Culpability
Causation
Act + State of Mind + Circumstances + Results = Liability
I. Actus Reus – a voluntary act or occasionally a failure to act is necessary for the commission of a crime
A. STATUS IS NOT AN ACT
1. Robinson v. California (USSC 1962)
a. It is unconstitutional to criminalize the status of an individual as a narcotics addict
cruel and unusual punishment
B. VOLUNTARY ACTS – the finalization of the thought or intent to commit a crime
1. Affirmative acts – will be sufficient for criminal liability if it involves some conscious and volition movement
a. Powell v. Texas (USSC 1968)
– Statute making it a crime to be drunk in public is constitutional if there is a voluntary act (positive action)
2. Omissions – Failure to act may result in criminal liability if there was a legal duty to act, a requisite knowledge and it was possible to act
a. Potential Legal and Criminal Duties
– Statute creates a duty to act (income taxes, doctors (depends), Minnesota: Good Samaritan)
– Creation of peril
– Relationship (parent/child, married, hunters (recreational activity))
– Contractual duty (babysitter)
– Voluntary assumption of care or seclusion (begin a rescue)
– Negligence (speeding: vehicular manslaughter)
C. INVOLUNTARY ACTS – not subject to criminalization
1. Model Penal Code defines voluntary acts as:
a. A reflex or convulsion
– except when due to a pre-existing condition such as an epileptic seizure (People v. Decina)
b. Unconsciousness or sleep
– People v. Newton (CA 1970)
– Newton was unconscious due to a being shot in the stomach when he shot an officer à involuntary act
c. Conduct during hypnosis resulting from hypnotic suggestion
– Courts are split on this
– CA does not accept this
d. A bodily movement that is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual
– Martin v. State (AL 1944)
– D was taken from his home and then arrested for being drunk in public – involuntary act
II. Mens Rea – culpable state of mind – must have the requisite mental state
A. GENERAL INTENT – Objective view
Intent to do the act committed (i.e. Battery/Assault)
1. Negligently
a. A person acts negligently w/ respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of the substantial an unjustifiable risk
b. A gross deviation from the
ent from the legislature that mens rea is not required, the public welfare offense rationale should not be applied interpret the statute defining a felony offense of getting rid w/ mens rea
D. STATUTES THAT ARE SILENT ON MENS REA (Tools)
1. Legislative intent
2. Public Policy
3. Nature of the crime
4. Length of the penalty
5. Is it a “newer” public welfare crime
6. Presumptions
7. What other law or cases do
8. Where can we draw the lines
9. Probability on Lambert
a. D was guilty of an omission of duty to register as a felon in LA
b. Court says that mens rea must be high b/c there is no act so it must be purposely / knowingly of duty
E. DEFENSES TO MENS REA
1. Defenses for specific intent crimes
a. Honest / Actual but unreasonable mistake in belief – negates specific intent – PD shows this
– DA must show that it was a dishonest belief
b. Intoxication – must be involuntary
2. Defenses to general intent crimes
