A fundamental principle of criminal law, Mr. Sullivan said, is "the confluence of a guilty mind and a guilty act".
A 2002 Florida law eliminated the requirement of a "guilty mind," or "mens rea," as part of a drug offense.
Although most legal systems recognize the importance of the guilty mind, or mens rea, the statutes have not always spelled out exactly what is meant by this concept.
The prosecution could use the friendship between codefendants to insinuate a meeting of minds,creating a slippery slope from being a witness to having a guilty mind.
Palmer's handling of her dream-monologue, her guilty mind shredded "like a gown eaten by moths", was a tour de force.
A judge disagreed, finding him guilty.Under the common-law system that America inherited from England, a person performing a prohibited act (actus reus) must also possess a guilty mind (mens rea) in order to be convicted of a crime.
There is nothing novel about the law taking into account a criminal's state of mind; one of the prerequisites for a conviction under common law is "mens rea" — a guilty mind, malice aforethought, criminal intent.
MENS REA is a legal term that is Latin for "guilty mind," and was not MEN'S WEAR, no matter how hard you (and by that I mean me) tried to cram that in.
That is why all those fixtures of the old criminal law, the guilty mind, the malign heart, actual or presumed malice, the common experience of prudent men, seem so out of place in the Calley case.
In situations of "diminished capacity," which could mean an abnormality such as dementia or a personality disorder, a person may be incapable of forming a mens rea, or "guilty mind" — the intention and understanding behind a crime.
