Opinion ID: 2773040
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mens Rea Is a Basic Element of an Offense and

Text: Requires an Instruction ¶14 The general rule for jury instructions is that “an accurate instruction upon the basic elements of an offense is essential. Failure 5 STATE v. BIRD Opinion of the Court to so instruct constitutes reversible error.” State v. Bluff, 2002 UT 66, ¶ 26, 52 P.3d 1210 (internal quotation marks omitted). A mens rea element is an “essential element of [an] offense.” State v. Cobo, 60 P.2d 952, 959 (Utah 1936). Thus, failure to instruct the jury as to the required mens rea, when it is an element of the crime, is reversible error. ¶15 A trial court should provide the jury with a mens rea instruction when a criminal statute includes terms that have mens rea implications. In State v. Stringham, 957 P.2d 602, 609 (Utah Ct. App. 1998), for example, the defendant was convicted of communications fraud, but the court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the mens rea element. Id. It explained, “It is too long a reach to suggest the jury divined that defendant had to act intentionally because such a level of volition is inherent in the concept of ‘devis[ing] a scheme.’” Id. (alteration in original). ¶16 Of particular concern is an instruction that leaves the erroneous impression that a crime is one of strict liability, when it in fact contains a mens rea element. In State v. Pearson, the defendant had been convicted of failure to disclose a transaction to a government employer. 1999 UT App 220, ¶ 1, 985 P.2d 919. The court of appeals reversed the conviction, reasoning that “[b]y selectively applying the mens rea to some, but not all, of the elements of the offense, the jury could easily have believed defendant was strictly liable for [the remaining element].” Id. ¶ 12. ¶17 An appropriate jury instruction must also distinguish between the general and specific intent requirements of an offense. State v. Potter, 627 P.2d 75, 78 (Utah 1981). In Potter, we remanded for a new trial “[b]ecause the instructions given . . . failed to explain adequately the distinction between the general and specific intent requirements.” Id. Thus, a trial court must instruct the jury on the proper mens rea for the offense charged. And the instruction must identify the mens rea implicated by the statutory language, must include a mens rea for all elements, and must distinguish between general and specific intent.