#17084 - Actus Reus And Omissions - Criminal Law

Actus Reus/Omissions

Requirement of criminal liability which involves the (1) commission of a voluntary act or an (2) omission (failure to act) when there is a legal duty to act

• Legal duty + breach duty by failing to act

• Policy:

  • Ensure people are not punished for bad thoughts alone

  • Ensure people are not punished for involuntary acts due to coercion, unconsciousness, hypnosis etc.

  • Ensure that there is notice (enumerated legal duty) before punishing a failure to act/omission

• Voluntary acts

  • Voluntary act: conscious and volitional movement of the human body that is willed by the actor

    • Acts out of habit would still be voluntary

  • Martin - statute requires public appearance (core element that made conduct criminal); voluntariness requirement is presupposed in statute because presupposed by legislature, Martin was compelled to appear > not guilty

  • Whether there is a voluntary act also depends on the timeframe you are considering

    • Ex. In case of taking a drug and falling asleep at the wheel causing accident, gov could argue taking the drug is voluntary but def would counter that the driving conduct that caused the accident was not voluntary, as it was conduct done during unconsciousness

  • Policy reasons:

    • Utilitarian - you cannot deter involuntary acts

    • Retributive - a person is not culpable for an action if it was not voluntary

  • MPC 2.01(1) - not guilty unless criminal liability is based on a conduct including a voluntary act or omission to perform act of which he is physically capable

    • Implies that not all elements must be voluntary/leaves courts to decide the key voluntary act

    • MPC 2.01(2) - Voluntary act NOT (1) reflex or convulsion, (2) bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep, (3) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion, (4) bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual

• Omissions (more common issue) - criminalized if there is a breach of a legal duty

  • Generally, there is no duty to aid

  • Arguments for/against general duty to rescue

    • For:

      • Solve collective action problem

      • Promote public safety and sense of community

      • Prevent or mitigate danger

      • Retributive goal - punish people who let bad things happen

      • Deterrence - people less likely to commit crime if everyone required to help/prevent

** from old outline, not discussed in class

• Against:

  • Personal autonomy/libertarian tradition in U.S.

  • Some reasons not to aid are not blameworthy

    • Coordination problem

    • Worry you would harm instead of help

    • What reasonable aid in the situation - unsure what action is required

    • Desire not to get involved with criminal justice system or law enforcement

    • Don't want to incur personal liability - fear of retaliation

  • Unclear notice/reasonableness (slippery slope problem - where to draw line)

• We criminalize failure to act as breach of legal duty in five situations:

  • (1) statute imposed duty

    • Ex. File taxes, medical providers reporting suspected child abuse

  • (2) certain status relationships

    • Ex. parent/child - even if parent is victim, spouses, master/apprentice, ship captain/passengers; NOT siblings (unless big age difference), adult child<->parent, romantic partners

  • (3) contractual duty

    • ex. Babysitters, caretakers, nursing home

  • (4) voluntary assumption of care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid

    • Ex. Taking sick person into home

  • (5) created the peril - even by accident

    • Ex. Pushed/shoved someone into water

  • NOT moral duties to act (mentioned in Jones and Pope: "moral obligation" but no legal obligation)

  • Jones: no legal duty (no contract and no voluntary assumption of care because mom present); failure to help child cannot be criminalized as involuntary manslaughter

  • Pope: no specific duty under the statute to aid the child (not responsible for supervision, mom present)

    • gov: she becomes responsible when child came under his roof and she is proximate to the child

      • Def: line drawing problem - if you're near, you must help?

      • Def: notice problem - D had no prior notice that she should help

      • ***when gov tries to stretch duty outside of traditional categories, defense should always argue line-drawing and notice problems

  • Policy: (see above - arguments against general duty)

    • gives notice about what kinds of omissions are subject to liability

    • promote personal autonomy

  • Courts have expanded these categories (stepparent-stepchild relationship, romantic relationships) -BUT concerns with expansion

    • Notice concern: people not given advance notice of legal duty in certain situations/relationships

    • Separate of power concern: court should leave it to legislatures to create new legal duty categories

    • Voluntariness concern: some relationships (marriage, parent-child) are more voluntary than others (siblings, roommates)

    • AND court insists on legal duty to care for child even if the mother is abused

• If you have a legal duty to act, what act is required is fact and circumstances based

  • Consider the individual capacity of the person with legal duty

  • Question for the jury

• MPC 2.01(3): liability for commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action, unless (a) omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense, (b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law

• ACTUS REUS SUMMARIZED:

To be culpable, must commit a voluntary act or omission if there is duty