Chapter 5
Mental State






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


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.


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.





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 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.






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.




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.




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.



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.





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.


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


Justification – Illegality of Act


Excuse – Guilt of Actor
Dudley & Stephens



Actus rea
Mens rea
Justification v. Excuse




Actus reas + mens rea = criminal conduct.
Offense elements
Types of Defenses



Burden of Proof

Patterson v. NY
Presumptions

People v. Leyva
Acts v. Thoughts



Act v. Status

People v. Davis
Voluntary v. Involuntary

State v. Tippets
Omissions




General rule
State v. Miranda

Exceptions (4)
Kuntz v. Montana

Exception (1)

Dominion/Control

Simple v. Compound

People v. Lee

Actual v. Constructive

People v. Rivera

People v. Valot

Sole v. Joint

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


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.

Problem 2:
Under what circumstances is a person said to act recklessly?
a.
Knowing that the criminally proscribed result is practically certain to occur b.
When he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. c.
d.
When there is an intent to bring about the criminally proscribed result
Reasonable person would foresee a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

Problem 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.

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.

Problem 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.