Does US criminal law recognize objective elements that don&#39;t require mens rea?
<p>In German law, there is a legal construct called "Tatbestandsannex" or "objektive Bedingung der Strafbarkeit". These are necessary conditions for criminal liability for which no corresponding mens rea is necessary. An example would be § 231 I StGB ("participation in a brawl"), which requires that the brawl resulted in grievous bodily harm or a death for it to be punishable. However, the participants need not have mens rea with regard to the grievous bodily harm/death.</p>

<p>Are there crimes in US law (federal or any state) where the objective element contains conditions which don't have to be covered by mens rea? Is there a technical term for this?</p>

<p>If I'm reading your question properly, you're referring to strict liability.  This tends to apply element-by-element and means you needn't prove <em>mens rea</em> with respect to that particular element.</p>

<p>Since penal codes vary from state to state, it can be difficult to find consistent examples of strict liability crimes.  That said, parking tickets are often held out as being strict liability offenses.  Another---and this does vary widely by state---is statutory rape.</p>

<p>One reason strict liability crimes are rare stems from <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/601/" rel="nofollow"><em>United States v. Freed</em>, 401 U.S. 601 (1971)</a>, where an important issue was whether the object was so dangerous to public safety as to put everyone on notice via strict liability.</p>

<p>For a perspective on a different jurisdiction, NSW, Australia, see <a href="http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4487/criminal-law-mens-rea-and-the-guilty-mind.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4487/criminal-law-mens-rea-and-the-guilty-mind.aspx</a></p>
<p><em>Mens rea</em> is a common law doctrine inherited from English law and applies to common law crimes. In NSW, most common law crimes are now dealt with by statute, most notably the <em><a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Crimes Act 1900</a></em> although many other statutes also detail criminal offences. The state of the law here is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In <em>R v Wampfler</em>, the justices in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, used the judgment from the High Court in <em>He Kaw Teh v The Queen</em> as a basis, stated that for the purpose of considering criminal intent, statutory offences fall into the following categories:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the obligation is on the prosecution to prove <em>mens rea</em>, which is the original obligation</p>
</li>
<li><p>offences in which <em>mens rea</em> is presumed to be present, unless, and until material is advanced by the defence of the existence of honest and reasonable belief that the conduct in question is not criminal, then it is the responsibility of the prosecution of negativing such a belief beyond reasonable doubt</p>
</li>
<li><p>the guilt of a person is established by the objective ingredients of the offence, and <em>mens rea</em> has no part in the committing of the offence.</p>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>So, in addition to the categories where <em>mens rea</em> is required to be proved by the prosecution and the category of strict liability, there is a third category where the actions allow the assumption of <em>mens rea</em> and the defence is obliged to overcome that assumption. Which crime falls into which category depends on the wording of the statute and precedents.</p>
<p>Some examples:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>murder</strong> is a crime where <em>mens rea</em> needs to be proved by the prosecution,</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>drink driving</strong> is a crime where <em>mens rea</em> can be presumed by the prosecution but may be rebutted by the defence,</p>
</li>
<li><p>breach of <strong>work health and safety law</strong> is a strict liability offence - <em>mens rea</em> is irrelevant.</p>
</li>
</ul>

united-states criminal-law comparative-law mens-rea