CCJS230 Chapter 4 Book Notes The General Principles of Criminal Liability Culpability Blameworthiness the idea that it s fair and just to punish only Model Penal Code consists of four states of mind ranked accordingly to the people we can blame degree of their blameworthiness Criminal Liability adds 2 more elements Purposely Knowingly Recklessly Negligently Concurrence criminal act Causation o In crimes of criminal conduct criminal intent has to trigger the o In result crimes criminal conduct has to cause the bad result o Cause In Fact But for Causation Factual Cause the objective determination that the defendant s act triggered a chain of events that ended as the harmful result such as the death in a homicide o Legal Cause The subjective judgment that it s fair and just to blame the defendant for the bad result Mens Rea Mens rea Latin for guilty mind the mental element in crime also called Criminal intent evil mind mental attitude state of mind Complexity of Mens rea Difficult to discover and then prove in court Courts and legislatures have used so many vague and incomplete definitions of the mental element Consists of several mental attitudes that range across a broad spectrum stretching all the way from purposely committing a crime you re totally aware is criminal or not A different mental attitude might apply to each of the elements of a crime The relationship between mental attitude and motive o Motive something that causes a person to act Motive is important in defenses too ex escaping prison to save yourself from a fire Sometimes an element of crime itself Proving State of Mind Confessions are the only direct evidence of mental attitude Proof of state of mind usually depends on indirect circumstantial evidence ex the act itself Criminal Intent Subjective Fault Fault that requires a bad mind in the actor Ex Receiving property you know is stolen Frequently linked with immorality Objective fault requires no purposeful or conscious bad mind in the actor Ex receiving property your not sure is stolen or not Strict Liability liability without either subjective or objective fault Ex you buy an ipad for 45 that looks used and you honestly and reasonably believe it wasn t stolen but it doesn t matter because under this statute your liable without either subjective or objective fault General and Specific Intent General Intent the intent to commit the criminal act as defined in a statute States the minimum requirement of all crimes Intent to commit a crime at an undetermined time and place with no specific victim in mind Specific Intent subjective fault it refers to criminal intent in addition to the criminal act When there s a bad mind or will that triggers the act General Intent plus where general intent refers to the intent to commit the actus reus of the crime and plus refers to some special mental element in addition to the intent to commit the criminal act Ex Breaking into someone s house intent to commit the household burglary breaking into someone s house specific special mental element is the intent to commit a crime once inside the house Harris v State 728 A 2d 180 1999 Appeal from the Circuit Court for PG County pursuant to certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals Defendant convicted of carjacking Defendant insisted that he had consumed alcohol and smoked marijuana on the evening of the crime and that he blacked out and could not remember committing the crime Trial court said that carjacking was not a specific intent crime thereby negating defendant s defense of voluntary intoxication On appeal the court held that the trial court did not err in its instructions to Carjacking statute did not demonstrate an intent on the part of the legislature the jury regarding intent to create a specific intent crime Defendant was not granted relief on appeal and the court affirmed defendant s conviction for carjacking The trial court did not err in instructing the jury The Model Penal Code MPC Levels of Culpability Purposely The mental attitude that a person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result Knowingly Recklessly Negligently The mental attitude that a person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when 1 2 If the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist If the element involves a result of his conduct he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result The mental attitude that a person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct The risk must be of such a nature and degree that considering the nature and purpose of the actor s conduct and the circumstances known to him its disregard involves a gross standard of conduct that a law abiding person would observe in the actor s situation The mental attitude that a person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor s failure to perceive it considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor s situation State v Stark 832 P 2d 109 1992 Defendant was convicted of three counts of second degree assault after he intentionally exposed his victims to the HIV virus The trial court imposed an exceptional sentence after his conviction for count one Stark had unprotected sex with three different victims without notifying them of his HIV Court held that there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendant intentionally exposed his victims to the HIV virus after being counseled concerning safe sex The Court affirmed the defendant s convictions for second degree assault on three counts but remanded the case for resentencing on count one State v Jantzi 641 P 2d 62 1982 Convicted of assault in the second degree appealed Defendant knew he had a dangerous weapon and that a confrontation was going to occur