Mistake and Mens Rea Default Rules

Case: People v. Ryan, 82 N.Y.2d 497 (1993); [p. 219-222]

Facts: Statute says it’s a felony to "knowingly and unlawfully possess . . . Six hundred twenty-five milligrams
of a hallucinogen." Δ was convicted of possessing mushrooms which had this hallucinogenic properties of more
than the statutory limit. Δ argued he did not know that the mushrooms would have so much. No evidence was
offered on how much hallucinogen would typically be in that amount of mushrooms. But court convicted him
because they said the statute implied "knowingly" to refer only to possession of it, not to the actual weight.

Issue: When a statute states that to be a felony, the offender must have "knowingly" committed the act, does
the mens rea requirement of knowingly doing something refer to all elements of the statute? - Yes.

Reasoning:
o Court first looks at legislative intent - the statutory language
• It says "knowingly and unlawfully possesses 625 mg of a hallucinogen
• It must also mean the weight, b/c it stated in the same sentence
 Therefore, there is a mens rea element associated with the weight of the drug
o Also, looking at the legislature's culpability requirements:
• Says that when the statute says a culpable mental state is to be applied to an element of the offense, it
is presumed to apply to every element of the offense, unless clearly stated otherwise.

RULE: Unless otherwise stated in the statute, the mental element of "knowingly" is to be applied to all
elements of the crime.

Class Notes:
• There has to be a culpable mental state for each element of the crime.
• You could probably prove here the Δ was reckless - he said "this is a shitload of mushrooms" - he should
have known that it could be over the statutory limit

______________________________________

Notes: [p. 222-228]

• Default Culpability
• MPC § 2.02(1) provides that "a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely,
knowingly, recklessly, or negligently with respect to each material element of the offense" unless
one of two exceptions occurs, both specified in MPC § 2.05" either the offense is a mere
"violation," not punishable by incarceration, or "a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability
for such offenses or with respect to any material element thereof plainly appears."
• MPC § 2.02(4). Prescribed culpability requirement applies to all material elements. When the
law defining an offense prescribes the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of
an offense, without distinguishing among the material elements thereof, such provision shall
apply to all the material elements of the offense, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears
• The recklessness default rule
• State v. Lima, (1988) - Δ convicted of child abuse for placing a toddler into scalding water in a
tub. However, there was no jury instruction that said she had to have done so intentionally, and
the court orders a new trial. Held that there has to be some culpable mental state, and at the very
minimum, recklessness (MPC § 2.02(3)).
• The MPC establishes recklessness as the default level of culpability (when not otherwise
provided in statute)
 • Negligence is an exceptional basis for liability, so it should be excluded, unless statute
explicitly prescribes it.
• MPC vs State v. Guest (1978) - statutory rape statute did not specify what level of culpability to attach to
the element of the victim's age. Court says a defense of reasonable mistake of age must be allowed,
otherwise, they would impose criminal liability without any criminal mental element. This defense
would permit a Δ to show he lacked criminal intent. There must be a requirement of criminal intent or
else the statute would be unconstitutional, so Court must infer intent requirement in the statute.
• Pg. 225 - State v. Guest
• We're talking about mens rea as a defense.
• He claims he made a mistake; asserting defense of mistake. He didn’t know she was
under .16.
• Court said there needs to be mens rea - because it’s a felony
• What does the jury need to find: if he made a reasonable mistake as to age, then he is not
guilty, because there needs to be a criminal intent. A defense of reasonable mistake of age
must be allowed.
• What does government have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt?
• Mistake has to be reasonable - but what does this mean?
• So only requiring that he be negligent. Because if he's negligent, then his
mistake is unreasonable.
• So we are criminalizing negligence. Even if Δ sincerely believes she is
over 16, but unreasonably so, then he is guilty.
• So basically when court says if mistake has to be reasonable, then the
culpable mental state is negligence.