#11844 - Criminal Law - Criminal Law

Criminal Law – University of Virginia School of Law

The Criminal Act – Actus Reus

1. Material Elements of Actus Reus

   1. Conduct

      1. Acts or omissions required to complete the offense

      2. Directly controlled by actor

   2. Circumstances

      1. External facts that must be in existence for a crime to be committed

      2. Outside actor’s control besides mere presence there

   3. Result

      1. Consequences of conduct incorporated in the definition of the offense

         1. Not always specified by statute

2. Voluntary Act Doctrine

   1. Martin v. State (p. 68)

      1. Facts: Martin was arrested while drunk in his home, and then involuntarily and forcibly taken to a public place by the arresting officer and tried of public intoxication

      2. Rule: For the crime of public intoxication, both the intoxication and the presence in public must be voluntary

      3. General Rule: every actus reus defined within the crime must be voluntary

   2. Types of Involuntary Acts (p. 69-70)

      1. Physically Coerced Movement

         1. If someone takes your fist and hits someone else with it, you’re not liable

      2. Reflex Movements

         1. If someone acts upon you in such a way that you reflexively act, you are not liable (scaring you, hitting your kneecap, etc.)

      3. Muscular Contraction or Paralysis Produced by Disease (note relation to knowledge of epilepsy demonstrating recklessness for certain activities, e.g. driving)

      4. Unconsciousness

         1. E.g. mothers rolling over in their sleep

   3. MPC § 2.01 – Voluntary Act, Omission, Possession

      1. Same involuntary acts as above

      2. Omission: must be expressly made punishable by the law, or there must be a duty to perform the act made by law

      3. Possession requires: Knowledge with sufficient time to allow termination of possession

   4. People v. Decina (p. 72)

      1. Facts: Decina, who was prone to epileptic seizures, suffered an epileptic seizure while driving and ran over and killed several children

      2. Rule: His awareness of a condition, which he knows may produce dangerous consequences, and his disregard of the consequences by participating in the act of driving, satisfies the voluntary act requirement for a negligent crime.

   5. People v. Gastello (p. 73)

      1. Facts: Gastello did not declare drugs on his person when he was brought into jail for another crime.

      2. Rule: Same as Martin; he did not voluntarily enter jail.

      3. Reasoning:

         1. 5th Amendment; Gastello was not compelled to incriminate himself for drug possession just because he was involuntarily taken to jail.

         2. Exempting jail from the voluntary act doctrine would be a slippery slope enabling the state to take people places against their will for the sole purpose of charging them.

3. Omissions

   1. See MPC 2.01 – omissions must be based on a duty to act or an explicitly punished omission in law

   2. Billingslea v. State (p. 118) - Duty to Act vs. Forbidden Results

      1. Facts: Defendant grossly neglected his mother which resulted in deterioration and later death, granddaughter had tried to intervene but Defendant would not grant her access

      2. Rule: There must be a statutory duty to act in order for an omission to act to be criminal. When the statute does not pose a specific duty upon anyone, no one can be held liable for omitting to perform that duty.

      3. Note: Had they charged him with preventing the granddaughter from providing care, he could have been convicted.

      4. VTCA Penal Code (TEXAS)

         1. § 22.04: anyone who by act or omission causes injury, etc. to a person 65+ has committed an offense

            1. In response to this case, 22.04(b) was modified to impose a duty to act if he had assumed “care, custody, or control of a child, elderly or invalid individual.”

         2. § 6.01(c): cannot be found guilty unless the statute provides that the omission is an offense or otherwise provides a statutory duty to act

         3. Specific to Texas: Texas is highly faithful to its statutes and common law duties do not exist in TX unless they are included in a statute. In other jurisdictions, a court may have been able to read the common law duty into this case and convict D

   3. General Omission Overview

      1. Legal duty to act arises from a lot of sources

         1. Usually arises from a statute

      2. Also from contractual obligations

         1. I.e. a lifeguard at a public pool

      3. Also from relationships

         1. Easiest case is the legal responsibility a parent has to safeguard a minor

   4. Voluntary Assumption of Responsibility

      1. You see someone incapacitated on the side of the road and you do nothing--you are not criminally liable (you’re an asshole though)

      2. You see someone incapacitated on the side of the road and you take them into your home and then you do nothing--you are criminally liable

      3. When you assert yourself to assume responsibility, you become liable

         1. Relieve everyone else

         2. Sometimes you’ve secreted the incapacitated person precluding other people from acting

   5. Failure to Provide Sustenance:

      1. Regina v. Instan. (p. 127): Common law duties arise from moral obligations, but mere moral obligation is not always sufficient to create duty.

      2. Jones v. United States (p. 128): No duty to care for children when one was originally employed/paid to do so but then payments ended.

      3. Medical Assistance for Drug Overdose

         1. People v. Beardsley (p. 129): moving a passed out friend from his place into another friend’s room, she later died from there after an overdose -> no duty since it was of her own free will

         2. People v. Oliver (p. 130): Defendant took a drunk man to her place, shot up heroin, left for the bar again and the man died of an OD -> duty existed because she took him into her care/custody

   6. Duty to Rescue (p. 130)

   7. Omission of Life-Sustaining Treatment – Barber v. Superior Court of LA County (p. 132)

      1. Doctors can legally omit care that would prolong the life of individuals

      2. Doctors cannot take an action that would hasten the process at the end of life

      3. Make a distinction between an act and an omission, even when there is an incredibly small difference

Mens Rea

1. Common Law Mens Rea

   1. Specific vs General Intent – DEFINES MISTAKE

      1. Specific intent

         1. Actual intention to do the action prohibited by the statute, and if knowledge is an element, actual knowledge or conscious desire of wrongdoing.

         2. Always negated by an honest mistake of fact

         3. Statute/description will say something about it

         4. Green v. State (p. 176): honest mistake of fact is always exculpatory (butchering mixed up hogs excused larceny)

      2. General intent: “everything else”

         1. Negated by an honest and reasonable mistake of

         2. There will be no mens rea written into the statute.

         3. Includes most crimes that the model penal code would characterize as requiring negligence of recklessness.

         4. Default: negligence

      3. Intersection: different requirements for separate parts of a crime

         1. State v. Walker (p. 177) – different intent required for different aspects (taking vs. identity in abduction)

            1. Facts: Dad and Grandad try to pick up son and daughter, mistakenly take another girl instead of the daughter and immediately return her upon learning of their mistake

            2. Rule: for abduction, the actual taking of a child requires specific intent, whereas in relation to the child’s identity of only general intent is required (i.e. mistake of fact is exculpatory for abduction in relation to the identity of the child)

         2. General intent within specific intent (US v. Yermian p. 181): “Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willingly...makes any false...statements”->specific intent for the act of lying, but general intent for the identity of the US agency

      4. Strict liability for moral wrongs (Regina v. Prince p. 183): Statutory rape case; D is held to strict liability and isn’t allowed to present a defense that he was mistaken as to the girl’s age because under social norms premarital sex was still wrong. Rule on statutory rape still carries over to this day: no mistake of age is exculpatory.

   2. Grading under Common Law Mens Rea

      1. MISTAKES are NOT relevant for grading

      2. Ex: If you steal something you thought was $50, but it was actually $5,000--then you are guilty of Grand Theft, even though you didn’t know

         1. Because you were already guilty of theft, it doesn’t matter you were mistaken in your assessment of your own guilt

   3. Rule of Mistake of Fact

      1. General Intent - Reasonable

         1. Goes to what a reasonable person would believe about the facts

         2. This is the opposite side of the coin from mens rea

         3. An unreasonable mistake is negligent, and thus satisfies mens rea of negligence.

            1. United States v. Oglivie (p. 179): bigamy is a general intent (not strict liability) crime, but he could have done more to determine if he was still married

      2. Specific Intent - Honest

         1. Goes to what the defendant honestly believed about the facts

         2. An honest yet unreasonable mistake is exculpatory for Specific Intent crimes

   4. Application of Mens Rea to Material Elements of Actus Reus

      1. Conduct

         1. Acts or omissions required to complete the offense

         2. Directly controlled by actor

         3. Mens rea applies to intention to perform the conduct

      2. Circumstances

         1. External facts that must be in existence for a crime to be committed

         2. Outside actor’s control

         3. Mens rea applies to D’s awareness of these circumstances

      3. Result

         1. Consequences of conduct incorporated in the definition of the offense

            1. Not always specified by statute

         2. Mens rea applies to intention to bring about the results

   5. Alternatives: interpreting flood of words

      1. Common law negligence: Regina v. Faulkner - interpreted “feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously” to mean requiring negligence (ought to have foreseen) beyond the intent associated with a concurrent crime (stealing rum), not transferable between wicked acts

      2. Common law recklessness: ...