Mental State (Mens Rea)
|
|
There are two requirements for almost every crime: an act and a mental state. In law, the Latin terms are used: actus reus and mens rea.
Before there can be a crime, the defendant had to do something with a particular state of mind. Either one without the other will not constitute a crime. For example, someone takes another person’s bag, but they thought it was their own bag. That person would have committed the act of theft – taking another’s property – but they would not have done so with the necessary state of mind – the intent to deprive. Thus, no crime was committed. |
Conversely, someone can want another person to die; he may think about murdering them in all kinds of imaginative ways. But if he never takes any steps toward actually doing so, no crime has been committed.
Often, a person’s state of mind can determine which crime the person is guilty of. Take killing as an example. If the killing was done intentionally, thought about ahead of time, with a consideration of the consequences (willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation), that is first degree murder. If, however, the defendant was provoked and killed in the heat of passion, that would be voluntary manslaughter. If the defendant killed in self-defense, of course, that is a complete defense, and he would not be guilty of anything.
(Check out this article exemplifying the difficulties of determining a defendant's state of mind in the case of a teenager who killed another teenager in class.)
A defendant’s state of mind is often the most difficult thing to prove. A defendant rarely says what she is thinking. Sometimes they do – by bragging about the crime or confessing. More commonly, however, a defendant’s state of mind has to be inferred from her actions.
Often, a person’s state of mind can determine which crime the person is guilty of. Take killing as an example. If the killing was done intentionally, thought about ahead of time, with a consideration of the consequences (willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation), that is first degree murder. If, however, the defendant was provoked and killed in the heat of passion, that would be voluntary manslaughter. If the defendant killed in self-defense, of course, that is a complete defense, and he would not be guilty of anything.
(Check out this article exemplifying the difficulties of determining a defendant's state of mind in the case of a teenager who killed another teenager in class.)
A defendant’s state of mind is often the most difficult thing to prove. A defendant rarely says what she is thinking. Sometimes they do – by bragging about the crime or confessing. More commonly, however, a defendant’s state of mind has to be inferred from her actions.
|
Much can often be learned from the prior relationship between the defendant and victim. Did the defendant previously threaten the victim? Or vice versa? Were they in the midst of a divorce? Was one of them having an affair? This kind of history makes it more likely a killing was done with intent.
A defendant’s acts leading up to the crime can also be a strong clue about her state of mind. Did she purchase the murder weapon or other items, like rope or a shovel, shortly before the crime? Did she research methods of killing on the internet? Did she take out or increase a life insurance policy on the victim? Did she stake out the victim or crime scene?
Similarly, a defendant’s actions after the crime can also be used to try to determine his state of mind. Did he flee the scene? Did he hide or destroy evidence? Did he try to fake an alibi, like by calling the victim to leave a message as if nothing had happened?
Finally, motive can help determine a defendant’s state of mind. Motive answers the question of why someone committed a crime. The first question of course, is whether there was a motive and what was it. Common motives include money, sex, drugs, gang loyalty, secrecy or jealousy. Although motive is not necessary to prove a crime, it can be strongly indicative of someone’s intent.
For more information about motive, check out my article, Motive and Opportunity: Are They Necessary to Prove Murder?
If you liked this article, join the Criminal Law Community for free to get email updates and other crime-related information.
A defendant’s acts leading up to the crime can also be a strong clue about her state of mind. Did she purchase the murder weapon or other items, like rope or a shovel, shortly before the crime? Did she research methods of killing on the internet? Did she take out or increase a life insurance policy on the victim? Did she stake out the victim or crime scene?
Similarly, a defendant’s actions after the crime can also be used to try to determine his state of mind. Did he flee the scene? Did he hide or destroy evidence? Did he try to fake an alibi, like by calling the victim to leave a message as if nothing had happened?
Finally, motive can help determine a defendant’s state of mind. Motive answers the question of why someone committed a crime. The first question of course, is whether there was a motive and what was it. Common motives include money, sex, drugs, gang loyalty, secrecy or jealousy. Although motive is not necessary to prove a crime, it can be strongly indicative of someone’s intent.
For more information about motive, check out my article, Motive and Opportunity: Are They Necessary to Prove Murder?
If you liked this article, join the Criminal Law Community for free to get email updates and other crime-related information.
