We have considered the actions required for criminal liability. Crimes require an overt act or, in some cases, a failure to act. In addition to a criminal act, criminal statutes often have an intent requirement. This intent requirement is often referred to using the term mens rea.

Mens rea refers to a blameworthy state of mind. This is different than a mental state in that the criminal defendant need not have acted with an intent to cause harm. It is sufficient that the criminal defendant committed the proscribed acts in a manner that demonstrated his bad character, malevolence, or immorality.

The mens rea requirement is typically spelled out in the criminal statutes for various criminal offenses. With other offenses, a particular state of mind is judicially implied.

Intent can be classified in terms of general and specific intent. Historically, general intent referred to any offense for which the only mens rea required was a blameworthy state of mind. Specific intent was meant to emphasize that the definition of the offense expressly required proof of a particular mental state.

General intent was any intention other than (1) an intent to do some future act or achieve some further consequence beyond the conduct or result that constitutes the actus reus of the offense or (2) the actor was aware of a statutory attendant circumstance (i.e., that he was committing a crime).

Intent is spelled out in criminal statutes using various terms. These terms include the following:

• Intentionally - a person “intentionally” causes the social harm of an offense if it is his desire to cause the social harm or he acts with knowledge that the social harm is virtually certain to occur as a result of his conduct (”known certainties”).
• Knowingly or With Knowledge - a person has knowledge of a material fact if he is aware of the fact or he correctly believes that it exists (many states also permit a finding of knowledge if the person is aware of a high probability of the existence of the fact in question, and he deliberately fails to investigate in order to avoid confirmation of the fact (”willful blindness”)).
• Recklessness - a finding of recklessness requires proof that the actor disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which he was aware.
• Negligence - A person’s conduct is negligent if it constitutes a deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have observed in the actor’s situation.

With this concept of intent and an act, we can now consider the impact of mistakes on the ability of a criminal defendant to have the necessary criminal intent. Let’s consider how mistakes impact criminal intent now.