Safe Havens



 
 

§ 7.112 a. Strict Liability (i.e., No Criminal Intent)

 
Skip to § 7.

For more text, click "Next Page>"

Some criminal statutes may be violated without any intent whatsoever.  Where criminal intent is not an essential element of the offense, the crime will generally not be held to be a crime involving moral turpitude.  An offense not malum in se, i.e., which does not include as an essential element of the offense a specific state of mind properly equated with the common-law concept of mens rea, as opposed to an intent to do the act which itself has been proscribed and rendered malum prohibitum, does not qualify as a crime which involves moral turpitude as a matter of law.  This conclusion remains, even though the facts of a given case may disclose conduct which involved moral turpitude, since the court may not inquire into the facts of the case to make the CMT determination.[970]

 

If the elements of the crime require no motive or intent, and the defendant may be convicted even though the conduct was prompted by innocent motives, then the crime does not involve moral turpitude.[971]


[970] Forbes v. Brownell, 149 F.Supp. 848 (D.D.C. 1957).

[971] United States ex rel. Mylius v. Uhl, 203 Fed. 152 (S.D.N.Y. 1913), aff’d sub nom. United States v. Uhl, 210 Fed. 860 (2d Cir. 1914); United States v. Carrollo, 30 F.Supp. 3 (W.D.Mo. 1939); Matter of M, 9 I. & N. Dec. 132 (BIA 1960).

 

TRANSLATE