Also known as: mens rea · mensrea · guilty mind · criminal intent
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A foundational principle of criminal law requiring that a prohibited act be accompanied by a culpable mental state before criminal liability may attach.
Dominic Drake and Deanna Davenport discussed falsifying shipping records to evade customs duties. They shook hands after confirming their shared plan to submit the false documents. The agreement and their mutual criminal purpose satisfied the mental state element for conspiracy.
Demetrius Douglas proposed to Diana Delgado that they rob a warehouse together. Delgado nodded and agreed aloud but had already informed the police and never intended to participate. Because Delgado lacked genuine criminal intent, no conspiracy formed despite the outward agreement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Davenport Pharmaceuticals executive Devon Drake shot a rival during a board meeting. At trial Drake presented evidence of severe mental illness that prevented him from forming any understanding of his actions. Without proof of a sound mind capable of malice, the murder charge failed.
Dolores Diaz and Dominic Drake agreed to distribute counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Drake later sold tainted pills that killed a customer while Diaz was out of state. Because both had formed the requisite intent at the time of agreement, Diaz was liable for the resulting death.
Dawson Steel foreman Demetrius Douglas received a life sentence without parole for possessing a small quantity of narcotics. The extreme punishment prompted review of whether the statute properly required proof of culpable intent rather than strict liability.
Duarte Shipping CEO Diana Delgado was prosecuted for depriving the company of her honest services by accepting undisclosed kickbacks. The indictment failed to specify the required intent because the statute did not clearly define the prohibited mental state.
The doctrine requires that each participant share a genuine criminal intent at the moment of agreement. Without mutual culpable purpose the offense is not complete even if an agreement appears to exist on the surface.
No. Intent to kill may be inferred from the deliberate use of a deadly weapon directed at a vital part of the body. The jury may rely on circumstantial evidence of planning and conduct even when the defendant denies wanting death.
Under Model Penal Code section 2.05, absolute liability on a material element converts the offense to a violation. The absence of any culpability requirement means the conviction cannot carry felony penalties.
…duty, that the verdict must be ‘ not guilty.’ ” This request was refused, and the court did charge “ that there must have been a criminal intent, but that if the defendant, under the influence of a religious belief that it was right, — under an inspiration, if you please, that it was right, — deliberately married a second time,…