California First-Year Law Students' Exam (Baby Bar) — MCCriminal LawEasy
A client, a technician, is frustrated with his slow computer. In a moment of anger, he slams his fist down on the keyboard, damaging it beyond repair. The client did not specifically intend to destroy the keyboard but acted impulsively out of frustration. The client is charged with malicious mischief (criminal damage to property). Which type of intent is generally sufficient for general intent crimes like malicious mischief?
- ANegligence in handling the equipment.
- BSpecific intent to achieve a particular result.
- CIntent to commit the act that causes the harm, even if the specific result isn't desired.
- DReckless disregard for property boundaries.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. Intent to commit the act that causes the harm, even if the specific result isn't desired.
General intent crimes, such as malicious mischief, only require that the defendant intended to perform the physical act that caused the harm, even if they did not specifically desire the ultimate harmful outcome. The client intended to slam his fist, and that act caused the damage, fulfilling the general intent requirement.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Negligence is a lower standard of mens rea and is typically insufficient for criminal liability unless specified by statute.
- B. This describes specific intent, which is not required for general intent crimes.
- D. Recklessness is a higher mens rea than general intent, but general intent itself is often satisfied by a conscious choice to act.
General Intent (Criminal Law)
The intent to perform the physical act that constitutes the crime, without necessarily intending the specific outcome or harm.
- Defendant intended to do the act, not necessarily the result.
- Most crimes are general intent crimes.
- Can be inferred from the doing of the act itself.
Memory trick: Mens Rea: The mind behind the deed, what did you intend to feed?