Case BriefCrim law: Mens Rea Requirement1/28/15Identity of CaseRegina v. Cunningham, 2 All. Eng. Rep. 412 (Court of criminal appeal, 1957)Page 202 of the casebookSummary of Facts /Procedural HistoryDefendant removes the gas meter in his cellar, and in doing so somehow leaves the gas cap open so that the neighboring apartment is filled with noxious gas, injuring the occupant (who happens to be his mother in law). Statute: whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm, shall be guilty of felony.” Jury instructions objected to by defendant. Judge told the jury: malicious means wicked – something which he has no business to do and perfectly well knows it. That is not the definition. Conviction overturned. Statement of the IssueWhere the statute requires “maliciously” as the mens rea, what must the jury find in order to convict? HoldingThe correct instructions would’ve told the jury that if the defendant knew or ought to have known that removing the meter would cause the injury, the conviction should stand. ReasoningThis is basically a “recklessness” standard by the definition of the model penal code…What it means is that the defendant knew the likely result and disregarded the serious risk of harm without justification. That doesn’t seem likely in this case, he was just trying to get some money for the meter.
View Full Document
Unlocking...