MBE Rules · Criminal Law
Common-law mens rea — specific vs. general intent
The rule
Specific intent: requires intent beyond the actus reus (e.g., burglary, larceny, attempt, conspiracy, solicitation, assault as attempted battery, first-degree murder). General intent: only intent to commit the act (battery, rape, kidnapping). Strict liability: no mens rea required (statutory rape, public welfare offenses).
In plain English
Specific intent crimes need the person to want a particular result beyond just doing the act. General intent crimes only need the person to mean to do the act itself.
Worked example
If a defendant breaks into a house to steal, it's specific intent because they wanted to steal. If they just break in to scare someone, that's general intent because they only intended the break-in.
Memory hook
Specific = Special purpose; General = Just do it. Specific intent crimes need more than just doing the act; they need a further objective.
The trap
Students think: intent always means specific. Wrong, because many crimes only require intent to do the act. The actual test is whether the crime requires intent beyond the actus reus.
How examiners test it
MBE setup: fact pattern with ambiguous intent. Trap: students assume specific intent when only general is needed. Look for whether the crime requires further intent beyond the act.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.