Prepare:
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
In Class: Analysis of State v. Bash
Reflect:
1. Is the ambiguity starting to make you crazy? Hopefully we will be developing some tools for getting it under control.
2. Do you have a better sense of why statutes are often difficult to construe?
| Next Class | Previous Class | Home |