Not every mistake, including mistakes that involve errors in judgment and that cause another person to be injured, leads to potential criminal liability. We all make mistakes, most of which have no potential criminal consequences. The question we will examine here is what mental state is required to support a criminal conviction.
Initially, you might think that in order to be convicted of a crime, you must act intentionally, i.e., cause the injury or other harm on purpose. Legally, we would say that such an act is “intentional. There are, however, a number of crimes in which the mental state sufficient, if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, to support a conviction, is sufficient without specifically intending the resulting harm. The requisite mental states are set forth in A.R.S. 13-105(10); they are listed as “culpable mental states,” and include Intentional acts, acts performed knowingly, recklessly, or performed with criminal negligence. While these four states of mind are related and somewhat similar, they are not the same and, when applied to a particular criminal charge, may mean the difference between an acquittal and a conviction. The following are the statutory definitions of these states of mind when used to define a particular criminal act:
- Intentionally. The objective of the person charged is that the conduct or the result that defines the offense is intended by the defendant.
- Knowingly. Where a statute prohibits particular conduct, the defendant is either aware or believes that the conduct exists. There is no requirement that the state prove the defendant knew the conduct was Kconstitute a “gross deviation” from the behavior of a person acting reasonably under the circumstances.
- Recklessly. In these situations, the defendant is aware of a significant and unjustifiable risk of an illegal act or result (as defined by the statute). The risk must be a “gross deviation” from the conduct of a reasonable person in those circumstances. Reckless behavior is not excused by voluntary intoxication which causes the defendant to be unaware of the risk.
- Criminal Negligence. This consists of failure to perceive a risk that is both substantial and unjustifiable, that the particular risk will occur. Unlike simple negligence, the failure to heed the risk must constitute a “gross deviation” from the behavior of a person acting reasonably under the circumstances.
While these distinctions may appear highly technical and difficult to differentiate, they often mean the difference between a conviction and an acquittal.
Law Offices of David A. Black
40 North Central Avenue #1850
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(480) 280-8028