Class 12- State v. Bash: Determining Mens Rea Where the Statute Is Silent

Think about the following:

As Dressler notes, at early common law, "most crimes omitted any mention of the mental-state requirement; a person was guilty if he committed the actus reus under circumstances that manifested his moral culpability." ¶ 12.03, at 153. As the criminal law became more statutory in nature, legislatures generally included the required mens rea element in the statute itself. But this was not always the case. Where no mens rea is stated, did the legislature intend to dispense with any state of mind at all, or did it intend for the courts to imply, or "presuppose," a mens rea term? And if so, what mens rea was to be implied?

Read  State v. Bash

Think about the questions posed in the Study Guide

Write answers to the questions sufficient for you to participate fully in class discussion

Do the problem if you have been assigned (rows 6-9).  To access the problem, click here.

In Class:  Analysis of State v. Bash

I thought we had an interesting discussion of the current cases.  I guess there's more life in the actus reus doctrine than some commentators thought.

For Wednesday, in addition to being prepared to discuss the questions in the study guide, be prepared to discuss what would be in the information (charging document), what proof would be permitted/required at trial and what the jury instructions would be based on the position taken by each party in this case (prosecutor, defense, trial court, appellate majority, appellate concurrence, dissent).