Salt Lake Criminal Defense Attorney Utah
Criminal Defense Attorney Stephen Howard
Call Criminal Defense Attorney in Utah
Call Utah Criminal Lawyer
Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyers / Former Prosecutors
Call 801-449-1409 now to see what our criminal defense team can do for you.
Utah Criminal Defense Lawyer Salt Lake City

Criminal Defense Solutions Start HereSM

Finding a Felony Defense LawyerChoosing a Misdemeanor Defense LawyerDrug and Alcohol Crimes Defense LawyerWhite Collar Defense Attorney for Utah ChargesAttorney for Expungements Reductions and PardonsDefendant Constitutional Rights Criminal LawyerBail and Bond Alternatives in UtahReasons for Hope Facing Criminal Charges

Utah Criminal Defense - Salt Lake Criminal Attorney

Utah Code 76-2-101 - Actus Reus and Mens Rea

The Utah criminal code generally follows the traditional common law rule which requires elements of both conduct and mental state in order to support a conviction for a criminal offense. The concepts of prohibited conduct and criminal mental state are often referred to by the Latin terms "actus reus" (a guilty act) and "mens rea" (a guilty mind).

In the civil courts, it is common for liability to be imposed without regard to whether a party to the action intended or even knew that their conduct was wrong. The conduct itself is often sufficient to support a civil judgment. But in the criminal courts, the general rule is that the evidence must support proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant both committed the wrongful act, and had the required mental state when the act was committed.

Intentionally, Knowingly, Recklessly, or with Criminal Negligence

Under Utah criminal law, the mens rea requirement can be met by proof that the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence. If the statute establishing a given crime does not state a mental intent requirement, then proof of at least recklessness is required to satisfy the mens rea element. (See Utah Code 76-2-102.) These mens rea elements are defined under Utah Code 76-2-103 as follows:

Intentionally: A defendant acts intentionally or willfully with regard to conduct or a specific result of that conduct when it is the defendant's "conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result."

Knowingly: A defendant acts knowingly with regard to conduct or the circumstances surrounding the defendant's conduct when the defendant is consciously "aware of the nature of his conduct or the existing circumstances." A defendant is considered to act knowingly with regard to the result of certain conduct when the defendant "is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause" the required result.

Recklessly: A defendant acts recklessly with regard either to conduct or a specific result of that conduct when the defendant is "aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk" that certain circumstances exist or that a required result will occur. In evaluating the risk involved, a fact finder must determine that the risk is "of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint."

Criminal Negligence: A defendant is criminally negligent when the defendant "ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur." Unlike recklessness, criminal negligence does not require proof that the defendant was actually aware of the risk. Instead, criminal negligence requires only proof that the defendant's "failure to perceive [the risk] constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise in all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint."

If a statute fails to specify a mens rea requirement, then Utah Code 76-2-102 provides that the prosecutor must prove, at a minimum, that the defendant acted with recklessness. Criminal negligence alone will support the mens rea requirement only if the statute specifically provides that negligent conduct is sufficient.

General Intent v. Specific Intent Crimes

Criminal charges are sometimes classified as either "general intent" or "specific intent" crimes.

A general intent crime is one in which the prosecutor must only prove that the person committed the act, and did so either intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence. An example of a general intent crime is "negligent homicide." Under Utah Code 76-5-206, a person is guilty of negligent homicide if the person commits any act "with criminal negligence" and by doing so, "causes the death of another." There is no requirement of any proof that the defendant intended to cause death. Instead, the only mens rea evidence required is proof that the defendant's conduct was criminally negligent.

A specific intent crime requires proof not only of the general mens rea, but also some additional intent element. Theft is an example of a specific intent crime. In order to prove theft under Utah Code 76-6-404, a prosecutor must prove that the defendant exercised unauthorized control over the property of another, and also that the defendant had the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property. Unless the evidence shows that the defendant had the specific purpose to deprive the owner of the property, proof that the defendant's actions were merely unauthorized is not sufficient to support a charge of theft.

Strict Liability - An Exception to the Rule

Utah criminal law provides an exception to the general rule requiring proof of a necessary mental state. Certain offenses have been defined under Utah criminal law as requiring only proof of the prohibited conduct, without regard to the defendant's intent or state of mind. Such offenses are sometimes referred to as "strict liability" offenses.

Utah Code 76-2-101 provides that if an offense involves strict liability, then there is no requirement of proof that the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligent. Utah Code 76-2-101(2) specifically exempts sections of the Utah Traffic Code found in Title 41, Chapter 6a from the ordinary mens rea requirements of criminal responsibility. For other crimes to qualify as strict liability offenses, Utah Code 76-2-103 requires that the statute defining the offense must clearly indicate "a legislative purpose to impose criminal responsibility for commission of the conduct prohibited by the statute without requiring proof of any culpable mental state."

Finding a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney in Salt Lake City

Salt Lake Defense AttorneyIf you have been charged with a crime, having the assistance of an experienced criminal attorney can be critical. Based in Salt Lake City, criminal defense lawyer Stephen Howard has successfully protected his clients' rights in cases ranging from aggravated murder to shoplifting, and virtually everything in between. Mr. Howard provides legal services to clients throughout Utah.

Contact us today to arrange for an initial confidential consultation.

Utah Code 76-2-105 - Transferred Intent
Utah Code 76-2-202 - Accomplice Liability

Utah Code 76-2-304 - Mistake of Fact and Ignorance of Law Defenses
More Utah Criminal Code Provisions

Best Rating
Make a Payment to Your Account
Get Help Now
Name: Email: Phone: Describe your legal needs here:
I accept the disclaimer below.
Disclaimer: No attorney-client relationship is established by the use of this form. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be submitted through this form. By clicking 'submit' I am only requesting that I be contacted for the purpose of obtaining legal services.

This form protected by reCAPTCHA.

  • Selected Victories
  • Criminal Defense AttorneyDismissed - Charges of insurance fraud were brought when investigators found reason to believe that client's claim of injury was fraudulent. Client was seen kicking a soccer ball, and investigators concluded that the injury claim was false. By obtaining medical records and other administrative records, and by pointing out to the prosecutor that the alleged injury interferred with the client's ability to lift - not his ability to kick a ball - the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the case.
  • Drug Crimes Defense Attorney Utah Dismissed - Client was facing multiple cases involving first-degree felony drug distribution charges for allegedly selling to a confidential informant. Defense analysis of the case revealed fatal flaws in the prosecution case that ultimately resulted in a complete dismissal of all cases and charges.
  • 402 Reduction Lawyer Utah 2-Step Reduction - Client needed a two-step reduction to bring a prior conviction to the misdemeanor level. Collection of substantial evidence of reform and rehabilitation convinced a normally reluctant prosecutor to stipulate to the defense 402 reduction motion.
  • Utah Burglary Attorney Dismissal - Client was charged with first-degree felony home burglary and facing potential life in prison. Defense analysis revealed flaws in prosecutor's case which led to abeyance agreement intended to lead to a full dismissal of the case.
  • Recent Posts
  • What Constitutes Drug Parpahernalia in Utah How is drug paraphernalia defined in Utah? - The definition of drug paraphernalia under the Utah criminal code looks at both the nature of the object and also the intended use of the object in question. . . .
  • Utah Misdemeanor Attorney Salt Lake Can I handle a Utah misdemeanor from out-of-state? - Even if you do not intend to take your case to trial, a misdemeanor criminal offense in Utah can require multiple court appearances to reach a resolution. If you have been charged with a crime in Utah, but are not a Utah resident, an experienced criminal defense attorney may be able to help you resolve the case without returning to the state. . . .
Best Criminal Defense Strategy

The best outcome is more likely when the right strategy is employed. Developing the best strategy can require real courtroom experience, a thorough understanding of procedural and substantive legal issues, and a determination to ensure that important constitutional and other legal rights are protected. Choosing the right attorney....

Strategy »
Salt Lake Criminal Defense Attorney Profile Utah

Defending against a criminal prosecution in Utah is a job that has to be done right the first time. Choosing the right attorney to defend you can be the most important decision you make. Our attorneys have extensive experience handling some of the most serious felony and misdemeanor charges on the books in Utah. No matter what charges you are facing, we can help....

Experience »
Conviction Consequences - Utah Criminal Defense

In Utah, even a "minor" misdemeanor conviction carries the potential for jail time and significant fines. A felony conviction carries the potential of lengthy prison terms and the various consequences that come with being labeled as a convicted felon. Never plead guilty without first finding out....

Consequences »
Utah Criminal Defense Attorney - Reasons to Hope

Never give up hope. Being charged with a crime is not the same as being convicted. And it is usually not the end of the world. While the consequences of a criminal charge can be serious, there are often several options and strategies for handling your case. Understanding your options and how an experienced criminal lawyer can help....

Reasons to Hope »
Home | Attorney Profile | Case Results | Criminal Code | FAQ | Legal Resources | Defense Strategy | Contact Us

Serving Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, Utah, Cache, Tooele, Summit, Box Elder, and Wasatch Counties, and all of Utah.

Attorney Stephen Howard practices as part of the Canyons Law Group, LLC and Stephen W. Howard, PC.

Offices in Salt Lake and Davis Counties
560 South 300 East, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT 84111
952 S. Main St., Suite A, Layton, UT 84041

Call now to arrange for a confidential initial consultation with an experienced and effective Utah criminal defense lawyer.

In Salt Lake City, call 801-449-1409.
In Davis County, call 801-923-4345.

Stephen W. Howard, PC

The materials in this website are intended for informational purposes only, and are not legal advice. Viewing or responding to materials in this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Read Full Disclaimer.