Mens Rea, Concurrence, Causation PDF

Preview

Summary

notes about Mens Rea, Concurrence, Causation...

Description

Mens Rea, Concurrence, Causation Types of Intent ● Prosecutor can only pick one type of intent to try to charge the defendant for ● Purposely: most serious category of crime (first degree) ○ Possessing a specific intent to commit a crime or cause a result ■ Look for plan, motive, words ○ Case: People v. Flores ■ Issue: Did the defendant commit a hate crime? ■ Holding: defendant acted on his unbiased motives (gang related- not race) ○ Case: State v. Hennings ■ Issue: Was Hennings guilty of ethnic intimidation? ■ Holding: guilty ● Knowledge: second degree; “willful blindness” ○ When the defendant is aware that circumstances exist or that a result is practically certain to occur from his/her conduct ○ Case: State v. Nations ■ Issue: Did the defendant know the dancer’s age? ■ Holding: no proof that the defendant knew the child was less than 17 years of age ○ Case: United States v. Hypolite---LANDMARK CASE ■ Issue: Is Hypolite guilty of knowingly importing illegal drugs into the United States? ■ Holding: guilty ● Recklessness: an individual engages in obvious risky behavior, chooses to disregard the risk and does not expect harm to occur ○ Two tests of reckless conduct: ■ Conscious disregard of an unjustifiable risk ■ Gross deviation from the standard that a law abiding person would observe in the same situation ○ Case: Hranicky v. State ■ Issue: Was the defendant aware of the risk posed by the tigers to his daughter? ■ Holding: guilty ● Negligence: engaging in harmful and dangerous conduct while being unaware of a risk that a reasonable person would appreciate ○ Case: People v. Baker ■ Issue: Was the babysitter guilty of negligent or reckless homicide? ■ Guilty of criminal negligent homicide ● Strict Liability: does not require a mens rea and an individual can be convicted solely on the criminal act ○ WHY?

■ To prevent unqualified people from participating in potentially dangerous behavior Concurrence ● Every crime must have the element of concurrence ○ Your mens rea must be in unison with your actus reus ● Case: State v. Rose ○ Issue: Was there concurrence between the defendant’s criminal act and criminal intent? ○ Holding: not enough evidence to prove concurrence- not guilty of manslaughter Causation ● Causation is central to criminal law and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt ● Whether or not the defendant’s actions caused the end result ● Based on two considerations: ○ 1. Individual Fairness ■ Is it fair to hold this person liable for the results that occurred? ○ 2. Individual Responsibility ■ We want to make sure the person responsible is held responsible ● Elements of Causation ○ Factual Cause (Cause in Fact) ■ Requires us to ask “but for” the defendant’s act, would the end result have occurred? ■ What act set this in motion? ■ ALWAYS A PERSON; NOT THEIR ACTION ■ NEVER THE VICTIM ○ Proximate Cause (Legal Cause) ■ Determine whether or not to hold the defendant legally liable ■ A PERSON (WHO IS LIABLE) ● Intervening Acts ○ Something happens between the cause in fact and the end result (chain of causation) ○ Coincidental Intervening Act ■ Acts that occur outside the victim and defendant ■ If it is foreseeable, it does not break the chain of causation ● Acts of God are not foreseeable; extraordinary events; breaks chain of causation ○ NO PROXIMATE CAUSE ○ Responsive Intervening Act ■ How the victim responds to the cause in fact ● Did they respond in a reasonable manner? ■ Case: State v. Preslar (1856)- LANDMARK CASE ● Issue: Is Prelar liable for the death of his wife?

● Holding: not guilty ○ Medical Negligence ■ Always foreseeable; does not break chain of causation...