- M/R directed at non-mental element of crime
- Intent needed to complete the physical acts or circumstances of a crime (sometimes like "knowledge")
- Example: a crime of 1. assault (ACT), 2. fed. officer (A/C), 3. performing duties (A/C)
- There is still a general mental requirement that courts apply to the overall crime.
- M/R concerning matter which is not element of crime
- A purely mental state specified in the statute and not related to physical act (something like "purpose")
- Example: if crime above added 4. with purpose of impeding officer from duties, it's now SI because it lists a state of mind that must be proven.
- Proving act alone not enough to prove SI crime
- Some defenses only apply to SI crimes (vol. intox.)
Why know specific/general intent?
Commonwealth v. Koczwara
- Specific intent more forgiving, can make mistakes of fact (even unreasonable). (Vs. general intent, must be "reasonable")
- Specific intent, allow voluntary intoxication (vs. only involuntary intoxication for general intent)
- MPC: Crimes should reflect culpability and there should be clarity
- Reject specific/general intent (like 1/3 of states)
- Vol. intox. is reckless conduct, can't negate reckless/negligent crimes, but if crime is purposeful or knowing, can introduce vol. intox. as effective defense by negating mental element.
State v. Adjustment Department Credit Bureau
- Charged with crime of selling beer to minors (actually his employees). Public welfare "strict liability."
- Two approaches:
- 1. any agent under scope of their employment OR
- (MPC) 2. crime itself must be authorized