The second act caused death but had no mens rea.

The don't have mens rea, as the legal justice system says.

The first act did not cause death but had the appropriate mens rea.

"In case you say anything I can use for mens rea.

Equally, it has no mind to constitute the mens rea.

This means that, if a defence exists, there is no mens rea.

In some states, a distinction is based on the nature of the mens rea requirement.

This mens rea might be very low, such as recklessness.

This may prevent the defendant from having the required mens rea.

The mental element or mens rea under section 6(3) should be considered at this point.

The result is sometimes known as "half mens rea".

The mens rea requirement for battery is similar to assault.

In this section 12 case, the principle of mens rea was considered vital.

The alternative would be to require the prosecution to still show the required mens rea.

The test for the existence of mens rea may be:

A key component of the mens rea is any knowledge that the alleged criminal might have had.

The mens rea requirement is different in each case.

A strict liability crime, however, does not require that a mens rea be found.

"First and foremost for consideration of a criminal action is mens rea.

There is no concept of intent - mens rea.

The mens rea of knowledge refers to knowledge about certain facts.

He observed that criminal law must contain high level of mens rea for true crimes.

The most culpable mens rea for murder is intent to kill.

Only a small percentage of offences are defined with this mens rea requirement.

Mens rea is almost always a necessary component in order to prove that a criminal act has been committed.