PROFESSOR BERGELSON'S CRIMINAL LAW CLASS SPRING 2015 RUTGERS
Actus Reus
· ACTUS REUS
o COMMON LAW
· VOLUNTARY ACT
§ Under common law, a voluntary is a movement of the human body that is willed or directed by the actor (Killer points loaded gun and pulls the trigger
§ A Habit done inadvertently can still be considered a voluntary act (As long as the individual COULD have acted differently)
§ EX: someone who is aware of his potential to suffer from seizures VOLUNTARILY drives a car but INVOLUNTARILY has a seizure and fatally injures people. He is GUILTY. The act of getting in the car satisfies the voluntary act requirement
§ Harmful act done to avoid a greater harm is still considered voluntary (but may be subject to a defense of justification or excuse)
· OMISSION & LEGAL DUTY
§ The FAILURE of a person to ACT when he is under a LEGAL OBLIGATION arising from civil law satisfies the ACTUS REUS requirement
§ LEGAL DUTY MAY BE BASED ON
a. Relationship (parent must provide food and shelter for child)
b. Statute (law requiring medical providers to report child abuse
c. Contract to provide care (nursing home contracts to provide med care)
d. Voluntary assumption of care that isolates the individual (taking a sick person into one's home may result in duty to provide care)
e. Creation of peril (push someone into water who can't swim, duty to rescue is created)
f. Duty to control the conduct of another (business executive may have duty to control company chauffeur's speeding)
g. Duty of a landowner (provide reasonable emergency exits)
§ Ignorance of the law is not an excuse
§ CHILD ABUSE: Some courts have found mothers who fail to protect children from sexual abuse have been found guilty of child abuse for failing to take steps to prevent the abuse. (Some courts have found contrary)
§ MOST COURTS have found that a parent DOES HAVE A LEGAL DUTY TO ACT & Failure to prevent the abuse can result in criminal responsibility
· MORAL DUTY
§ Obligations that people should live up to simply based on our basic sense of right and wrong
§ Criminal Law DOES NOT impose responsibility for failure to live up to a moral duty to act unless it is embodied in a civil law duty
· POSSESSION
§ Possession does not require that the offender DO anything. Mere possession (or failure to terminate possession once learning of the item's presence) of the illegal item is sufficient to establish guilt
§ Knowingly taking or keeping a forbidden item is a voluntary act
o THE MODEL PENAL CODE (MPC)
· VOLUNTARY ACT
§ MPC §1.13(2) – an act or action is “a bodily movement WHETHER voluntary OR involuntary.” (Commentary suggests that voluntary means within the control of the actor)
§ MPC §2.01(1) – A person is not guilty under MPC unless “his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which he is physically capable.”
§ MPC §2.01(a) – NON VOLUNTARY ACTS
· Reflex or convulsion
· Bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep
· Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestions
· Bodily movement that otherwise is not the product of the effort or determination of the actor
OMISSION & LEGAL DUTY
MPC permits omission or failure to act to satisfy the conduct element of a crime in two different types of cases (MPC 2.01[3][a][b])
a. When the statute defining the offense expressly states that failure to act is a crime (failure to file income tax return), OR
b. The defendant has a duty to act imposed by civil law (parent fails to provide necessary food shelter and clothing to child [in most states])
· A MORE PRECISE DEFINITION FOR ACTUS REUS
§ Material elements (MPC 1.13[9][i],[ii],[iii])
a. Conduct
i. The physical behavior of the defendant (driving, shooting)
b. Circumstance (Attendant Circumstances?)
i. An objective fact or condition that exists in the real world when the defendant engages in conduct
c. Result
i. The consequence or outcome caused by the defendants conduct
· Ex: Point a loaded gun at another and pull trigger causing bullet to hit and kill, the death is the result of the D's conduct
· POSSESSION
§ Under MPC, possession is an act or conduct when someone KNOWINGLY accepts custody of the illegal item
§ Someone who initially does not realize that they have illegal items but subsequently realizes
· The persons possession is sufficient for criminal liability of, after becoming aware of the possession, he does not terminate his possession within a sufficient period (His failure to act is an omission
ONLY MATERIAL ELEMENTS REQUIRE CULPABILITY
· MPC distinguished between elements and material elements of a statute
§ Elements (1.13) – terms unconnected with the harm or evil, incident to conduct, sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense
§ Material Elements – the harm or evil the statute is concerned with (burning books – Little Red example)
§ CODE says that words relating to venue/juris./stat. of lim. Are NOT material elements
· Reduces statutory mens rea culpability to 4 mental states
· Applies 4 mental states to EACH of the material elements of a statute
· Adopts subjective liability (RECKLESSNESS) as default position (when statute is silent)
o MATERIAL ELEMENTS OF STATUTE DIVIDED INTO
· Conduct and Result – Usually the verbs (kill/destroy)
· Attendant circumstance – any material element that is not a result or conduct. (book/purple)
o 2.02 – Apply mental state to the elements
· Purposely – Similar to Common Law “intentional”
§ To prove D had PURPOSE with regard to attendant circumstance, MPC requires D be aware or hope or believe that fact is true
§ To prove PURPOSE to result element D must entertain the conscious object to achieve the proscribed result
· Knowingly – similar to oblique intention under common law
§ Knowing actor FORESEEs the result as highly likely but doesn't care whether it happens or not.
§ 2.02(8) – willful and knowingly are the same
· Recklessly – DEFAULT CULPABILITY WHERE STATUTE IS SILENT
§ MPC requires that the risk the D is disregarding is SUBSTANTIAL & UNJUSTIFIABLE. (this can be resolved by reading substantial as “of real importance” instead of “highly probable”
· Negligently
§ MPC only allows criminal negligence for HOMICIDE
· In case of negligent homicide the penalty is less than manslaughter (which is usually the level of punishment for neg. homicide in common law)
· TRANSFERRED INTENT – Under MPC is a matter of causation (2.03 2&3)
