Criminal Liability = Act + Intent + Causation
Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Proximate Cause
Physical + Mental + Causal
“ACTUS REUS”
Generally
-“Bad Act” or prohibited conduct
-Essential for criminal liability
-Requires some sort of conduct – the law does not punish for mere thoughts
-Act must cause social harm
3 types of Actus Reus:
1. Voluntary Act
2. Inaction
3. Possession
Example:
-A, B, and C all want the Law Scholar dead.
A: Idly wishes the Law Scholar was dead
B: Intends to kill the Law Scholar
C: Actually kills the Law Scholar
-Only C is punished. Why?
Voluntary Act
Physical Act
Voluntary à actual movement of the body that is in some sense willed or directed by the actor
An act is voluntary so long as the actor could have acted differently
Patterns do not negate voluntary act
Note: Need only one act in the Ds course of conduct to be a voluntary act
The later involuntary act does NOT negate the voluntary act
Ex: D, knowing that he is prone to epileptic seizures, nonetheless voluntarily drove a car, then had a seizure, lost control of the car and killed someone
The Ds earlier voluntary act of getting into the car qualifies as the voluntary act, satisfying the actus reus requirement
Defenses to Voluntary Act à Involuntary Acts
Unconsciousness, reflex, duress, self-defense, seizures, insanity
HOWEVER – watch for pre-existing conditions
Only involuntary if there was no pre-existing condition that the D knew about
State v. Hinkle
-D, while driving car, became unconscious & caused car accident b/c of an UNDIAGNOSED brain disorder
-Here, the unconsciousness eliminated an essential element of the crime à Actus Reus (Voluntary act)
-HOWEVER, the voluntary operation of a vehicle with knowledge of the potential for loss of consciousness can constitute reckless behavior
-Therefore, if D knew that he had this brain disorder and had suffered from episodes loss of consciousness, the act of getting into the car and driving with this knowledge could constitute the voluntary act necessary for the actus reus
Inaction
-The failure to act when there is a duty to do so
-In this case, the inaction when action is legally mandated satisfies the actus reus requirement
4 situations when a legal duty to act is imposed:
1. Certain relationship to another à e.g. – parent/child
2. Statute requires action à -paying taxes
3. Contractual Duty à -lifeguard
4. Voluntarily assume the care of another
State v. Miranda
-D was living with g/f who abused her infant daughter. D voluntarily assumed role of step-father
-D was convicted of the child’s abuse because of his failure to act
-Court imposed the legal duty on him based on #1 and 4 above
-Failure to act constituted a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do
Possession
-The act is inferred from mere possession
State v. Fox
-Marijuana House – D (Clive) lived in the house with drugs, no evidence that D had control over the drugs, his conviction for possession with intent to distribute was reversed
-Elements: (1) knowingly and intentionally posses CDS and (2) intent to distribute CDS to another
General Principles:
-Knowledge + Ability to Possess ≠ Possession (where no intent to make use of knowledge/ability)
-Conviction can be based on Actual (caught in possession) or Constructive Possession
Constructive Possession:
-The contraband is “subject to Ds dominion and control”
-Constructive possession requires a sufficient NEXUS between the D and the CDS to permit an inference that the D had both (1) power and (2) intent to exert dominion and control over the CDS
Look to:
1. ownership/occupancy of premises where drug found
2. Incriminating statements or behavior
3. Presence of drugs in specific area over which D had control
Ex: closet or drawer
4. Proximity to drug
Mens Rea
Topics:
I. Specific vs. General Intent
II. Mens Rea Elemental Meaning
III. Subjective, Objective, & No Fault Statutes
IV. Model Penal Code Approach
V. Transferred Intent
Generally
aka “Guilty Mind”
Mental State required for a crime
Essential component of criminality
I. Specific vs. General Intent
A. Specific Intent
Definitions:
intent to perform the precise act later charged with
The actor’s conscious objective is to accomplish the specific crime
Requires proof of a particular state of mind (usu. defined in statute)
Ex: If a statute includes the words ‘with intent’ – this denotes specific intent
The State has the burden of proof to prove specific intent
State v. Trinkle
-D gets really drunk at a bar, then was refused service, came back later with a gun, shot at the building from the outside, wounded V, but he did not know V nor did he intend to kill her.
-D is NOT guilty of AM because no specific intent to kill Gayle, the victim.
-Here, specific intent requires that D has the specific intent to kill that particular victim
-Specific Intent is usu. required for attempt crimes
Elements of AM:
1. Substantial step towards the commission/completion of the offense of murder
2. Act aimed at a specific person
3. Knowing such act would create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm
-*Note*:
-For AM, there must be a specific intent to kill a particular person
-For murder, there need not be a specific intent to kill (reckless disregard for human life)
-THEREFORE, IF D had killed Gayle, instead of wounding her, D would be guilty of murder even though he harbored no specific intent to kill her
B. General Intent
Definitions:
Intent to do a forbidden act, even if D does not desire the particular consequences
An intent to act where it is practically certain that harm will result, regardless of whether D desires that harm or not
Often the default mens rea for crimes that do not require specific intent and are not strict liability offenses
The offenses only requires merely a blameworthy state of mind
State v. Rocker (Nude Sunbather)
-“The offense of common nuisance is the endangering of the public … health, or doing, causing or promoting, maintaining or continuing what is offensive, or annoying or vexatious … as for example … indecent exposure … .”
-Notice NO languag
eye.
-D is guilty of aggravated battery against MG. The intent transferred from the intended victim to MG.
-The crime required specific intent to harm the intended victim (specific intent).
-The doctrine of transferred intent allows the specific intent to harm the intended V to be transferred to the actual V, satisfying the mens rea requirement.
I. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
Generally
Criminal negligence is a tougher standard – requires a farther deviation from acceptable conduct
Civil Negligence:
A reasonable person could foresee that acts create an unreasonable risk
Criminal Negligence:
Gross deviation from a prudent person’s standard of care
Acts create a substantial an unjustifiable risk
Factors to look at when determining criminal negligence
Gravity of the harm that would foreseeably result
Probability of the harm occurring
Burden on the D to avoid the act
Ex: D darts between lanes of traffic at a fast speed to make it to his friend’s birthday
Vs. D1, who drives in the same manner so that he can get his gravely ill child to the hospital to save the child’s life.
Santillanes v. State
D cut nephews neck with a knife during altercation, statute punished knowing, intentional, or negligence child abuse
Held à negligence must rise to the level of criminal negligence
When a crime is punishable as a felony, civil negligence is an inappropriate standard for judging conduct
Civil negligence standard in a criminal context improperly criminalizes behavior that is not morally contemptible
II. STRICT LIABILITY
No mens rea required – no culpable mental state – enough for D to merely perform the act
Therefore è Lack of criminal intent is NOT a defense
Purpose: to maintain social order, not about condemning the individual for bad intent and bad acts
Argument FOR:
Too hard to prove mens rea, would ‘clog up the courts’
Good for: mala prohibita crimes, regulatory/police offenses, penalty is small and # of cases is large, no stigma attached to the conviction
Argument AGAINST:
It criminalizes the morally innocent
At the very least, the courts should hold to a criminal negligence standard or the defense of reasonable mistake of fact should be a defense
How do you know when a crime is a SL crime? (Because if the statute is silent as to mens rea – it may be a general intent crime or a SL offense)
MPC – not SL if punishable by imprisonment
Common Law: SL if regulatory rules. Not SL if prohibits a CL crime or has severe penalty
