MPC levels of culpability:
- Reckless: know vs. should have known
- Negligent: different than tort negligence, must be gross deviation
Three questions for every statute:
State v. Perry
- 1. GI or SI? (less important in MPC)
- 2. Level dimension (what is the level of mens rea: P, K, R or N?)
- 3. Object dimension (to which elements does M/R attach?)
United States v. Villegas
- College student in MN, lived in dorm, would get dressed in front of window (didn't close blinds), seen by passer's-by
- Charged with indecent exposure.
- Found guilty by trial court of intentional exposure, overturned on appeal by supreme court of the state due to lack of appropriate mens rea (specific intent, in this case).
- Act must be "intentional, willful, and lewd."
- But dissent finds it difficult to believe the lack of intent (purposeful or knowing), based on the circumstances.
- Extra requirement of specific intent.
- Extra-special mental element required for the particular crime.
- In this case, special intent to be lewd.
- In contrast to the general intent (the mental state associated with the crime)
- Vials of blood washed up on the shoreline.
- General intent level of culpability:
- "Knowing" = "substantial certainty"/"practical certainty"
- Subjectively understood by defendant
- Sometimes "high probability" standard tends to be used about knowledge at the time of the crime (that something was actually drugs, etc.)