Also known as: mens reas · guilty mind · criminal intent
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The culpable mental state that the prosecution must prove a defendant possessed when committing a crime. It consists of intention or recklessness and forms one of the two essential elements of a common-law offense alongside the actus reus.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Miguel Mendoza and Miranda Morales discussed diverting client funds during a late-night meeting at their firm. They reached a clear understanding on the plan and shook hands to confirm it. The agreement alone satisfied the mens rea element for common-law conspiracy even though no further steps occurred.
Mason McCarthy proposed altering disbursement sheets to Melissa Mills. She outwardly agreed and promised to prepare the documents but had already contacted investigators and never intended to carry out the scheme. Because Mills lacked genuine criminal intent no conspiracy formed under the bilateral rule.
Maria Morales was convicted of weapons possession. The trial court increased her sentence after finding she acted with purpose to intimidate on racial grounds. The mens rea determination on that sentencing factor had to be made by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Melanie Morris shot her husband during an argument. The defense introduced evidence of her mental deficiency short of insanity. The jury could consider that evidence when deciding whether she possessed the malice aforethought required for first-degree murder.
Miguel Mendoza killed a coworker after a workplace dispute. Evidence showed his mental deficiency prevented full deliberation. The jury could weigh that condition when determining whether the homicide satisfied the premeditation element of first-degree murder.
Momentum Capital partners agreed to a scheme that used the mails to defraud investors. One partner later committed additional fraudulent acts in furtherance of the plan. Each partner remained liable for those acts because the original mens rea continued throughout the conspiracy.
When a statute is silent the default rule requires proof that the defendant acted purposely, knowingly, or recklessly with respect to each material element. Negligence alone does not suffice under this default.
No. The prosecution must prove the required culpable state only as to each material element. For some elements recklessness or knowledge of attendant circumstances is enough.
Each conspirator must possess the mental state required for the object crime plus the specific intent to agree and to accomplish the unlawful objective. A feigned agreement by one party prevents formation of the offense.
…U. S. C. § 9601 et seq. [^maj-11]: The Attorney General concluded that appellees Schmults and Dinkins lacked the requisite "criminal intent" to obstruct the Committee's investigation. See Report of Attorney General Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 592(c)(1) Regarding Allegations Against Department of Justice Officials in United States…