one involving “general intent” (reckless or criminal negligence).

To qualify as a defense, intoxication must be extremely high.

RULE: Intoxication must be to the level of “prostration of the faculties” such that D was rendered incapable of forming an intent. D must be completely incapacitated or to the

point of extreme exhaustion.

REVIEW

CHAPTER 1 & 2

Traditional Rationales

Modes of Punishment: How to Punish

Collateral Effects of Punishment

Role of Victims What is Punishment?

Kansas v. Hendricks What to Punish?

Overview of Criminal Procedure

CHAPTER 3

Justification – Illegality of Act Excuse – Guilt of Actor Dudley & Stephens

Actus rea Mens rea Justification v. Excuse

CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 5

Modes of Culpability In the Matter of Ronnie L. Willful Ignorance & Conscious Avoidance Concurrence Regina v. Faulkner Mistake Intoxication

State v. Cameron

A LITTLE PRACTICE

Problem 1: Bert intends to murder Ernie. Is Bert subject to criminal liability for his intent alone?

Answer: NO. Intent is a state of mind and, with nothing more, it is not criminal.

A LITTLE PRACTICE

Problem 2:Under what circumstances is a person said to

act recklessly?a. Knowing that the criminally proscribed result

is practically certain to occurb. When he consciously disregards a substantial

and unjustifiable risk. c. When there is an intent to bring about the

criminally proscribed resultd. Reasonable person would foresee a

substantial and unjustifiable risk.

A LITTLE PRACTICEProblem 3:Brian, a champion swimmer, is lounging on a

riverbank, reading John Stuart Mill’s autobiography. Stewie, Brian’s sworn enemy, strolls up, in his swim trunks, and goes for a dip in the river. In fact the water is deeper than Stewie expected, and he begins to drown. Brian looks up from his book, ad watches, laughing, as Stewie drowns. When Stewie goes down for the last time, Brian sighs, and says: “Oh well. Back to the Mill.” Could Brian be liable for Stewie’s death?

Answer: No, because he was under no duty to act. Brian’s intense dislike for Stewie is irrelevant, since bad thoughts alone are not punishable.

A LITTLE PRACTICE

Problem 4:Peter and Lois Griffin, husband and wife, are

ice skating on Golden Pond, when Peter falls through the ice. Lois skates away knowing that no one else is close enough to save him. Is Lois guilty of murder?

Answer: Yes, because she omitted to act where she had a legal duty (husband-wife relationship), she was apparently able to help, and her intentional omission proximately caused Peter’s death.

A LITTLE PRACTICEProblem 5:Mary Jane buys what she believes is a dime bag of

Marijuana from a notorious pimp. In fact, the bag contains oregano. Mary Jane is arrested under a statute proscribing the knowing possession of narcotics. Does the fact that the substance was oregano mean that Mary Jane has not committed the physical act of possession? (For the purposes of this question, ignore the mental state).

Answer: No. Mary Jane satisfies the act requirement of the crime because of her conscious possession; this requires knowledge of the mere physical object itself, but not the specific quality or properties of the object.