For many types of criminal offenses, charges can only be filed if a person's state of mind or their conduct conforms to a specific standard of culpability. The four main standards involve behavior that was intentional, knowing, reckless, or criminally negligent. Let's look at what the implications are for each of those standards.
Intentional
This is, for obvious reasons, the easiest of the bunch to understand. When someone is criminally intent upon doing something, they commit an act. Oftentimes, they do so fully understanding that others will be harmed by their behavior. If someone in a fight threatens to beat another person down and then proceeds to attack them, for example, it's pretty hard to argue the action wasn't intentional.
Knowing
The classic version of knowledge in criminal law would be if someone had been killed in an arson. A criminal defense attorney might try to argue that the alleged arsonist didn't know anyone was home, but the prosecution would counter that it's easy to know there's a possibility someone could be hurt by setting a fire. Even if no one was present at the time the fire was started, first responders could be injured trying to put the flames out. Consequently, there would be culpability because the defendant knew there was a risk of potentially killing someone.
Reckless
Generally, reckless acts cover offenses where the risks were known but the individual meant no harm. For example, someone discharging a firearm as a warning might unexpectedly hit another person. It's not considered great judgment to take the risk of randomly firing a weapon, but the intent wasn't to injure.
Negligent
Criminal negligence means failing to know what a reasonable person would have wanted to know. This standard is frequently applied in cases that have some overlap with civil injury law. For example, the operator of a semi-truck might have had it overloaded prior to an accident without knowing it. A responsible person would want to know what the safe operating weight of the vehicle was, and that makes the operator culpable because they wiling made too little effort to learn.
Defenses Based on State of Mind
A criminal defense attorney may take issue with how the prosecution claims it knows the defendant's state of mind. This usually involves discoverable materials, such as phone logs, texts, and private messages. It may also involve witness testimony and police reports attesting to statements the defendant made. The defense's goal is either to have these items thrown out or to raise questions about their accuracy or authenticity.
Share