Opinion ID: 2595475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: General Provision on Mens Rea

Text: California law contains a generally applicable rule on mens rea: section 20, which provides, In every crime or public offense there must exist a union, or joint operation of act and intent, or criminal negligence. The interpretive rule embodied in this statute is by no means inflexible, public welfare offenses being the chief recognized exception. Nonetheless, at least where the penalties imposed are substantial, section 20 can fairly be said to establish a presumption against criminal liability without mental fault or negligence, rebuttable only by compelling evidence of legislative intent to dispense with mens rea entirely. (See People v. Vogel, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 801, 299 P.2d 850 [union of act and wrongful intent so basic that it is an invariable element of every crime unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication (fn. omitted) ]; People v. Hernandez (1964) 61 Cal.2d 529, 533, 39 Cal.Rptr. 361, 393 P.2d 673 [noting this court has moved away from the imposition of criminal sanctions in the absence of culpability where the governing statute, by implication or otherwise, expresses no legislative intent or policy to be served by imposing strict liability]; Simon, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 521, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 278, 886 P.2d 1271 [§ 20 applicable except where the purpose is to protect public health and safety and the penalties are relatively light]; see also Staples, supra, 511 U.S. at p. 606, 114 S.Ct. 1793 [presumption favoring mens rea  applies absent a contrary indication of congressional intent, express or implied].)