OLIVER CRIMINAL LAW FALL 2011
ACT and MENTAL STATE
· ACTUS REUS: the physical or external component of the crime
o MPC § 201 / PA § 301:
§ 1) Liability if conduct includes a VOLUNTARY ACT or OMISSION to perform an act of which he is physically capable
· (Only MPC)Not voluntary acts:
o Reflex or convulsion
o Bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep
o Conduct during hypnosis / hypnotic suggestion
o Bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual
o Common Law & Possible Situations:
§ 1) Has not committed physical act, but has guilty thoughts, words, states of possession or status:
· Mere thoughts are NEVER punishable @ a crime
o Ex: Muslim wishes for another 9/11
· MPC § 201 / PA § 301: Possession is an act if:
o the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed OR
o was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession
§ Ex: slipping drugs into someone’s bag @ airport
§ 2) Act must be VOLUNTARY:
· Relax or convulsion = no criminal liability
o People v. Decina
§ Epileptic attack hits another car
§ Crt said: if knew of his attacks and voluntarily decided to drive anyway, is liable
· Hypnosis = split in courts
· Unconsciousness = no criminal liability, but very hard to prove
o People v. Newton
§ D fought w/ cops, D shot in stomach and then shoots other officer
§ Crt said: unconsciousness can be used @ a complete defense and jury should be given those instructions
§ 3) Involuntary Acts:
· Earlier voluntary acts may or may not deprive him of voluntary defense
o Martin v. State
§ D drank in home, got drunk, taken into public by cops, & charged w/ public drunkenness
§ Crt said: If one can’t conform his conduct to prevent engaging in acts that are criminal, then we lose a sense of personal security from gov’t
· Ex: D undergoes hypnosis knowing that the person who does the hypnosis generally makes people commit crimes
Consciousness—EITHER MENS REA OR ACTUS REUS
Affirmative defense
I. MAJORITY If yes- defendant must merely bring evidence to prove the prove the unconsciousness and state then must got beyond a reasonable doubt to disprove
Affirmative Defense Rule 1
Affirmative Defense Rule 2
Once some evidence of unconsciousness is introduced, the burden of state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
Once some evidence of unconsciousness raised by defendant, defendant must prove unconsciousness by preponderance of evidence
II. Begin by looking at a reasonable person standard unless the def can give any reason why he shouldn’t be measure by the reasonable person standard
III. Second question- Can the def present some evidence
IV. Burden then shift to prosecution to prove
§ 4) Omission of Acts:
· MPC § 201/ PA § 301: Liability from omission ONLY if:
o Expressly provided for by law, OR
o Law imposes a duty to perform
§ Ex: misprision of felony – concealment or nondisclosure of a felony conviction
· Law imposes a duty to act when:
o Statute specifically imposes a duty of care
o Where one stands in a certain status relationship to another
o Where one has assumed a dual duty to care for another
o Voluntarily assumed care and secluded helpless person from rendering aid
· Pope v. State
o D took in crazy mom & kids, watched mom kill baby
o Crt held: under the statute, D was not a parent/guardian, so no duty established and not liable
· Jones v. US
o D’s baby died from neglect & malnutrition
o Crt said: When a person is criminally charged w/ an omission to act, the gov’t MUST prove there was a legal duty to act
· People v. Oliver
o D takes home man from bar & give spoon to overdose, man passes out, D places in backyard where he dies
o Crt said: the gruesome facts impose a duty to act
· People v. Beardsley
o D’s mistress overdosed, D did not call for help
o Crt said: no duty even though she was in his house it was not his wife
· MENS REA: (culpability) the mental state required by a crime
o Three Types of Intent:
§ 1) General Intent:
· Intent to perform an act even though the actor does NOT desire the consequences that result
o ONLY the intention to make the bodily movement which constitutes the act which the crime requires
§ Ex: D fired gun into crowd & kills people
· D desired to fire a gun, but might not have intended to kill people
· Would probably bc reckless or negligent conduct
o Shown by:
§ 1) intent is inferred by the result that occurred
§ 2) prohibited result was caused by a voluntary act of D
§ 2) Transferred Intent:
·
§ 3) RECKLESSLY – a person recklessly acts if:
· He consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct
· The risk must be such nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation
o Look at surrounding circumstances to determine the degree of risk…..State v. Gory
· While it thus appears that “mere possession, except as authorized” is sufficient to constitute the statutory offense in question, without regard for scienter or specific intent to violate the law as would follow from evidence establishing defendant's knowledge of the contraband character of the property, the law makes the matter of knowledge in relation to defendant's awareness of the presence of the object a basic element of the offense of possession.
· But knowledge of the existence of the object is essential to “physical control thereof with the intent to exercise such control” and such knowledge must necessarily precede the intent to exercise, or the exercise of, such control.
§
o Defendant was aware of the risk
§ 5) NEGLIGENTLY – a person acts negligently if:
· He should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct
· The risk must be such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation
o County v. Ulster- Girl charged with possession of guns b/c they were in the car and statute states there is a presumption of its illegal possession of everyone in the car(presumptions can exist as long as they are more likely than not, true)
§ POLICY-people should exercise dominion and control over themselves and their property
