Mens Rea / Actus Reus on the UBE & General v. Specific Intent Crimes - How to Apply on the MBE and MEE

-

With respect to criminal law on the UBE, we must be able to differentiate between actus reus and mens rea and take that one step further, understand and differentiate the general intent crimes, specific intent crimes, and reckless/negligent crimes from strict liability.  A discussion of all the above can be found, below.

To be found guilty of a crime, the prosecution must prove that there was a physical action, actus reus, and a state of mind to commit a crime, known as mens rea. Mens rea is concerned with what the defendant was thinking at the time he committed the actus reus. Different crimes have different mens rea requirements.  Mens rea is the intent a person has behind committing a crime. Usually, there must be intent behind the crime, but this isn't required in every situation. For example, if a person has committed a crime that is a strict liability crime, the criminal intent element doesn't have to exist.  Mens rea is often described as the “mental element” in a crime. It can include what used to be known as “malice aforethought”, i.e., conscious planning or intent, as well as something culpable but less deliberate, such as recklessness or negligence.

Actus reus is the action the person takes to perform the criminal act. This is the physical action behind the crime. One important thing to note is that, if the physical action is a reflex, this is not criminal. Actus reus is defined in law as an element of criminal responsibility, more specifically, the wrongful act or omission that constitutes the physical component of a crime. It represents a fundamental concept in criminal law. In order to convict the defendant or person accused of committing a crime, the prosecution must prove the physical element of the crime in question. This means the defendant’s actions in that particular instance. The Actus reus of a crime may be in various forms and, in some instances, there need not be an “act.”

Overview of Mental States

Mens rea is divided into three categories: general intent, specific intent, recklessness/criminal negligence. Additionally, there is a class of crimes for which no mens rea element is required. These are called strict liability crimes. Strict liability crimes are crimes for which liability is imposed without consideration of the defendant’s knowledge or intentions.

General Intent

General intent crimes require that the defendant had the intention to commit an illegal act. All that is needed for a conviction is an intent to commit the act that constitutes the crime. General intent exists when the illegal act may reasonably be expected to follow from an offender’s voluntary act even without any specific intent by the offender.

To prove general intent, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant acted intentionally in the sense that he was aware of what he was doing. For general intent crimes, the very doing of acts that have been declared criminal shows the criminal intent necessary to sustain a conviction.

Some examples of general intent crimes are the following:

·         Rape

·         Battery

·         False imprisonment

·         Kidnapping

 

Specific Intent

Specific intent designates a special mental element that is above and beyond any mental state required with respect to the actus reus of the crime. Specific intent is a term used to describe a state of mind that exists where a defendant objectively desired a specific result to follow his act. The prosecution must prove that the defendant acted with the intent to achieve a specific goal, as well as the intent to commit the illegal acts. Specific intent cannot be inferred from the commission of the act and specific proof is required to demonstrate that this element is satisfied.

Other examples of specific intent crimes are:

·         Attempt

·         Assault

·         First degree premeditated murder

·         Burglary

·         False pretenses

 

Criminal Negligence and Recklessness

There are also crimes that require neither specific nor general intent. A prosecutor can secure a conviction by demonstrating that the defendant acted recklessly or negligently. Both recklessness and criminal negligence may exist when the defendant acted with a gross lack of care without paying attention to the unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. Recklessness is a higher level of guilt than criminal negligence. Both negligence standards and the possible criminal charges stemming from criminal negligence vary state to state.

Even though there are variations, the defendant’s mental state must be of such a nature and to such a risky degree that the failure to perceive the risks of his actions constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise. Unlike general or specific criminal intent, criminal negligence is negative, meaning it does not require an affirmative act by the defendant.

Strict Liability

There is another class of crimes referred to as strict liability crimes. Strict liability crimes, also known as public welfare offenses, are crimes that do not require mens rea. The defendant could be found guilty merely because he committed the act. Some examples of crimes that fall into the strict liability category are:

·         Statutory rape

·         Selling alcohol to minors

·         Bigamy

 

Statutory rape is a strict liability crime because even if the offender believed their partner was of consenting age, he is still guilty of committing the crime so long as the victim is under a certain age. These laws, even though very severe, are intended to protect certain classes of individuals from certain kinds of conduct.

IN SHORT - What is the difference between Mens rea and Actus reus?

The difference between mens rea and Actus reus is, thus, easily identifiable.

• Actus reus refers to the physical aspect of a crime while mens rea refers to the mental aspect.

• The Latin term for ‘a guilty act’, Actus reus refers to the actions of the defendant. Thus, it either represents the conduct and/or the consequences that follow as a result of the conduct.

• The prosecution needs to prove that the physical component of the crime was committed by the defendant.

• Mens rea is translated to mean ‘a guilty mind’. In other words, it refers to the mental element of the crime. It examines the defendant’s state of mind at the time the crime was committed.

• The type of mental state required depends on the crime committed. Murder, for example, requires a mental state that is equivalent to a malicious state of mind or evil intent.

Conclusion

  It is extremely important to understand the difference between mens rea and actus reus, as well as distinguishing between general v specific intent crimes.  Success on the likely 3-4 MBE questions in this area of law, and perhaps success on a gen v. spec MEE issue depends on your knowledge of the law. For more information concerning this section of Criminal Law, another area of Criminal Law, or a different legal topic tested on the UBE, please do not hesitate to contact us at PassYourBarExam@gmail.com 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Defamation on the UBE - A Step by Step Guide for the MBE and MEE

-
The tort of defamation can be rather confusing on the UBE, not just in terms of its elements and/or the applicable defenses, but more so because the MBE and MEE questions on defamation can be rather confusing.  In fact, defamation ranks as one of the top two most difficult areas of tort law along with Products Liability!   This blog post has been written to try and clean up some of the confusion associated with this tort.  For starters, let us begin with the three elements of defamation:   1 – W e need a defamatory stmnt made by the defendant that specifically identifies the plaintiff; 2 – We need a publication of that stmnt and;                    3 – Resulting d amage .   BAR EXAM NOTE – If the plaintiff is a PRIVATE PERSON? They must prove that the statement was made with NEGLIGENCE .  Conversely, if the plaintiff is a PUBLIC FIGURE ?   They m...
Read more

Per Capita vs. Per Stirpes - Making Sense of the Difference for the MEE on the UBE

-
Image
One of the more common areas of confusion within the subject of Wills is the distinction between the two methods of intestacy distribution known as Per Capita and Per Stirpes.  This blog post was created to shed some light on how best to approach these distribution methods when tackling a common Wills MEE issue on the examination.     I. Intestate Prop erty Definition This includes assets held in the decedent’s name alone that do not pass by operation of law or by a will.  It should be noted that operation of law means that a non-probate assets that passes automatically because of the way the property title is held, REGARDLESS of the existence of a will. Keep in mind that the residuary (aka the rest left over) is calculated after claims, taxes, and other particular.   II. The Application of the Intest acy Rules Intestacy Rules Apply when 1) the decedent left NO WILL OR DID NOT properly execute a will, OR 2) the will DOES NOT provide for a proper distribu...
Read more

Adding Parties & Claims in Fed Civ Pro - Interpleader, Impleader, Joinder and Intervention

-
Understanding the Differences Between Impleader, Interpleader, Joinder and Intervention Federal Civil Procedure on the UBE contains a major section that pertains to adding parties and/or claims to an already existing suit.  There are four subsections relevant to this area of law known as impleader, interpleader, intervention and joinder.   It is imperative to know the distinctions between each of these subsections. At the outset, it would behoove you to create a chart or graph to capture the distinctions between these four legal mechanisms.  Understanding the nuanced differences between these mechanisms, memorizing necessary vs. permissive joinder, and understanding the difference between intervention as a right and permissive intervention is paramount for success on MBE questions pertaining to this area of the law.  Moreover, while not as common on an MEE essay as personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction or venue, we can easily see an issu...
Read more