Criminal Law Chapter 4 The General Principles of Criminal Liability: Mens Rea, Concurrence, and Causation Joel Samaha, 9th Ed.

Criminal LawCriminal Law

Chapter 4Chapter 4

The General Principles of Criminal The General Principles of Criminal Liability:Liability:

Mens Rea, Mens Rea, Concurrence, and CausationConcurrence, and Causation

Joel Samaha, 9th Ed.Joel Samaha, 9th Ed.

The Principle of The Principle of Mens ReaMens Rea

The “mental element,” “mental attitude” or “state of The “mental element,” “mental attitude” or “state of mind”mind”

““He who kills…without intent to kill should be He who kills…without intent to kill should be acquitted, because a crime is not committed unless acquitted, because a crime is not committed unless the intent to injure intervene; and the desire and the intent to injure intervene; and the desire and

purpose distinguish evildoing” purpose distinguish evildoing”

(Bracton, 1256, (Bracton, 1256, quoted inquoted in Sayre, 1932, 985). Sayre, 1932, 985).

““Western civilized nations have long looked to the Western civilized nations have long looked to the wrongdoer’s mind to determine both the propriety wrongdoer’s mind to determine both the propriety

and the grading of punishment”and the grading of punishment”

(U.s. v. Cordoba-Hincapie, 2001, 489).(U.s. v. Cordoba-Hincapie, 2001, 489).

The Complexity of The Complexity of Mens ReaMens Rea

Mens reaMens rea must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt

Mens reaMens rea is difficult to discover and prove in part due to vague is difficult to discover and prove in part due to vague and incomplete legislative definitions of the mental element.and incomplete legislative definitions of the mental element.

Confessions are the only direct evidence of mental attitude, Confessions are the only direct evidence of mental attitude, however, indirect circumstantial evidence is the norm most often however, indirect circumstantial evidence is the norm most often used.used.

Culpability = blameworthinessCulpability = blameworthiness

Intent in criminal law is more complex than the dictionary Intent in criminal law is more complex than the dictionary definition.definition.

There is a problem with the relationship between mental attitude There is a problem with the relationship between mental attitude and motive.and motive.

Different mental attitudes might apply to each of the elements of Different mental attitudes might apply to each of the elements of a crime.a crime.

Types of IntentTypes of Intent

GeneralGeneral Used commonly in cases to mean the intent to Used commonly in cases to mean the intent to

commit any criminal act defined as the commit any criminal act defined as the actus reusactus reus in a criminal statutein a criminal statute

SpecificSpecific Specific Intent Crimes are characterized by these Specific Intent Crimes are characterized by these

adjectives:adjectives: deliberate, intended, planneddeliberate, intended, planned

TransferredTransferred or Constructiveor Constructive

Criminal NegligenceCriminal Negligence

General IntentGeneral Intent

When prohibited or commanded by lawWhen prohibited or commanded by law

Often, by doing something intentionallyOften, by doing something intentionally

Some courts define general intent such that it is Some courts define general intent such that it is synonymous with synonymous with mens reamens rea, and includes both , and includes both subjective and objective faultssubjective and objective faults

““Inferred” from your actions or failure to actInferred” from your actions or failure to act

In In Commonwealth v. Gagne,Commonwealth v. Gagne, the court defined the court defined general intent as an “unconscious” action or a general intent as an “unconscious” action or a “reflex”“reflex”

Specific IntentSpecific Intent

A designated state of mind required to commit the A designated state of mind required to commit the particular crimeparticular crime

Usually outlined in the law or statute Usually outlined in the law or statute For example:For example:

With the intent to disfigureWith the intent to disfigure MayhemMayhem

With the intent to defraudWith the intent to defraud Embezzlement or forgeryEmbezzlement or forgery

With the intent to killWith the intent to kill Murder Murder

Usually limited to attitudes with subjective fault Usually limited to attitudes with subjective fault (fault that requires a “bad mind” in the actor)(fault that requires a “bad mind” in the actor)

Transferred IntentTransferred Intent

Also referred to as Also referred to as constructiveconstructive intentintent

Assumes a liability to the perpetrator for unintended Assumes a liability to the perpetrator for unintended consequences of the actconsequences of the act

Like what?Like what? A criminal justice student gets an F on his final, and A criminal justice student gets an F on his final, and

is enraged by this. He decides to take out his anger is enraged by this. He decides to take out his anger on his professor by shooting him with a shotgun on his professor by shooting him with a shotgun but, in the process of shooting his professor, he but, in the process of shooting his professor, he misses and hits one of his fellow classmates, misses and hits one of his fellow classmates, causing his death. causing his death.

Explain the facts and opinion inExplain the facts and opinion in People v. DismonePeople v. Dismone,, (650 N.W.2d 436 (2002 Mich.App.).(650 N.W.2d 436 (2002 Mich.App.).

Criminal NegligenceCriminal Negligence

Such as failure to ensure proper care or control while Such as failure to ensure proper care or control while performing an actperforming an act

Or in a “culpable” (wrongful) failure to perform a Or in a “culpable” (wrongful) failure to perform a dutyduty

Usually with wantonness, flagrant or reckless Usually with wantonness, flagrant or reckless disregard for the safety of othersdisregard for the safety of others

Examples:Examples: Criminally negligent homicideCriminally negligent homicide Negligent endangerment of a childNegligent endangerment of a child

The Model Penal Code’sThe Model Penal Code’sFour Mental StatesFour Mental States

PurposePurpose: : State v. StarkState v. Stark, 832 P.2d 109 (Wash.App. , 832 P.2d 109 (Wash.App. 1992);1992);

and, and, Commonwealth v. BarnetteCommonwealth v. Barnette, 699 N.E.2d 1230 , 699 N.E.2d 1230 (Mass.App. 1998)(Mass.App. 1998)

KnowledgeKnowledge: : State v. JantziState v. Jantzi, 641 P.2d 62 (Or.App. , 641 P.2d 62 (Or.App. 1982) 1982)

RecklessnessRecklessness: : Koppersmith v. StateKoppersmith v. State, 742 So.2d 206 , 742 So.2d 206 (Ala.App. 1999) (Ala.App. 1999)

NegligenceNegligence: : Koppersmith v. StateKoppersmith v. State

Strict LiabilityStrict Liability

U.S. Supreme Court upheld power of legislatures U.S. Supreme Court upheld power of legislatures to create strict liability offenses to protect the to create strict liability offenses to protect the “public health and safety,” e.g., unsafe “public health and safety,” e.g., unsafe workplaces and adulterated foodsworkplaces and adulterated foods

Must make clear imposing liability without Must make clear imposing liability without mens reamens rea

Penalties are usually mild for strict liability Penalties are usually mild for strict liability offenses, e.g., fines not jail timesoffenses, e.g., fines not jail times

The Principle of ConcurrenceThe Principle of Concurrence

The principle of concurrence applies to both crimes: The principle of concurrence applies to both crimes:

Criminal conduct crimes, andCriminal conduct crimes, and

Bad result crimesBad result crimes

So all crimes, except strict liability offenses, are So all crimes, except strict liability offenses, are subject to the concurrence requirementsubject to the concurrence requirement

ConcurrenceConcurrence

Principle of concurrence requiresPrinciple of concurrence requires

““Trigger”Trigger” a criminal act (a criminal act (actus reusactus reus)) Criminal intent (Criminal intent (mens reamens rea) )

Angela hates her roommate Katie and plans to kill Angela hates her roommate Katie and plans to kill her by running her over with her Hummer but, as her by running her over with her Hummer but, as Angela is heading to run over Katie, a complete Angela is heading to run over Katie, a complete stranger runs Katie over with his Jeep. Angela runs stranger runs Katie over with his Jeep. Angela runs over to Katie’s body is dancing around it gleefully.over to Katie’s body is dancing around it gleefully.

Concurrence here means that the criminal conduct Concurrence here means that the criminal conduct has to produce the criminal harm , it cannot be a has to produce the criminal harm , it cannot be a coincidence.coincidence.

The Principle of CausationThe Principle of Causation

Principle of causation is about attribution (also Principle of causation is about attribution (also called “imputation”)called “imputation”)

This is when the law holds an actor accountable for This is when the law holds an actor accountable for the results of his/her conducts.the results of his/her conducts.

Causation applies to bad-result crimesCausation applies to bad-result crimes

Elements of CausationElements of Causation Factual causeFactual cause

Also called “but for” cause of death or other bodily Also called “but for” cause of death or other bodily harm. “But for” cause means, if it were not for an harm. “But for” cause means, if it were not for an actor’s conduct, the result would not have occurred.actor’s conduct, the result would not have occurred.

Legal causeLegal cause

Also called proximate cause of death or other bodily Also called proximate cause of death or other bodily harm. “Is it fair to blame the defendant for this harm. “Is it fair to blame the defendant for this harm?”harm?”

What is an What is an intervening causeintervening cause??

What are the facts and opinion in What are the facts and opinion in Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. McCloskeyMcCloskey,, 835 A.2d 801 (Pa.Super 2003)? 835 A.2d 801 (Pa.Super 2003)?

Ignorance and Mistake of FactIgnorance and Mistake of Fact

Ignorance of the law is no defense, but “mistake of Ignorance of the law is no defense, but “mistake of fact fact isis a defense” a defense”

Ignorance of the law is an absence of knowledge Ignorance of the law is an absence of knowledge about facts or law, while mistake of the law is when about facts or law, while mistake of the law is when you are wrong about them, i.e. you believe they are you are wrong about them, i.e. you believe they are one thing, when they are really another.one thing, when they are really another.

The Principle of LegalityThe Principle of Legality

3 Elements…3 Elements…

Rules of law express objective meaningsRules of law express objective meanings

Only authorized “competent” officials can declare what is Only authorized “competent” officials can declare what is “objective”“objective”

Only “official” interpretations are legalOnly “official” interpretations are legal

““Criminal laws cannot be ignored or contradicted by Criminal laws cannot be ignored or contradicted by allowing defendants to plead that their ignorance or allowing defendants to plead that their ignorance or mistake of law negated the mental element of a crime.”mistake of law negated the mental element of a crime.”

**** In other words, final interpretation is determined by the In other words, final interpretation is determined by the court. court.