General Considerations

JurisdictionMaryland

I. General considerations

A. Temporal unity requirement

There must be a concurrence in time of the actus reus, i.e., the criminal act, and the mens rea, i.e., the criminal mind. In State v. Brady, 393 Md. 502 (2006), the Court of Appeals held that this requirement of concurrence in time is a basic principle of criminal law: "It is a fundamental tenet of criminal law that a completed crime requires the concurrence of a mens rea, a guilty mind, and an actus reus, a bad act." Id. at 515 (citation & quotation omitted). "Criminal liability is normally based upon the concurrence of two factors, 'an evil-meaning mind [and] and evil-doing hand. . . .'" United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 402 (1980) (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 342 (1952)).

B. Establishing a prima facie case of mental state

Mental state is rarely established through direct evidence, e.g., a statement or writing of the defendant demonstrating that the defendant had the requisite mental state at the time of the crime. Johnson v. State, 332 Md. 456, 471 (1993); see, e.g., Pinkney v. State, 151 Md. App. 311, 340 (2003). Mental state is almost always established by circumstantial evidence, based on inferences of fact, drawn from the defendant's conduct, i.e., words, actions, or surrounding circumstances. Id. at 336.

C. Evidence of a higher mental state

Evidence of a higher mental state may establish a lower mental state. Williams v. State, 100 Md. App. 468, 510 (1994). For example, the mental state of common law battery is gross negligence or recklessness. Gross negligence or recklessness may be established by evidence of a specific intent to inflict offensive touching. Id. at 487.

D. Motive

Motive is generally not an element of any offense. If there is motive, motive alone can never establish either the criminal agency of the defendant or, with limited exception, the requisite mental state. Snyder v. State, 361 Md. 580, 604 (2000). Hate crimes provide an example of the very limited exceptions to this principle. See e.g., Ayers v. State, 335 Md. 602 (1994); Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law § 10-304. Similarly, if a prima facie case of criminal agency and mental state is established, they are not defeated by evidence of good motive or lack of evidence of bad motive. Nonetheless, everything, as part of the surrounding circumstances, may be relevant. MPJI-Cr 3:32 explains to the jury:

Motive is not an element of the crime charged and need not be proven. However, you may consider the motive or lack of motive as a circumstance in this case. Presence of motive may be evidence of guilt. Absence of motive may suggest innocence. You should give the presence or absence of motive, as the case may be, the weight that you believe it deserves.

The commentary to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT