This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Criminal Law Outlines

Mens Rea Non Mpc Jurisdictions Outline

Updated Mens Rea Non Mpc Jurisdictions Notes

Criminal Law Outlines

Criminal Law

Approximately 94 pages

Criminal Law with Professor Rachel Barkow at NYU School of Law.

This is a synthesis of all topics in a fall 2019 class, Criminal Law at NYU School of Law. My notes consist of the important elements of each doctrine, the unsettled areas, and policy justifications....

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Mens Rea: Basic Conceptions and Applications In Non-MPC Jurisdictions

  • Requirement of a certain mental state (awareness/intent) during the criminal act

  • Underlying idea that conscious choice is party of culpability/blameworthiness

  • Common Law - subjective culpability is bedrock principle of common law MR approach

    • Term: "maliciously"

      • Subjective awareness

      • Cunningham - malice is not wickedness, but foresight of consequences of the act (and subsequent disregard of risk by committing the act)

        • In MPC, this is the "recklessness" definition

      • Faulkner: intended to set rum but accidently set ship on fire; conviction quashed because jury did not inquire into malice

      • Policy (why using subjective standard is good)

        • Retributivist concern: should not punish person if no conscious wrongdoing

          • Ex. Cunningham genuinely did not know that removal of gas meter would cause a gas leak that endangered life > not punish

    • Term: "negligently"

      • Objective standard of reasonable person: reasonable person under circumstances should/would have been aware of the risk (even though defendant was actually not aware)

      • Policy

        • Utilitarian concern: this standard would incentive people to take extra steps to raise their behavior to the level of reasonable person's exercise of due care

      • Criminal VS. Civil Negligence (ordinary vs. gross deviation)

        • Both involves failure to perceive a substantial/unjustifiable risk that a result will occur

        • Criminal: requires a greater risk, the failure to perceive of which is a gross deviation from the behavior and standard of care a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances [grossly unreasonable]

          • Santillanes

          • Policy: Retributive justice requires moral culpability

        • Civil: lesser showing of carelessness required, deviation from standard of care a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances [unreasonable]

          • Hazelwood

          • Policy: utilitarian justification in encouraging reasonable care when conduct can be deterred

        • How to decide which to use if statute says "negligence"?

          • Penalty?

            • (retributive justice requires moral culpability) The higher penalties of the crime, the higher the standard of proof should be, not use a civil negligence standard

          • Possibility of deterrence?

            • (utilitarian encouragement of due care) Are the targets of crime sophisticated actor who is informed of punishment and can be deterred/Can the conduct be deterred? If so, use of civil negligence would incentivize people to refrain from wrongful act

    • When there is no MR term > read it in!

      • Based on bedrock principle that wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal

      • Elonis - D did not intend to constitute true threat, gov did not prove awareness,...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Law Outlines.