Prepare:
Think about the following:
Common law criminal statutes use a variety of mens rea terms. What mens rea terms have we already encountered? What do they mean?
Read Dressler, 119-134
Read Regina v. Cunningham, United States v. Jewell, and Bryan v. United States
Think about the mens rea requirements discussed in those cases, in previous cases and in Dressler. How many can you identify? Can you articulate what each state of mind means and what it takes to prove it? What kinds of defenses do you anticipate for each state of mind and how do you address them?
What is the hierarchy of these states of mind under the common law? What is the "highest" or most difficult to prove? The "lowest" or easiest to prove? Where do the others fit?
Write answers to these questions sufficient for you to participate fully in class discussion
Do the Tenant and Food Coupon problems
In Class: Analysis of Cunningham, Jewell and Bryan with emphasis on the various common law mens rea terms
Reflect:
1. CORRECTION:
In thinking about the hierarchy of states of mind, I would actually put willful above intent, since, to a large extent, willful is "intent plus."
2. You are probably frustrated with the number of arguments that can be made and the uncertainty regarding interpretation of criminal statutes, especially with regard to mens rea. The key at this point is recognizing ambiguity and being able to make arguments for both sides for various constructions of the statute. You should be able to argue for and against strict liability and for where a non-specific mens rea term goes in the statute. You should also be able to use the doctrines of mistake in analyzing a mens rea problem. As we begin addressing the Model Penal Code, think about whether the MPC better deals with this potential ambiguity, and whether its resolution of the underlying criminal law issues is satisfactory.
| Next Class | Previous Class | Home |