Dressler,
p. 135-155: General Issues in Proving
Culpability
1. “Intent”
Case:
People v. Conley
1. The Model
Penal Code Approach
American
Law Institute Commentary
1. Mental culpability
must be proved with respect to each element of an offense.
2. The Model
Penal Code draws a distinction between purpose and knowledge.
3. In the Model
Penal Code, Recklessness means conscious risk creation.
4. Negligence
means creation of risk of which the person ought to be aware.
5. If a statute
doesn’t say otherwise, a person must be proven to have acted purposefully,
knowingly or recklessly.
Notes
and Questions
1.
A. Jacob killed
Vanessa purposely because that’s his conscious object. Jacob killed Xavier purposely too, because §
2.03(2)(a) says that the actual result differs from the contemplated one “only
in the respect that a different person” was killed.
B. I think
Roberta killed Sam negligently. If she
sincerely believed that Sam would not be harmed, she didn’t know of the
risk to Sam. However, she should
have known.
C. I think this
might bump the culpability up to recklessness because Roberta would now be
aware of the risk, at least minimally.
2. I argued that
§ 2.03(2)(a) means that Xavier was killed negligently
3. § 2.02(3)
specifically excludes negligence as a kind of culpability that can be attached
to an element of an offense if it’s not specifically established. Thus, Toby is not guilty of robbery.
4. I would argue
that my client’s purpose was not to kill or harm, but to steal a car. Therefore, my client did not act purposefully
with respect to the material element of the crime that requires him to intend
to “cause death or serious bodily harm”.
I think this is how the Model Penal Code would deal with this too. Each element must be done purposely. Negligently doesn’t cut it.
2. “Knowledge” of
Attendant Circumstances
Case:
State v. Nations
3. Problems in Statutory
Interpretation
Case: United States v. Morris