Determining Culpability

Fundamentals of Criminal Law by Adam J. McKee

This content is released as a draft version for comment by the scholarly community.  Please do not distribute.  

Criminal intent is almost never proven in court by direct evidence. This is primarily because testimonial evidence, such as a confession, is the only direct evidence of a suspect’s mental state. The mental element of crimes is usually proved by circumstantial evidence. Fortunately, the old expression “actions speak louder than words” holds some truth. That is, by observing what a suspect does, it is possible to infer what they intend.

For example, in Easter v. State (306 Ark. 615, 1991), the court said that the “jury could reasonably have inferred the defendant purposely killed his victim, based on the type of weapon used, the manner of its use, and the location of the wounds.”  In fact, under the laws of most jurisdictions, there is a presumption that “a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts.” In other words, a similar presumption is found in the vast majority of criminal codes. If it were not, then prosecutors would have a horrible time trying to prove mens rea in mot case.  

Modification History

File Created:  07/12/2018

Last Modified:  07/12/2018

[ Back | Content | Next]

This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.

Open Education Resource--Quality Master Source License


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.