First principle of criminal liability
voluntary act requirement
criminal conduct
Conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threaten substantial harm to individual or public interests."
murder, sexual assault, robbery, burglary.
criminal act + criminal intent (mens rea).
criminal act triggered by a mens rea.
3 elements of criminal conduct:
1. conduct that is
2. without justification and
3. without excuse
criminal liability
criminal conduct that qualifies for criminal punishment, falls only on those whose cases proceed through all the following analytic steps:
1. is there criminal conduct? If theres no criminal conduct, there is no criminal liability. If there is criminal co
Elements of a crime
1. criminal act (actus reus)
2. criminal intent (mens rea)
3. concurrence
4. attendant circumstances
5. bad result (causing a criminal harm)
Actus Reus
All crimes have to include, at a minimum, a criminal act ("actus reus" or "evil act").
First principle of criminal liability.
The vast majority of minor crimes against public order and morals don't include either criminal intent (mens rea) or causing a ba
Attendant Circumstances Element
It is not an act, an intention, or a result; it's a circumstance connected to an act, an intent, and/or a result.
Example: Driving while intoxicated--> "while intoxicated" is a circumstantial element.
Concurrence
crimes consisting of a criminal act and a mens rea include a third act, concurrence.
Criminal intent has to trigger the criminal act.
Corpus delicti
Body of the crime"
Applies to the body of the victim but also to the elements of criminal conduct crimes (like stealing someone's property in theft) and bad result crimes (like burning a house in arson).
Conduct crimes
Crimes requiring a criminal act triggered by criminal intent.
Criminal act
voluntarily bodily movements
Bad result crimes/Result crimes
serious crimes that include all five elements:
1. a voluntary act
2. mental element
3. circumstantial elements
4. causation
5. criminal harm
Most prominent crime is criminal homicide--conduct that causes another person's death.
Murder
Consists of:
1. criminal act (it can be any act--shooting, stabbing, etc.)
2. triggered by
3. the intent to kill
4. which causes
5. someone's death
What does the criminal law demand?
The criminal law demands conduct--a mental attitude that turns into action.
3 Reasons why it would be absurd to punish only intention:
1. it's impossible to prove a mental attitude.
2. a mental attitude by itiself cannot hurt anybody.
3. it's hard to separate daydreaming and fantasy from intent.
We don't punish thoughts because its:
impractical,
inequitable,
and unjust
Manifest criminality
Requirement that attitudes have to turn into deeds.
Purposes of actus reus
1. acts help to prove intent.
2. it reserves harsh sanction of the criminal law for cases of actual danger.
3. it protects the privacy of individuals.
The "Voluntary" Act Requirement
only voluntary acts qualify as criminal actus reus.
Why do only voluntary acts qualify as criminal acts?
Rationale:
1. criminal law punishes people.
2. we can only punish people we can blame.
3. we can only blame people who are responsible for their acts.
4. people are responsible only for their voluntary acts.
One-voluntary-act-is-enough
The voluntary act that causes harm even when surrounded by involuntary acts is the one that counts.
Example: a driver subject to frequent fainting spells, he decides to drive a car, faints, and hits a pedestrian. The act that counts is his decision to dri
Status
(or condition)
Most statuses or conditions don't qualify as actus reus.
Status can arise in 2 ways:
1. Sometimes, it results from prior voluntary acts--methamphetamine addicts voluntarily used meth the first time and alcoholics voluntarily took their first drink.
2. Other conditions result from no act at all. Characteristics we're born with--sex, age, s
Criminal omissions
Failure to act
2 types of criminal omissions
1. the failure to report and
2. the failure to intervene to prevent injuries and death to persons or the damage and destruction of property.
Omissions are criminal omissions only if defendants had a legal duty, not just a moral duty, to act.
Failure to report
a simple failure to act, usually the failure to report something required by law, such as reporting an accident or child abuse, filing an income tax return, registering a firearm, or notifying sexual partners of positive HIV status.
Failure to intervene
The other type of omission is the failure to intervene to prevent injuries and death to persons or the damage and destruction of property.
Legal duty
Both omissions--failure to report and failure to intervene--are criminal omissions only if defendant had a LEGAL duty (a duty enforced by law), not just a moral duty, to act.
Legal duty is an attendant circumstance element that the prosecution has to prov
Legal duties are created in 3 ways:
1. statutes
2. contracts
3. special relationships
Statutes
basis for legal duties to report.
Failure to perform those duties can create criminal liability.
Failure to perform moral duties does not qualify as a criminal omission.
Good Samaritan Doctrine
imposes a legal duty to help or call for help for imperiled strangers.
American bystander rule
there's no legal duty to rescue or summon help for someone who's in danger, even if the bystander risks nothing by helping.
Limiting criminal omissions to the failure to perform legal duties is based on 3 assumptions:
1. individual conscience, peer pressure, and other informal mechanisms condemn and prevent behavior more effectively than criminal prosecution.
2. prosecuting omissions puts too heavy of a burden on an already overburdened criminal justice system.
3. crim
Legal fiction
Pretending something is fact when it's not, if there's a good reason for pretending.
It's only by means of a legal fiction that the principle of actus reus includes possession.
Possession
Possession is not action; it's a passive condition. Most people charged with possession have acquired possession by the voluntary act of acquisition.
Actual possession
It means physical control of banned stuff; it's "on me.
Constructive possession
It means I control banned stuff, but it's not on me.
Knowing possession
It means possessors are aware of what they possess. Only simply knowledge of what you have is knowing possession.
Mere possession
It means you don't have to what you possess.
Brown v. State (Texas 1997)
Brown inadvertently shot victim, Caraballo, when his friend, Coleman, bumped into him. He was convicted of murder.
OPINION: Trial court decision was reversed based on Section 6.01(a) which states that "a person commits an offense only if he engages in vol
King v. Cogdon (Morris 1951)
Mrs. Cogdon was found not guilty because "the act of killing itself was not, in law, regarded as her act at all).
were her actions voluntary? no and her conduct is not blameworthy.
People v. Decina (N.Y. 1956)
His act of driving was voluntary.
his act is not voluntary but he knew about his seizures and chose to drive--his actions are blameworthy.
State v. Jerrett (1983)
N.C. Supreme Court reversed and ordered a new trial court based on the premise that "where a person commits an act without being conscious thereof, the act is not a criminal act even though it would be a crime if it had been committed by a person who was
Commonwealth v. Pestinakas (1992)
The Pestinakas' were convicted of 3rd degree murder.
OPINION: The applicable law appears at 18 Pa.C.S. 301(a) and (b) as follows:
(a) General rule. A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary ac
Porter v. State (Ark. App. 2003)
Porter was adjudicated delinquent for being a minor in possession of a handgun and was committed to the Department of Youth Services.
OPINION: Affirmed.
has to show control and know the item is there.
has to link defendant to contraband.
-a gun in plain v
Robinson v. CA
cruel and unusual punishment to punish someone for a condition, its not actus reus.
cannot punish someone's status.
Powell v. TX
cannot punish status of alcoholism, there are criminally sanctioned behavior that dangers safety for public.
-court admits uncertainness of laws-->leave it to states
People v. Oliver (1989)
Oliver found criminally liable due to a special relationship.
There is no specific thing that caused a bad result; there's plenty of omissions which is the basis of liability.
People v. EC (2003)
constructive possession of marijuana because you could smell it.
not constructive possession of crack