Also known as: guilty minds · mens rea · criminal intent
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The culpable mental state that accompanies a prohibited act and supplies the intent or knowledge necessary for criminal liability.
Guadalupe Gallegos and Gina Griffin met in a warehouse and agreed to divert client settlement funds into a private account. They shook hands on the plan without taking any further steps. Their shared understanding of the criminal objective supplied the guilty mind that completed the conspiracy at common law.
Gustavo Gutierrez and Glenn Gross discussed falsifying delivery records to conceal a prohibited shipment. Each confirmed the same illicit goal before parting. The mutual guilty mind on the precise objective satisfied the common-law requirement for conspiracy.
Gareth Glover proposed to George Garcia that they underreport taxable income on joint returns. Garcia nodded and agreed outwardly but had already alerted authorities and never intended to participate. The absence of genuine guilty mind in one party prevented formation of a conspiracy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Gable Construction's site manager deliberately bypassed safety protocols, causing a fatal collapse. The defense claimed the manager lacked capacity to form a guilty mind due to mental illness. The prosecution relied on the presumption of sanity to establish the required mental state.
Granite Holdings' executive knowingly stored hazardous waste in violation of permit terms. The court considered whether the executive's guilty mind justified an enhanced sentence under the applicable statute. The presence of deliberate criminal intent supported the harsher penalty.
Genesis Pharmaceuticals shipped mislabeled drugs that caused injury. The company argued it lacked any guilty mind because employees believed the labels were accurate. The court examined whether the offense required proof of culpable mental state or imposed liability without it.
A meeting of guilty minds requires that both parties genuinely intend the same criminal objective. Outward words or gestures are insufficient if one participant secretly lacks that intent or merely pretends to agree.
No. The agreement itself, accompanied by the shared guilty mind, completes the offense. No further step is needed.
The bilateral rule prevents conviction of either party. Without two genuine guilty minds, no conspiracy arises even if the agreement appears complete on the surface.
Yes. Certain regulatory offenses impose absolute liability based solely on the presence of a prohibited condition, though such offenses are often reclassified as violations rather than felonies.
…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,…