"I didn't mean to" Due by Monday, Feb. 13th at 7:00
1. Explain the limits of the words "I didn't mean to" in the principles of mens rea.
2. Briefly summarize a case in chapter 4 that shows the limits of "I didn't mean to" (where someone was criminally liable, even though they said they didn't intend it to happen). Give only the important facts of the case and the legal explanation for the criminal liability.
posted by ProfessorQuinnCCP @ 2:39 PM
25 Comments:
STATE VS BARNES
BARNES, THE DEFENDENT, AND HIS WIFE dEBRA WERE AT THE MARINA WITH ANOTHER COUPLE, DEAN AND DANA CHASE. BAR4NES HAD 4 OR 5 GLASSES OF WINE AND THE CHIEF EXPLAINED THAT THE WINE GLASSES BEING BROKE WAS A TRADITION BUT THAT THEY WERE BASICALLY AT CAPACITY SO THEN THE CHIEF HEARD THE GLASSES BREAKING WERE BARNES AND HIS WIFE HAD BEEN SEATED OFFICERS WERE THEN SENT TO THE AREA AND ASKED DANA CHASE TO LEAVE SHE REFUSED SO THEN THE OFFICER PHYSICALLY REMOVED HER SHE TRIED TO SLAP NAND KICK THE OFFICER SHE WAS THEN TOLD SHE WAS UNDER ARREST SHE TRIE TO RUN AND COUNTINUED TO FIGHT THEN DEBRA BARNES JUMPED ON HIS BACK AS DID BARNES THEN A SECRUITY GUARD CAME OVER AND WHEN THE OFFICER ROLLED OVER BARNES STRUCK THE SECURITY IN THE RIGHT EYE AND SUFFERED A BLOW-OUT FRACTURE OF THE EYE-SOCKET.
BARNES WAS LIABLE BECAUSE HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING COULD HARM SOMEONE
A PERSON ACTS"KNOWINGLY" IF THAT PERSON ACTS WITH AN AWARNESS THAT HIS OR HER CONDUCT IS OF PARTICULAR NATURE. "KNOWINGLY" CAUSES SERIOUS INJURY
STATE VS BARNES
BARNES, THE DEFENDENT, AND HIS WIFE dEBRA WERE AT THE MARINA WITH ANOTHER COUPLE, DEAN AND DANA CHASE. BAR4NES HAD 4 OR 5 GLASSES OF WINE AND THE CHIEF EXPLAINED THAT THE WINE GLASSES BEING BROKE WAS A TRADITION BUT THAT THEY WERE BASICALLY AT CAPACITY SO THEN THE CHIEF HEARD THE GLASSES BREAKING WERE BARNES AND HIS WIFE HAD BEEN SEATED OFFICERS WERE THEN SENT TO THE AREA AND ASKED DANA CHASE TO LEAVE SHE REFUSED SO THEN THE OFFICER PHYSICALLY REMOVED HER SHE TRIED TO SLAP NAND KICK THE OFFICER SHE WAS THEN TOLD SHE WAS UNDER ARREST SHE TRIE TO RUN AND COUNTINUED TO FIGHT THEN DEBRA BARNES JUMPED ON HIS BACK AS DID BARNES THEN A SECRUITY GUARD CAME OVER AND WHEN THE OFFICER ROLLED OVER BARNES STRUCK THE SECURITY IN THE RIGHT EYE AND SUFFERED A BLOW-OUT FRACTURE OF THE EYE-SOCKET.
BARNES WAS LIABLE BECAUSE HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING COULD HARM SOMEONE
A PERSON ACTS"KNOWINGLY" IF THAT PERSON ACTS WITH AN AWARNESS THAT HIS OR HER CONDUCT IS OF PARTICULAR NATURE. "KNOWINGLY" CAUSES SERIOUS INJURY
mens rea speaks of intent you may not have intended to cause harm but your actions caused the problem so wether you intended a certain outcome or not you are in some way liable for what accured the following elements may apply
purpose
knowledge
recklessness
negligence
2)
state v jantzi
Jantzi went to a friend's( Diane Anderson) estranged husband's home to vandelize his vehicle. By using a knife to let out the air in the tires. when the man(Rex) caught him. Jantzi ran with the open knife in his hands the man gave chase when he caught up to him a struggle began an the victim was stabed in the stomach.
The defendent met the general requirement for culpability he acted purposely using a deadly weapon to vandalize someone property and inturn "accidently"stabed the victim sense he was there to commit a criminal act and being an adult had to know knives are dangerous it makes him guilty under said law
1. A criminal act is necessary but it's not enough to impose criminal liability, at least for serious crimes, there has to be criminal intent too. The principle of mens rea is the mental element or kind of criminal intent the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Mens rea also consists of 4 kinds of criminal intent, each with a different degree of blameworthiness.
2."DID HE KNOWING ASSAULT HIM WITH A KNIFE"
Jantzi, Daine's roommate took a knife and slashed Rex's tires. He, then tried running away when Rex's roommate saw him suspiciously around Rex's car, so he yelled which made Rex, Diane's ex husband, run out while he was arguing with Diane. He went after Jantzi. Jantzi tried to hid under the bushes but Rex caught him, and they started wrestling. Jantzi accidently stabbed Rex with the knife he used to flatten Rex's tires. The court said he acted knowingly instead of recklessly. The court based on the reason that the defendant knew it was possible that an injury would occur.
1."I didnt mean to" captures the basic idea of criminal liability, a criminal act is necessary but not enough. For serious crimes there has to be criminal intent (mens rea). The principle of mens rea is the mental element or kind of criminal intent the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It als consists of 4 kinds of mens rea each with a different degree of blameworthiness.
2. "Where his actions in the drag race the legal cause of death"
Isaac Velazquez and Adalberto Alvarez met at Hardee's restaurant in Hialeah, Florida. The two never met but in the course of conversation decided to drag race. they both left the restaurant to set up a quarter-mile drag race course on a nearby public road perpendicular to a canal; a guard rail and a visible stop sign stood between the end of the road and the canal. They began the drag race at the end of the road, upon completing the course without incident Alvarez(the deceased) suddenly turned his automobile 180 degrees around and proceeded east towards the starting line, Velazquez did same. Alvarez led a estimated speed of 123mph, he wasn't wearing a seatbelt and had an alcohol level of .11 and .12. Velazquez maintained a speed of 98, when they both went to stop neither could causing Alvarez to crash into the guardrail, upon impact he was thrown out of his car and was pinned under his vehicle and died instantly. Velazquez also crahsed but landed on the canal and was able to escape his vehicle. He was charged with vehicular homicide. According to the court Velazquez participation in the drag race wasnt the cause of Alvarez death because the deceased in effect killed himself by his own volitional reckless driving.
1.) There are four types of Mens Rea. General intent, Transferred intent, and the model Penal code which itself has four type of intent 1,Purpose 2,knowledge 3,recklessness 4,negligence. I didnt mean to do it i'd say it falls under construstive intent.
2.) State .vs. Barnes
Barnes acted knowingly. He might say that he didnt mean to do it only because he regrets doing it. At the time he knew what he was doing therefore he had the intent to injur Paul rose... barnes was aware of his actions. barnes struck rose in the right eye causeing rose to suffer a "blow-out fracture" of the eye socket which is a fracture of a thin layer of bone at the floor of the socket. The injury resukted in double vision and required surgery. rose still has double vision and a sunken eye.
1) Mens Rea is all about intent. There are four kinds of mens rea which are general intent, transfered intent, constructive intent, and specific intent. Under the model penal code, there are four levels of criminal mental sates, purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. Although you may have not meant to do something you had knowledge of what the effects could do to the person so you could be held liable.
2) Jantzi went with Anderson to her estranged husband Rex house. While Anderson and Rex were inside talking, Jantzi used a blade to let the air out of Rex's tires on his van while another man poured sugar into his tank. While arguing inside, Anderson threatedned damage to Rex's van and stated someone could be tampering with it at that moment. Rex's roomate ran outside and spotted Jantzi and the other man, shouted and ran towards them. As they began to run, Rex chased Jantzi down a bicycle path. Jantzi jumped into so bushes and crouched there hoping that Rex wouldn't see him; however, he still had the knife open. Rex jumped on top of Jantzi. They rolled over and Rex was stabbed in the abdomen by Jantzi's knife. Jantzi couldn't remeber making a thrusting or swinging motion with the knife and did not intend to stab Rex. The trial court said that Jantzi knowingly assualted Rex Anderson. Although he didn't intend to stab Rex, he know a confrontation might result and that he knew it was possible that an injury would occur.
1. When someone says I didn't mean to, it doesn't really hold up when you talk about mens reus because mens reus not only says that person knowingly did whatever they done, but also recklessly and or negligently. So, if you mean't to or not, you could still say something was done recklessly or negligently.
2. In the State vs Barnes case, Barnes and his wife were at a seaside resturant with another couple. Barnes had consumed 4 or 5 drinks already. The chief said he heard glass breaking where the two couples were. Glass breaking was nothing new at that place but he decided to send over two officers anyway. When the two officers went over to the table, a fight broke out between the two couples and the officers. Barnes' wife jumped on one of the officers back, and a security guard then came to the aid of the officer, that's when Mr. Barnes struck the guard in his right eye and caused substaintal damage. The damges caused the security guard to get surgery, and still even as double vision problems and a sunken eye.
Although Barnes was said to have 4 or 5 drinks in him at the time, the story never mentions him being drunk in any form. He could argue that he was coming to the aid of his wife when the security guard tried to pull her off the back of the one officer, but Barnes had full intent on hitting the guard, which makes his actions intentional.
1. "I didn't mean to do it", captures a basic idea about criminal liability. Even though a criminal act is necessary, it is not enough to compel criminal liability. Mens rea is based upon intent. It could be general intent, specific intent, contructive intent, and transferred intent. "I didn't mean to do it could possibly fall under the contructive intent.
2. Pete Jantzi went with his friend Ms. Anderson to her estranged husband's house. Mhile Ms. Anderson was talking to her husband(Rex), Pete was outside letting the air out of Rex's tires with his knife. When Pete was caught, Pete ran and Rex chased him. Pete was running with the knife still in his hand. When Rex jumped on Pete,they rolled over and Rex was stabbed with Pete's knife in the abdomen.
1.When a person says, I did'nt mean to do it, captures a basic idea about criminal liability. A criminal act is necessary bit it is not enough to compel criminal liability. Mens rea is based upon intent. General intent, specific intent, transferred intent, and/or constructive intent.
2. State vs Jantzi
Jantzi went with his friend, Diane Anderson to her estranged husband's house. When Diane was in the house arguing with her husband Rex, Jantzi was outside letting the air out of Rex's tires with his knife. When Diane threatened Rex that his car would be damaged and it might be taken place at the moment, Rex's roommate saw that what she said was true. Rex ran from the house and began chasing Mantzi while Mantzi was running with the knife in his hand. Rex callled hisself hiding and in turn jumped out on Jantzi. That is when Rex was known to be stabbed in the abdomen by Jantzi's knife.
1. To me there's no such thing as an i didn't mean to is you did it or not, mens rea is intent with bodly movement the i didn't mean to act only applies in some cases is when you're drunk and not even that, couse the person has to see prove that her alcohol level was out the charts.
2. What i thought from the State Vs. Barnes case was that theres a man who had 4 to 5 cups of wine and things got out of hand. They had there traditions of breaking the cup after the drinks but they were too out of hand they asked a woman named Dana Chase to leave and she got agravated with the officers and she was then put underarrest but she refused to so she fought the cops and and a big fight broke out Barnes and his with jumped on the officer and then a security guard came and Barnes injured him.
1.)Page 87 states that "a criminal act is necessary but it's not enough to impose criminal liability. At least for serious crimes, there has to be criminal intent/mens rea also." It further states that "we must only punish people we can blame."
2.)The case of State vs. Stark emphasises the words "I didn't mean to." Mr. Calvin Stark had tested postive for HIV. He had been informed of his status and how to take measusres to prevent spreading this disease. However, he disregards what the health department advised him, and he now becomes a criminal in doing so. Three separate occassions are mentioned in the passage, where he has unsafe sex with his partners. The victims, as well as Stark's neighborhood friends and the health officials testified against him in court. Calvin Stark was eventually convicted on two counts of second - degree assault for intentionally spreading his disease.
1. The principle of mens rea is the mental- criminal intent that determines whether or not a criminal act was commited intentionally. The term "I didn't mean to" does not explain whether or not their was an intent to harm another. The four different types of criminal intents are General, Transferred, Specific and Constructive intent. Speaking honestly the words "I didn't mean to" is a perfect example of the Contructive Intent.
2. Koppersmith v. State
Gregory Koppersmith was sentenced 20 years in prison for reckless manslaughter of his wife Cynthia Michel Koppersmith. Gregory and Cynthia had been aggressively arguing and during the argument Cynthia tried to walk away and enter the house but Gregory tried to stop her several tmes but she insisted on fighting. As Gregory put his arms around her to stop the fighting Cynthia bit him in his arm causing him to "slung" her to the ground causing Cynthia to die because her head to land on a brick. Gregory testitied that he never intended to hurt Cynthia. He also testified that by grabbing her he only intended to calm her down. This case was appealed and the The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the decision.
1. Mens Rea has 4 mental states of intent general, specific, transferred and constructive intent. When some one says "I didn't mean to" that falls into one of the 4 levels of Culpability and they go from most to least blameworthy, the 4 types are Purpose, Knowledge, Recklessness and Negligence.
2.State v. Jantzi
Pete Jantzi and Diane Anderson went to Diane's estranged husbands' Rex's house. Diane went into the house while Pete was outside vandalizing Rex's car with a knife. One of Rex's roomates informed him of what was going, Rex then chased Pete, Pete jumped into some bushes and Rex followed him. They began to wrestle around and Rex rolled over and got stabbed with with Petes knife.
Pete is criminally liable because he "knowingly" caused physical injury. He went to a house where he knew trouble was going to start, he had a dangerous weapon and also vandalized a persons car for no apparent reason.
1. According to the principle of mens rea, which states that the criminal prosecution must prove the criminal's state of mind at the time the crime was commited before conviction. In the light of this principle, the only limitation the words 'i didn't mean to' has is that the criminal's intent can be proven with a circumstantial evidence not the criminal's state of mind.
STATE V. BARNES
2.Barnes and his wife Debra were attending wine and seafood festival, and sat with another couple Dean and dana chase. AT the festival, breaking wine glasses had become "kind of a tradition". Rivers who was a police officer heard glasses being broken in the area where Barnes,his wife, and the chases sat. Rivers sent officers Miller and Simpson to the area. Simpson testified that he asked Dana chase to leave, and she refused. Simpson then Physically removed her after she tried to slap and kick him. Simpson then told her she was under arrest, she tried to run and when he caught her, she continued to fight. Debra Barnes the jumped on Simpson's back as did her husband. Simpson said that miller took defendant off his back and as simpson rolled over, he saw defendant throw punches at miller. Paul Rose who was working as a security officer testified that he saw a police officer coming out with a female who was yelling and screaming and he saw her try to slap and kick the officer and try to run. Rose testified that he saw Miller go down and testified that he stepped forward with his hands out, intending to keep the crowd back. Defendant Barnes struck rose in the left eye. Rose suffered a blow-out fracture of the eye socket. Which resulted in Rose having a double surgery and the sunken eye requiring a surgery.
Barnes is liable for his actions because he has knowledge (purpose and conscious object of causing harm) that his actions was going to hurt somebody.
In criminal law the phrase "i didn't mean to" is limit in use for the purpose of Mens Rea because in trying to prove criminal intent the prosecution has to show the criminal acted knowingly or recklessly of the action, not so much the direct intent or the outcome. So if I fire a semiautomatic pistol into the air and one of my bullets comes down and kills an innocent bystanderd though i didn't mean to kill the person my actions were so reckless as that a resonable person would have known that my bullets must come down somewhere thus creating a danger to my enviroment.
I think Koppersmith v. state is a prime example to set the stage for knowingly or recklessly endangering someone. In this case Gregory Koppersmith was arrrested and convicted for the murder of his wife Cindy. The began to argue one day. At some point Cindy entered the house to avoid the argument. Mr. Koppersmith pursued her and in doing so got involved in a physical confrontation with Cindy causing her to be slammed to the ground and cause blunt trauma to the head by a brick that was laying on the ground. The injury resulted in her death. Even though he didn't intend to kill his wife his reckless actions resulted in her death, so he must assume blame. His guilty verdict was reversed however due to a court technicality.
1) Intent is the basis of Mens Rea. It consists of Purposes, knowledge, recklessness, negligence, and strict liability. For a crime to involve one of these would set a criminal act in motion. "I didn't mean to" can volate the negligence, knowlegde, and recklessness portions of mens rea.
2)State v. Lodge
Steven Mark Lodge was cited for driving on a public highway with an open bottle of liquor in his car. Lodge claimed that the bottle was not his and he did not know it was in his truck. He went to court to fight his citation and the district court held the subdivision "absolute liability" on the driver/owner. Because the open bottle of liquor was in his car, the liquor was in his possesion. He was demed liable for the open bottle of liquor because of mens rea. Regardless of if it was his, or he knew about it.
1) Intent is the basis of Mens Rea. It consists of Purposes, knowledge, recklessness, negligence, and strict liability. For a crime to involve one of these would set a criminal act in motion. "I didn't mean to" can volate the negligence, knowlegde, and recklessness portions of mens rea.
2)State v. Lodge
Steven Mark Lodge was cited for driving on a public highway with an open bottle of liquor in his car. Lodge claimed that the bottle was not his and he did not know it was in his truck. He went to court to fight his citation and the district court held the subdivision "absolute liability" on the driver/owner. Because the open bottle of liquor was in his car, the liquor was in his possesion. He was demed liable for the open bottle of liquor because of mens rea. Regardless of if it was his, or he knew about it.
1. the phrase "I didnt mean to" is only used to avoid the intent for a crime committed. because " act is necessary but its not enough to impose criminal liability."
2. In Commonwealth V. Barnette he was convicted because he verbaly assaulted Acuna and making physical threats and imposing physical harm. Even tho he states that "he did not say anything direcly to Acuna" but he is still held responsible for his actions that he did against Acuna.
1. In the principles of mens rea, the phrase "I didn't mean to" suggests that the actions performed were carried out but not intentionally. The four levels of culpability in which the Model Penal Code defines intent include purpose, knowledge, recklessness and negligance.
2. In State v Lodge
Lodge the defendant was charged and convicted of keeping an opened bottle of intoxicating liquior in an autombile while on a public highway. Lodge had borrowed his fathers' pickup truck to go to his evening job and was on way home at the time of the incident. He was observed by a 2 patrol police officers speeding on a highway and was subsequently pullled over. After being pulled over he gets out of the vehicle and is talking to one officer. The second officer on the scene begins looking into the vehicle and observes a bottle inside a brown bag under the passenger seat which appears to be some type of liqiour. After investigating further it is determined that in fact it is liqiour and their is foam in the inside of the bottle. Upon finding this piece of evidence the officer searches the full vehicle and finds a full unopened can of beer as well as an empty beer can. Upon these findings the officer asks Lodge if he's been drinking. Lodge admits to drinking while at work and takes a variety of field sobriety tests which he passes all of them. He was issued a citation for the opened bottles of liqiour and when appearing at trial testified he had no knowledge of the open cans of beer in the vehicle. The court ruled that "absolute liability" was the determining factor in his guilt. It is the operator / owner's responsibility to inspect and determine if there are any containers in the vehicle that violate the open bottle law.
1.) The criminal intent here would be negligence. “You didn’t know the odds were very high you could hurt him, but you should’ve known the odds were high, and you did hurt him.” (89) The actors should have known of the risks they were creating even if they didn’t know. These types of defendants are to create risks that are totally out of ordinary behavior in order to prove their innocence in court.
2.) Summary – There was a man named Gregory Koppersmith and his wife Cindy Koppersmith and they were both arguing on their porch. Mr. Koppersmith refused to allow his wife into the house and instead grabbed her and she then bit him. Mr. Koppersmith flung his wife into a garden and then tried to calm her down by jerking her back and forth; not knowing that while he was shaking her Cindy’s head was striking a pile of bricks. This act then kills Cindy Koppersmith.
Criminal Liability – the legal terms for criminal liability is that Gregory Koppersmith killed his wife. There may not have been intent but there did exist negligent behavior which caused his wife’s death. Therefore, Mr. Koppersmith should have known about the risks he was taking before he started shaking his wife in the flower bed. Mr. Gregory Koppersmith’s negligence triggered him to react too quickly before thinking about the risks he was taking.
How i would explain the limits of the words I did't mean to by saying I threw a ball into a window belonging to a neighbor who had a small baby. It hit the child how can i say i did'ntmean it but i threw it.without some intentions,purpose,disregard for the neighbors property,recklessness on my part to throw a ball not in the proper place like a park or baseball field. Blame has to fall on me for being that careless to harm a child not knowing that it would bw there on the other side of the window.
1.The principles of mens rea says:
the mental element of the criminal intent is in the person and the state has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
2.State vs. Stark
On 3/25/88 Calvin Stark tested postive for HIV. He knowingly slept with three differnet women after being told to take percaustions and have "safe sex" with condoms by the County Health Dept. Stark had counseling on what could prevent the spread of the disease. He confessed to a neighbor and her child and said,"I don't care. If I'm going to die ,everybody's gong to die."
He was guilty of reckless regard for other human life it is morally wrong to put others at risk. this led to the trial which he was found guilty of second-degree assault for intentionally exposing his victims.
Negligence, recklessness, or the knowledge that an act that one will commit could cause harm are the basic elements of mens rea.
Recently a child was found floating in a river in Brazil, when the mother was located she indicated that she had no idea how her daughter ended up there since she'd given her to a group of homeless people because she (the mother) was no longer able to take care of her. Through her negligence the mother placed her child in a situation that nearly took her life.
1. You can't see intent so proof of intent usually depends on indirect or cicumstantial evidence. We rely on what people do to tell us what they intend
2. In State v Janzi 641 P.2d 62 (1982). the defendant Janzi accompanied a woman to her ex husband Rex's house, as the woman was arguing w/ her husband, Janzi was using a knife to flatten the husbands tires, when the woman said someone may be tampering w/ the van at the moment, the estranged husbands friend informed the husband that there were two men beside his van. Rex gave chase after Janzi and Janzi hid in the bushes hoping that Rex would not see him. Rex did see him and in the ensuing fight Rex was stabbed in the abdomen. Janzi claims he didn't mean to stab Rex but the court said "He knowingly caused injury .. by means of a deadly weapon... a person commits second degree assault if he intentionally or knowingly causes harm to another." Upon appeal the court said that Janzi knew he had a dangerous weapon and that a confrontation was going to ensue, but the court did not believe that Janzi intended to stab the victim, therefore he had acted "recklessly" instead of "knowingly." Recklessly causing physical injury to another is assault in the third degree.
no he was not because if i saw some strange man on my wife i act under mens rea he may not have had the intent to to harm someone
Post a Comment
<< Home