is this specific intent or general intent

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
chicoalto0649
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:34 pm

is this specific intent or general intent

Postby chicoalto0649 » Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:20 pm

Taken verbatim from NY penal code. this is driving me nuts. Bear in mind stalking from 3rd- to 1st degree all say doing X with intent to do x,y,z. This does not say w/ intent. Therefore (and its hard to interpret) I think this is a general intent crime...

A person is guilty of stalking in the fourth degree when he or she intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and knows or reasonably should know that such conduct: 1. is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety or property of such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted; or 2. causes material harm to the mental or emotional health of such person, where such conduct consists of following, telephoning or initiating communication or contact with such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted, and the actor was previously clearly informed to cease that conduct; or 3. is likely to cause such person to reasonably fear that his or her employment, business or career is threatened, where such conduct consists of appearing, telephoning or initiating communication or contact at such person's place of employment or business, and the actor was previously clearly informed to cease that conduct. Stalking in the fourth degree is a class B misdemeanor

sethc
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: is this specific intent or general intent

Postby sethc » Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:42 pm

Looks like specific to me "intentionally..." and "..knowingly" which = 2 different MR's.

I could be way off, so don't take my word for it!

edit: NY is very heavily influenced by the MPC, if memory serves me.. so if that's true as I'm thinking then that could clue you in a lot.

User avatar
chicoalto0649
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:34 pm

Re: is this specific intent or general intent

Postby chicoalto0649 » Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:50 pm

sethc wrote:Looks like specific to me "intentionally..." and "..knowingly" which = 2 different MR's.

I could be way off, so don't take my word for it!

edit: NY is very heavily influenced by the MPC, if memory serves me.. so if that's true as I'm thinking then that could clue you in a lot.


To a certain extent but they're common law influenced and use language like w/ intnet. MPC only has 4 mens rea terms -knowing, purposefully, neg or reckless.

I think this statute calls for a general culpable state of mind (I.e. "For no particular reason".) Compare that to. Common law burglary- breaking / entering With Intent to yadayayad. The statute here never says w/intent, in comparison to the more serious grades of stalking which I did not disclose

User avatar
chicoalto0649
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:34 pm

Re: is this specific intent or general intent

Postby chicoalto0649 » Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:22 pm

HALP!

toolfan
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:11 pm

Re: is this specific intent or general intent

Postby toolfan » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:11 am

chicoalto0649 wrote:
sethc wrote:Looks like specific to me "intentionally..." and "..knowingly" which = 2 different MR's.

I could be way off, so don't take my word for it!

edit: NY is very heavily influenced by the MPC, if memory serves me.. so if that's true as I'm thinking then that could clue you in a lot.


To a certain extent but they're common law influenced and use language like w/ intnet. MPC only has 4 mens rea terms -knowing, purposefully, neg or reckless.

I think this statute calls for a general culpable state of mind (I.e. "For no particular reason".) Compare that to. Common law burglary- breaking / entering With Intent to yadayayad. The statute here never says w/intent, in comparison to the more serious grades of stalking which I did not disclose


eh, technically it can be the same MR, not different, as you can satisfy intentionally with knowledge

edit: "intentionally" indicates a common law standard more often than not, as the MPC uses "purposely" and not "intentionally"

& this seems to be a general intent crime that can be establish in several ways

User avatar
chicoalto0649
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:34 pm

Re: is this specific intent or general intent

Postby chicoalto0649 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:08 pm

toolfan wrote:
chicoalto0649 wrote:
sethc wrote:Looks like specific to me "intentionally..." and "..knowingly" which = 2 different MR's.

I could be way off, so don't take my word for it!

edit: NY is very heavily influenced by the MPC, if memory serves me.. so if that's true as I'm thinking then that could clue you in a lot.


To a certain extent but they're common law influenced and use language like w/ intnet. MPC only has 4 mens rea terms -knowing, purposefully, neg or reckless.

I think this statute calls for a general culpable state of mind (I.e. "For no particular reason".) Compare that to. Common law burglary- breaking / entering With Intent to yadayayad. The statute here never says w/intent, in comparison to the more serious grades of stalking which I did not disclose


eh, technically it can be the same MR, not different, as you can satisfy intentionally with knowledge

edit: "intentionally" indicates a common law standard more often than not, as the MPC uses "purposely" and not "intentionally"

& this seems to be a general intent crime that can be establish in several ways



Well thats what I said but everyone was like naaaah specific intent.... so he gave us 4 different stalking statutes and the last 3 (the more serious ones) all said "with intent"....the first one (the statute posted above) didn't so mayb he wanted us to distinguish between the 3

ogurty
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:16 am

Re: is this specific intent or general intent

Postby ogurty » Fri Dec 17, 2010 1:46 pm

It looks like specific intent until you get to (3). Since you can violate with only recklessness, it's probably a general intent crime. You have to intend the conduct, but you only have to be reckless as to the result.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: splitterfromhell, ThePlusEquestrian, ValeVale and 9 guests