A. Actus Reus/Mens Rea

Page 34

Criminal Law

v Fundamental Observations

A. Actus Reus/Mens Rea

B. Accomplice Liability

Inchoate Crimes (SAC)-

a. Solicitation

b. Attempt

c. Conspiracy

Crimes against the person-

A. Homicide

B. Defenses

a. Justification

b. Excuse

Theft Crimes

A. Larceny/Larceny by Trick

B. Embezzlement

C. False Pretenses

D. Robbery

E. Receiving Stolen Property

F. Burglary

Defenses

A. Justification

a. Self Defense

b. Defense of Others

c. Defense of Property

d. Crime Prevention

e. Public Authority

f. Domestic Authority

g. Necessity

B. Excuse

a. Mistake

b. Mistake of law

c. Duress

d. Consent

e. entrapment

v Principles of Punishment

Ø Deterrence

§ Retribution avenged

§ Rehabilitation (Reformation) – not a primary objective in modern criminal punishment

§ Incapacitation

v Principle of Legality-condemns judicial crime creation. "No crime without pre existent law, no punishment without pre-existent law".

Ø Commonwealth v. Mochan- man harasses woman over the phone, no crime for it, dissent said the majority is punishing for something that there is no law against, it’s the legislature’s job to make law

v Ex Post Facto Laws (from Constitution)

a.Prohibits retroactive criminalization (i.e., prosecuting someone for conduct which was legal at the time but was criminalized later) and retroactive punishments

b.Prohibits retroactive application of statutes that criminalize previously legal conduct OR that increase severity of the crime or the punishment

Ø Keeler v. Superior Court- man kicks wife and kills baby inside her, may not insert words, give them false meaning in a statute, that’s legislature’s job, must interpret the law as the legislature intended it when they wrote the law, defendant must have been on notice that what he did was a crime

v Rule of Lenity- where a criminal law is ambiguous, we are wary of imposing criminal liability for conduct that the law does not clearly prohibit. Void for vagueness

Ø United States v. Foster- the statute on what “carrying a gun” meant was too vague

v Actus Reus- voluntary act that results in harm

Ø Types of Acts

§ Voluntary v. Involuntary act

Involuntary- MPC § 2.01(a) acts:

1. Reflex or convulsion

2. A bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep

3. Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestions

4. Bodily movement that otherwise is not the product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.

1. Martin v. State – Alabama Court of Appeals (1944)-drunk man taken by police onto public street and arrested for public drunkenness, he didn’t intend to be publicly drunk

2. There must be a voluntary act (willed movement) or an omission to perform an act where there is no duty; and there must be social harm.
State v. Utter – Court of Appeals of Washington (1971)-drunk man kills son, drunkenness is voluntarily induced

Decina-involuntary act in a voluntary course of conduct- man with cerebral palsy hit someone with car during a seizure, he should have taken precautions

§ Passive acts (loitering)

§ Omissions as acts (failure to act)

1. People v. Beardsley – Supreme Court of Michigan (1907)-family members have a duty to act when other person is in peril of their life

2. Barber v. Superior Court – California Court of Appeal, Second District (1983)- doctor has no duty to continue life support once it’s become futile, his omission to continue treatment in those circumstances is not unlawful

§ Possession as act (carrying burglary tools)- Must know you have possession

United States v. Foster (carrying gun in truck bed was considered innocent, must be within reaching distance or on person, statute was too vague so ruled in favor of defendant (lenity rule). Carrying drugs in an airport. M

Ø Thoughts alone cannot constitute a crime; not an act

v Mens Rea

Ø Justifications for Mens Rea Requirement

1. Utilitarian - Only people who think about the penalties for an action can be deterred

2. Retributionist - A person is morally culpable, and therefore properly subject to punishment ONLY IF the person had a choice in his or her conduct and exercised free will in choosing to act. As a result, the person’s mental state, at the time when the act was committed, is relevant in assessing culpability.

Ø The internal or mental component of a crime

Ø Malice (not wickedness or ill will):

§ Express – Intention to do the kind of harm that was done, or

§ Implied – Recklessness as to whether such harm should occur

Ø Model Penal Code-wants to get rid of general/specific intent

§ Model Penal Code §2.01: A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable

§ Model Penal Code § 2.02: Except as provided in § 2.05, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense.

1. Purposely

· Conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result or

· Aware of attendant circumstances or believes or hopes they exist

· Example: Defendant admits that he wanted his future mother in law to inhale the poison gas and die, and he knew the gas leak would reach her. He should be found guilty.

2. Knowingly

· Aware of nature of conduct and that result is practically certain to occur

· or that attendant circumstances exist

· State v. Nations – Missouri Court of Appeals, E. Dist (1984)- owner of bar didn’t know dancer was underage

· Example: Sure, the Defendant hoped that by some miracle his mother in law would not inhale poison gas, but he knew it was virtually certain that someone would when he failed to turn off the pipe. This is all it takes to convict.

3. Recklessly

· Conscious disregard to a substantial and unjustifiable risk so great that it involves a gross deviation from the law-abiding standard of care that a reasonable person would make, could foresee the risk happening. Must know that injury might result.

· Example: Defendant testified that he did not know for sure that anyone was in the building when he removed the gas meter, but he admitted that he considered the possibility and decided to take the chance. He should be convicted.

4. Negligently

· Should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk so great that failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation. Objective standard used

· Even if you believe the Defendant’s claim that he did not think of the possibility that anyone was in the building before he removed the gas meter, an ordinary person would have recognized this risk, so he should be found guilty.

§ How to analyze statutes using fault standards:

5. Where a statute doesn’t state whether the state of mind is required for all material elements of the offense, the specified state of mind must be proven for each element of an offense, not simply that the act was committed in a morally blameworthy manner.
People v. Conley – Illinois Appellate Court (1989)

6. If the statute defining the offense does not include a state of mind requirement, the defendant must have acted with at least recklessness with regard to each material element of the offense.

Ø Thoughts alone cannot constitute a crime; Cannot punish thoughts without an act

Ø Common Law

§ Intent- An actor commits an offense “intentionally” if:

1. it was the actor’s conscious goal to create the result; OR

2. the actor knew it was virtually certain to occur as a result of his conduct

§ Example of Proof of Intent Jury Instruction:

1. Intent is a state of mind. Intent ordinarily cannot be proved directly, because there is no way of fathoming and scrutinizing the operations of the human mind. But you may infer intent from the surrounding circumstances. You may consider any statement made or act done or omitted. And all other fact and circumstances in evidence which indicate a state of mind. You may infer that a person ordinarily intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly done or knowingly omitted.

General intent(culpability)-

A. used when no particular mental state is set out in the definition of the crime and therefore the prosecutor need only prove that the actus reus of the offense was performed with a morally blameworthy state of mind, any of the 4

B. used to convict on the basis of a less culpable state, like recklessness or negligence, based on specific intent B.

C. Any mental state, whether expressed or implied in the definition of the offense that relates solely to the acts that constitute the criminal offense. Ex- battery is defined by state law as "an intentional application of force upon another"

Specific intent (elemental)-

A. an offense in which a mental state is expressly set out in the definition of the crime, designates a special mental element which is required above and beyond any mental state required with respect to the actus reus of the crime.

Most popular:

1. an intention by the actor to commit some future act, separate from the actus reus of the offense ex- possession of marijuana with intent to sell

2. proof of a special motive or purpose for committing the actus reus ex- offensive contact upon another with the intent to cause humiliation.

3. proof of the actor's awareness of an attendant circumstance ex- intentiona sale of obscene literature to a person known to be under the age of 18

B. An offense contains the mens rea element of intent or, knowledge, then general intent is reserved for 6 B (recklessness or negligence).

Ø Transferred Intent

§ Acting with “intent” to commit a crime, but the victim of the completed crime is different from what the actor had suspected, thus the “intent” transfers to the new victim, and the actor is still guilty of the underlying crime.

§ (1)Like in tort law, intent can be transferred from one person (i.e., the intended victim) to another person (i.e., the actual victim).

§ (2)However, unlike in tort law, intent can only be transferred to the same type of harm or crime; e.g. if someone intends to kidnap A and winds up killing A, intent does not transfer from kidnapping to murder. But if someone intends to kill A but winds up killing B, then intent can transfer from A to B

Ø Presumption vs. inference:

§ Presumption: “the ordinary presumption” is that a person “intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions”

§ Inference: although the presumption above can be considered an inference, the court cannot presume D intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions

Ø Specific Intent Crimes

§ The intent to commit an element of a crime that is purely mental:

1. Solicitation

2. Attempt

3. Conspiracy

4. First Degree Murder-malice aforethought

5. Assault

6. Larceny

7. Burglary

8. False Pretenses

9. Embezzlement

§ People v. Navarro – Appellate Dept., Los Angeles County Superior Court (1979)

Ø Malice Crimes

§ Reckless disregard of a known risk:

1. Common Law Murder (malice aforethought)

2. Arson

Ø General Intent Crimes

§ General Intent crimes only require a volitional action of the crime

§ Awareness:

1. Battery

2. Rape

3. Kidnapping

4. False Imprisonment

Ø Strict Liability

§ No mens rea required:

1. Statutory Rape

2. Selling Liquor or Tobacco to Minors

§ Criminal liability without regard to fault or intent, but simply to performing a prohibited act

§ United States v. Cordoba-Hincapie – United States District Court, E.D. New York (1993)

§ Garnett v. State – Court of Appeals of Maryland (1993)

§ Example: Defendant not only knew that he was removing the gas meter, he knew that it was illegal to remove or tamper with any utility company property—that is clear proof of guilt.

Ø Mistake

1. (See below for Mistake defenses, under Defenses)

v Causation- must prove forseeable result to find defendant guilty

Ø Actual cause (factual cause or cause in fact)-No criminal liability for resulting social harm unless it can be shown that the defendant's conduct was a cause in fact of the prohibited result

Ask- But for D's voluntary acts, would the social harm have occurred when it did?

Ø Year and a day rule- the death of the victim must occur within one year and one day from the infliction of the injury or wound. Most states have abolished this rule.

Ø Multiple Actual Causes-

o Accelerating the result- an act that accelerates an inevitable result is nevertheless a legal cause of that result. Oxendine v. State- father beat son after gf beat son, doctor couldn’t testify that father accelerated the death.

o Concurrent sufficient cause- simultaneous acts by two or more persons may be considered independently sufficient causes of a single result.

o Obstructed Cause- w attempted to kill x, y intervened and killed x, w’s effort obstructed

Ø Proximate cause- (legal cause) Juries select the proximate cause. Proximate cause is given to the person most blameworthy. Usually only used when the victim’s death occurs because of the defendant’s acts but in a manner not intended or anticipated by the defendant.

1. An act that is a direct cause of social harm is also a proximate cause of it.

2. General rule is that all results that occur as a “natural and probable” consequence of his conduct even if he didn’t anticipate it are promximately caused by the defendant’s act. Broken only by a superceding factor.

3. You trace the cause of social harm backwards through other causes until you reach an intentional wrongdoer. --they have the requisit mens rea! You’re really just trying to find someone responsible

4. Defense: Intervening causes- independent force, another but for cause that produces social harm, comes into play after the defendant's voluntary act has been committed.

i. Intervening, not superceding-a forseeable intervening cause, doesn’t get def. off hook

a. Responsive (Dependent) Intervening cause- an act that occurs in reaction or response to the defendant's prior wrongful conduct, doesn’t get def. off hook unless unforeseeable AND abnormal or bizarre

b. Coincidental (Independent) Intervening Cause- force that doesn’t occur in response to the initial wrongdoer’s conduct, but the defendant placed the victim in a situation where the intervening cause could independently act upon him. Usually gets original wrongdoer off unless it can be shown the intervening cause was foreseeable. (Kibbe v. Henderson- robs drunk man, leaves him on the side of the road, he gets run over by car, could argue it was foreseeable)

c. Break up each act and define as responsive or coincidental

d. Omission- an omission will rarely supersede an earlier operative wrongful act, even when the person has a duty to act.

ii. Superceding cause-An intervening act will shield the defendant from liability if the act is a coincidence or not forseeable (superceding cause) Ex.-