The Akron Legal News

Proposed bill would clarify criminal intent definition

TIFFANY L. PARKS
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 6, 2014

After nearly two years of hammering out provisions, proposed legislation would clarify the degree of mental culpability in criminal proceedings.

Senate Bill 361, sponsored by Sen. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, would clarify what degree of mental culpability is required for an offense in criminal proceedings and specify when strict criminal liability should be imposed.

“That is, when it is that the accused should be found guilty of an act without requiring any proof of criminal intent,” Seitz said.

The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, the Ohio Judicial Conference, the Buckeye Institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Texas Public Policy Foundation have agreed on the bill.

SB 361 also would modify the concept of acting recklessly and require the General Assembly, when passing new legislation that includes a new criminal offense, to specify the degree of mental culpability needed for that offense.

“The constitution requires a prosecutor to prove the elements of a crime, which include the guilty act, or actus reus, and the guilty mind, or mens rea,” Seitz said.

Mens rea, or guilty mind, is a Latin term used in criminal cases to identify to what extent a defendant intended to commit a crime.

“In cases without a mens rea requirement (strict liability), or with weaker mens rea requirements, there is the risk that citizens may become guilty of crimes by accident or mere inadvertence,” Seitz said. “It is this risk of injustice that had previously caused strict liability offenses to be an outlier in the law.”

The lawmaker noted that countless bills including criminal offenses have been passed at the state level.

“Most existing laws in the criminal code do require a state of mental culpability of the offender, but some have slipped through the cracks,” Seitz said.

“(My) past colleagues did not define what mental state is required in all criminal offenses.”

Seitz said some courts have taken such silence as an indication that the General Assembly meant to allow the conviction of individuals without any showing of bad intent, when the reality may be that the omission was due to mere inadvertence on the part of the legislature.

“Furthermore, in cases where one law contains two or more criminal offenses but specifies only one mens rea requirement, there can be confusion by prosecutors and the courts as to whether that single requirement applies to all the separate offenses in the law, or whether some offenses require little or no showing of a guilty mind,” he said.

For example, when a law is passed to increase criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly assaults a coal miner, Seitz questioned if “knowingly” only modifies “assaults” or does it also require that the offender know the victim is, in fact, a coal miner?

“My legislation intends to eliminate ambiguity by clarifying a default mens rea of recklessness for existing offenses, and ensuring that future criminal justice legislation clearly set out the mens rea requirement in order to be enforceable,” he said.

“Doing so will provide clarity to the courts, prosecutors and defense lawyers, will provide stronger protection for law-abiding Ohioans and will prevent over-criminalization in our justice system.”

If enacted, SB 361 would not apply to traffic offenses or affect existing state statute where mens rea is clearly stated.

“This bill represents a brokered compromise between those who typically argue for a relaxed mens rea standard and those desiring a more traditional and strict standard,” Seitz said.

SB 361 is co-sponsored by Republican Sens. John Eklund, Larry Obhof, Frank LaRose, Kevin Bacon and Tom Patton.

The bill is awaiting a committee assignment.

[Back]