Mens Rea under the Modern Penal Code: “I Bumped His Car Because I Was Mad” Research
Paper
The Angry Used-Car
Buyer’s Reaction: Samuel
Carr called 911 to report an automobile accident in which Victor Victime, owner
of the Easy Buy Used Car Emporium, was killed.
The police investigation revealed that the rear end of Vitim’s new
Cadillac had been damaged. Paint
matching that of Victim’s car was found on the front end of Carr’s 1994
Chevy. During routine police questioning
Carr made the following legally admissible statement:
About two months ago my
Ford blew the engine and I needed a car to get to work in. The radio said to “Ease by the Easy Buy for
the best deal on earth.” So I did. For $850 Victime sold me a green 1994 Chevy,
which he said was in perfect shape. The
car never sounded right, even when I drove it home. Something went wrong with it about every
day. I got madder and madder every time
I had to get the car fixed I asked Victime to fix it or give my money back, but
he laughed. Said I was a sucker for
buying that heap. I had to get even. I decided to wreck his car so he would know
what it was like to have a car that don’t work.
Last night I parked outside his lot.
About 10:00 he left in his big Caddy.
I followed him up Big Mountain. I
began bumping into the rear of his car.
I wanted to ruin his rear axle and maybe even bend the frame of his car,
and leave him stuck on the mountain. But
the last time I rammed into him his wheels went off the road to the right, and
his car just fell down the mountain and crashed into that big rock near Salty
Brewer’s place and caught on fire. I
couldn’t get down the mountain in time to do no good.
I called the police and
made this statement because I want to show that I didn’t mean no harm. It was an accident.
The Controlling
Statutes, All using MPC-Defined Mens Rea Elements You
are the prosecutor assigned to assess whether Carr should be charged with a
criminal offense. You first locate your jurisdiction’s homicide statutes The following (simplified) homicide laws
apply, based upon the MPC: first degree murder, which consists of a “purposely”
causing the death of another; (2) second degree murder, which requires the
accused to have killed “knowingly”; (3) manslaughter, killing “recklessly”; and
(4) criminally negligent homicide, killing with “criminal negligence”. The sentence for first degree murder can be
imprisonment in excess of 30 years (or death); for second degree, up to 30
years; for manslaughter, up to 15 years; for criminally negligent homicide, up
to 5 years.
Your assignment:
Compare the Available Proof (and Any Other Evidence You Might Seek) to the
Mental Elements and Crimes. It is
undisputed that Carr caused Victime’s death.
The punishment he will receive under these homicide statutes will be
determined by his culpable mental state.
Your jurisdiction has adopted the four Model Penal Code mental elements.
Your supervisor (the
District Attorney) has asked for your recommendations of the most serious
homicide crime that can be proved.
Examine the evidence and assess Carr’s liability for homicide in the
following order:
First Degree Murder
Second Degree Murder
Manslaughter
Criminally Negligent
Homicide
If you think the proof
would be problematic for any offense, what proof would you like the detectives
to find to assist you in proving the necessary elemets?
Should Mens Rea Be the
Exclusive Determinant of Severity? Note
that, irrespective of the mens rea, the defendant has killed the victim. Yet
the punishment decreases – automatically – as the mens rea goes from purposely
to criminal negligence, and it is controlled solely by the mens rea provided in
the statutory homicide pattern (which again, fits no state).
Do you agree with this
approach? (Notice that most states also use other physical elemets to define
homicide severity.)
I need the homework completed in the IRAC Format according to the document I've attached
I need the homework completed in the IRAC Format according to the document I've attached
No comments:
Post a Comment