Criminal Law
Stone
Fall 2013
Prohibited Conduct- Actus Reus and Mens Rea
· Criminal Liability
o Act + Intent + Proximate Cause
· Voluntary Act
· Possession, Constructive Possession
· Omission to Act, Duty to Act
State v. Hinkle
· Issue: Was jury instructed properly on the defense of unconsciousness?
· Automatism
o State must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt
o Unconsciousness eliminates the voluntary nature of a criminal act
§ Could be held liable if he knew about his disease prior to the accident
· Holding: Reverse and remanded
o New trial was called for and proper instructions were directed
Actus Reus
· Voluntary act (or omission to act)
· Cause
· Social harm
· Not a crime to THINK about committing a crime
· Deemed by conduct, not by thought
o Defendant must possess free will to be responsible for his/her conduct
State v. Fox
· Voluntary act
· Possession
§ Alcohol, narcotics, tobacco, firearms, stolen goods, burglary tools
o Actual
o Constructive
§ D must have the power and intent to exercise dominion and control
· Ownership or occupancy of the property
· Incriminating behavior of the accused
· Presence of drugs in a specific area over which the accused had control, such as a closet or drawer containing the accused’s clothing or personal affects
Omission to Act
State v. Miranda
· Legal duty à criminal OR civil liability
o Established by the familiarity with child
o Identified voluntarily to be child’s stepfather
§ This all establishes legal duty
· Knowledge à
o Removed child from situation
o Take child to hospital
o Call the police/child protective services
o Protected child
· Four instances in which failure to act makes it a crime
Relationship
“Status”
Example
· Parent/child
o Legal guardian, grandparent, adoptive parents
Statute
Example
· Taxes, hit and run
Contract
Example
· Police officer, lifeguard, babysitter, doctor, teacher
Voluntary
“Assumption of care”
State v. Trinkle
· Intent
o Specific
§ Crimes require proof that there is a conscious object or purpose of harm
§ (Trinkle)
o General
§ Any offense where mens rea was at fault in some manner
§ (Rocker)
· Attempted murder
o Substantial step to commit crime
o Specific intent to kill
In attempted crimes, person must have specific intent to produce that result.
State v. Rocker
· D found guilty of indecent exposure
· Exposure made that was more likely to be observed by others
· Statutory interpretation
· Crime contains BOTH actus reus and mens rea.
o mens rea- particular mindset during the time of a crime
§ guilty mind, immorality of motive, fault, moral blameworthiness, willfully, intentional, knowingly, purposely, maliciously, wantonly
· subjective fault
o stolen property- must know property is stolen to be criminally liable
· objective fault
o stolen properly- having reason to know property is stolen (reasonable person)
· strict liability
o stolen property- guilty if property is actually stolen [no knowledge that property is stolen]
o actus reus- the act
· Model Penal Code
o Drafted by reviewers and legislatures BUT is not law, modernized approach
o Departed from common law distinctions
o Four recognized criminal states of mind:
Purpose
· A conscious object or desire to engage in conduct of that nature or cause such a result
o Awareness, belief [intent]
o Conduct
§ Larceny- taking something to deprive another
o Result
§ Burglary- breaking in will result in a burglary
Knowledge
· Awareness for conduct and circumstances of practical certainty for the result
o Practically certain [smuggling drugs into US]
§ Concealed it himself
§ Personally observed it being concealed in the vehicle
§ Smells the drugs concealed in his car
o Deliberate ignorance à knowledge of something illegal
Reckless
· Consciously disregarding the result of an action
· Actually aware that element exists or of the result
· Subjective fault
· Gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law abiding would follow
Negligence
· Should be aware that the action will provide a certain result
· Objective fault
· Actor need not realize the risk, therefore, no subject fault is required
Sagner v. State
· D threw a bottle at “Chino” (intended victim) during an altercation.
· However, the bottle hits “Chris” (unintended victim) an
v. United States
· ∆ was on bomb testing range in Michigan, commonly used by the locals as a place to hunt deer
· Scrap metal from bombs were piled up in certain places and were basically left for abandonment, which ∆ took to sell for scrap metal
Intent to take property
Intent to deprive owner of property
· Where a theft statute does not specify felonious intent as an essential element, does it qualify as an element? à yes it does, unless it explicitly states otherwise
· Must have knowledge that the casings were government property
· Legislatures usually don’t require mens rea with public policy issues (traffic violations, serving minors alcohol.
· Model Penal Code can eliminate the element of crime.
People v. Hernandez
· Reasonable mistake is a defense to strict liability.
· Statutory rape is a strict liability case in 33 states.
· If you commit the crime, there’s no necessity to prove mens rea of perpetrator. It is a crime.
US v. Kantor
· Issue: May ∆ present evidence that it was a reasonable mistake where he believed the victim was not a minor?
· Model Penal Code pg. 85
Causation à most relevant in homicide cases, important element of criminal responsibility
· Common Sense
· Logic
· Justice
· Fairness
· Proximate Cause
1. Voluntary act/no action
2. Mens rea
3. Proximate cause
1. Actual Cause (Factual cause)
2. Proximate Cause (Legal cause)
· “But For” Test à but for ∆ doing something, would harm still have occurred
o Purpose is to identify candidates for responsibility for an event
o To determine, judge/jury must select cause of harm
· Intervening cause (independent force)
o Defendant acts
o Second causal force intervenes
o Intervening cause aggravates victim’s injuries or accelerates victim’s death
§ Wrongdoing by 3rd party
§ Victim’s own contributory negligence
§ Natural force (Act of God)
· Out of ordinary to be relieved of criminal responsibility
