A jury believed George Zimmerman’s story that he shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense. There was never any dispute that Zimmerman shot Martin. The dispute at trial turned on what was in Zimmerman’s mind when he fired the gun. In order to convict Zimmerman, the prosecution had to prove that Zimmerman had criminal intent, or what is called mens rea. It failed to do that and Zimmerman was acquitted.
Mens rea is a Latin term meaning guilty mind. In the American legal system, every crime has two components which the prosecution must prove to obtain a conviction of the defendant:
If either component is missing, the defendant will be acquitted. For example, a woman who repeatedly tells her friends that she wishes her husband were dead will probably not be convicted of murder if he goes missing. In that situation, the actus reus is missing (literally). And, a woman who slips (really) in the kitchen while deboning a chicken and accidentally eviscerates her husband is not guilty of murder, either, because she lacked the mens rea for murder (she did not intend to kill him).
But criminal intent does not necessarily mean malicious intent, and a person can be found to have criminal intent even where his motives are objectively good. The required intent is the intent to commit the prohibited act. For example, an Earth First activist who breaks into a logging company’s yard in order to prevent disable logging machinery may have good intentions (saving endangered old-growth forests) but if the prosecution proves that he intended to forcibly enter the yard without authorization and destroy the property of others, he will be found guilty. The criminal intent for the trespass was simply the activist’s intentional entry onto private property of another.
Different levels of criminal intent are required to prove different crimes. The levels range from no intent (strict liability, which is rare in criminal cases) to the level of intent required to obtain a death penalty verdict in a first degree murder trial. Generally speaking, lesser crimes carrying lesser penalties may require proof of lower levels of criminal intent. The greater the crime and possible sentence, the higher the level of criminal intent that must be proven.
The highest degree of criminal intent is malice aforethought, which is usually required to prove first degree murder. A person acts with malice aforethought when she acts with prior intent to do the criminal act. Where a person intends to kill another prior to taking that action and then does kill the other person, the killer has acted with malice aforethought.
When a person intends to do the criminal act, but does not form the intent prior to taking the action (which would constitute malice aforethought), the person has acted with intent. So, a person who gets into an argument with another person and pulls a gun and shoots the other person has acted with the intent to kill the victim. But, the killer did not form the intent to kill prior to the killing.
Many states’ have voluntary manslaughter laws. Voluntary manslaughter is usually defined as the intentional killing of a person but in the heat of passion or some other provocation. A “cold-blooded” intentional killing would generally be charged as murder of some degree.
A person who acts without a specific intent to do a criminal act but whose intentional actions are such that the person knew or should have known that the wrongful result would occur has acted knowingly under the law. Where a person fires a gun into a crowd, the person may not intend to kill any particular person but would be held to have had the knowledge that death of a victim was a likely result of the shooter’s action.
Some states, including California, require only proof that the defendant had knowledge that death was a likely result of her actions to support a second degree murder conviction.
A person acts with reckless disregard when he consciously ignores a “substantial and unjustifiable risk” that his actions will result in a crime or harm to another. Anyone who engages in reckless conduct may also be found guilty of any crime that results from that conduct. Vehicular homicide laws often require this level of mens rea, so a person who drives recklessly and kills a pedestrian may be convicted of vehicular homicide.
Involuntary manslaughter typically includes a killing done by someone acting with reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions.
Virtually all crimes listed in the criminal codes in the U.S. require some degree of mens rea. However, traffic violations, such as speeding, and certain other minor offenses are “strict liability” offenses. This means, as anyone knows who’s ever tried to convince a cop that she didn’t realize she was speeding, that the offender’s mental state is completely irrelevant. The “actus reus” (speeding) is enough by itself to justify a citation. Note, however, that in many states, "statutory rape," or sex with an underage person, remains a strict liablity crime.
As mentioned, the greater the severity of the crime and the possible penalty for committing it, the greater the level of mens rea that the state must prove to convict the person charged.
A defendant who lacks the mental capacity to form criminal intent cannot be convicted under most state laws. The “insanity” defense falls within this definition.
Minors may also be considered to lack the capacity to form requisite criminal intent simply based on their youth under some state laws.
For more information on the insanity defense, see Pleading Insanity in a Criminal Case.
The mens rea element of criminal law generally eliminates the excuse that a defendant was ignorant of the law and so should be acquitted. This is so because, in the U.S. legal system, a person is liable for the legal effects of intended acts. But, if “willfulness” is an element of a crime, meaning that the defendant knowingly and intentionally violated a law, ignorance of the law would be a defense to that element.
Some defenses require acquittal even where the state has proven actus reus and mens rea. These defenses include self-defense and justifiable homicide. George Zimmerman’s attorneys argued to the jury that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and offered evidence that they say showed that Trayvon Martin was attacking Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot him. This evidence persuaded the jury that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and the jury acquitted him despite the fact that he intended to, and did, kill Martin.
Given the many shades of criminal intent that the U.S. legal system recognizes, the frequent jail-house refrain, “I’m innocent,” turns into a loaded phrase. The way intent is viewed under the law is complex and specific to each crime. If you have questions about criminal intent in particular crimes, talk to an experienced defense lawyer in your area.