Presentation on theme: "The General Principles of Criminal Liability: Actus Reus"— Presentation transcript:
1The General Principles of Criminal Liability: Actus Reus Chapter ThreeThe General Principles of Criminal Liability:Actus Reus
2Learning ObjectivesTo be able to identify the elements of, and to explain why, the voluntary act is the first principle of criminal liability.To be able to define, distinguish between, and understand the importance of the elements of criminal conduct and criminal liability and therefore punishment.To understand and appreciate the importance of the requirement of a voluntary act.
3Learning ObjectivesTo identify the circumstances when, and to be able to explain why, status is treated, sometimes, as an affirmative act.To be able to understand how the general principle of actus reus includes a voluntary act and how it is viewed by the constitution.
4Learning ObjectivesTo identify the circumstance when, and to be able to explain why, failures to act are treated as affirmative acts.To understand and identify the circumstances when, and to be able to explain why, possession is treated as an act.
5Voluntary act is the first principle of criminal liability In order to have criminal liability there must be criminal conductCriminal conduct is conduct that is without justification and without excuseVoluntary act is the “conduct” part of criminal conductMany crimes don’t include a criminal intent or bad result, but only rarely does a crime not require a criminal act
6Elements of Criminal Liability Actus Reus—the criminal actMens rea—the criminal intentConcurrence—the requirement that the criminal intent trigger the criminal actAttendant circumstances (when a crime does not require the mens rea, it generally requires some attendant circumstance)Example: DWIBad result--causing a criminal harm
7Elements of Criminal Liability (continued) Corpus delicti = “body of crime” but it doesn’t necessarily mean a physical body. It refers, instead to the elements of a crimeCriminal conduct = criminal act triggered by the criminal intent (mens rea)Criminal act = voluntary bodily movement.Conduct crimes = crimes which require a criminal act triggered by criminal intentExample: Burglary
8Elements of Criminal Liability (continued) Bad result crimesSome serious offenses include all five elementsVoluntary act (criminal act)Mental element (criminal intent)Circumstance elementCausationHarmExample: Criminal Homicide
9Voluntary Acts Punish people for what they do, not who they are Punish people for what they do, not what they thinkManifest criminality—in order to have criminality, attitudes have to turn into deeds. Deeds leave no doubt about the criminal nature of the act
10Voluntary Acts (continued) Voluntary act requirement has several purposes:Helps prove intent (inferred from actions)Reserves sanction of criminal law to cases of actual dangerProtects privacy of individuals…no prying into the thoughts or intentions without crossing over into the realm of “Manifest Criminality” through an act
11Voluntary Act Requirement Voluntary act requiredContraction of muscles must be willedMPC—not guilty of an offense unless liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary actNon voluntary actions include:Reflexes or convulsionsMovements during sleepMovements during unconsciousnessActions under hypnosisMPC-bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual
12Voluntary Act Requirement MPC includes conduct which includes a voluntary actActs surrounding the crime may be involuntarySometimes referred to as a voluntarily induced involuntary actionMany states follow the MPC’s one-voluntary-act is enough definitionExample: Subject to Fainting…the voluntary act might be operating a vehicle
13Brown v. State (1997)A convicted murderer successfully appealed his conviction on the question of a non voluntary act causing the discharge of a handgun resulting in the death of his victim. Brown had claimed that the shooting was accidental, caused when he was bumped by another party, causing the weapon to fire. The appeals court ruled that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the requirement of determining a voluntary act caused the discharge of the weapon.
14King v. Cogdon (1951)Mrs. Cogdon had murdered her daughter with an axe, while “dreaming” that the home was under attack by soldiers…Somnambulism Medical and psychological evidence supported the defense claim that Mrs. Cogdon did not intend the consequences of her acts, as she was “asleep”. Mrs. Cogdon was acquitted of the murder of her daughter by a jury which determined that “the act of killing itself was not, in law regarded as her act at all.
15People v. Decina (1956)Decina was subject to unpredictable epileptic seizures, and chose to operate a motor vehicle despite his prevailing medical condition. During a seizure which followed while operating the car, Decina lost consciousness and killed 4 children on the sidewalk. The court held that the voluntary act was the conscious decision to operate the vehicle and disregard the known consequences that he knew might follow.
16State v. Jerrett (1983)A lower court was reversed in a case of Murder, Robbery and Kidnapping when it failed to instruct the jury before deliberations on the defense of automatism, after the defense demonstrated evidence supporting unconsciousness. The court held that the trial judge should have instructed the jury on the defense of unconsciousness.
17Summary of Case Holdings Voluntary act which leads to an involuntary act is sufficient to constitute the actus reusBrown v. State: court found sufficient evidence to allow the jury to receive an instruction about voluntariness (Brown held gun which discharged when someone bumped him)Acts committed while asleep do not constitute a voluntary act (King v. Cogdon)
18Summary of Case Holdings Defendant voluntarily got into the car (knowing he was subject to epileptic seizure) and thus he killing was not an involuntary act. (logic of the MPC used: one voluntary act is enough)Acts committed while person is unconscious are not voluntary acts as a matter of law (State v. Jerrett)
19Status as a Criminal Act Status denotes who we are (student, parent, addict)Most status don’t qualify as actus reusStatus can however result from voluntary actExample: meth addicts voluntarily use meth the first time, and alcoholics voluntarily take their first drinkSome conditions (status) result from no act at all—we are born with those characteristics/conditions: sex, age, race, ethnicity
20Robinson v. California (1962) The US Supreme Court determined that criminalizing the status (“Sickness) of drug addiction was unconstitutional, declaring it cruel and unusual punishment. This Decision brought other statutes throughout the nation into question dealing with prostitution, vagrancy, drunkenness and disorderly conduct.
21Powell v. Texas (1968)Powell was found guilty under a Texas statute that made it a crime to be found drunk in public. Powell appealed under Robinson, claiming that he was being punished for his status of being an alcoholic. In a narrow plurality, the court made a distinction between cases, and identified the act as the choice of venue (public v. home) The court held that Powell was being convicted for voluntarily being in public.
22Compare Robinson with Powell California statute created crime of personal condition.It punished Robinson for being an addict, not for what he did.90 day sentence was held unconstitutional because it punished him for his sickness.Decision brought other statutes into question.Texas statute made it a crime to be found drunk in public.Court distinguished Robinson and said that Powell was being convicted for voluntarily being in public.Very close case (plurality decision).
23Post Robinson and Powell There has been no further venture of the US Supreme Court into the principles of criminal liability since these cases in the 1960’s The US Supreme Court has left it in the hands of the state legislatures to adopt general principles of liability and elements of specific crimes in their respective criminal codes
24Omissions as Criminal Acts It is “easy” to support punishments for those who prey upon and cause harm to others through their acts (i.e. rape, robbery and murder)The more difficult question arises when people stand by and do nothing when harm is being caused to others around them
25Omissions as Criminal Acts Failing to act can satisfy the voluntary act requirementCriminal omissionsFailure to actUsually the Failure to report something required by lawExamples: Car Accident, Child Abuse, Income Tax, Firearm Transactions, HIV+ status to a partnerFailure to intervene to protect person or propertyOmissions are only criminal if there is a legal duty to act, enforceable by law, and not merely a moral duty to act.
26Omissions as Criminal Acts (continued) Legal duties to act arise in 3 waysStatute provides the duty to actExamples: duty to report child abuse; duty to file income tax returns; duty to register as sex offenderContract provides the duty to actExamples: emergency room doctor; life guard; law enforcement officers; fire fightersSpecial Relationship provides the duty to actExamples: parent-child; employer-employeeNOTE: sometimes a special relationship is created by assuming the care of another
27Omissions as Criminal Acts (continued) Criminal omissions cannot arise out of failure to perform moral dutiesExample: Case of Kitty GenoveseMost states impose no duty to render aid to an imperiled stranger or call for helpGood Samaritan Doctrine – creates (statutory) duty for stranger to render aidOnly a few states follow this doctrineAmerican Bystander Approach—no legal duty to rescue or summon help for someone in danger even if there is no risk in doing so.Most states follow this approach
28Commonwealth v. Pestinakas (1992) In this case, the court determined that the failure to perform a duty imposed by evidence of a contract may be the basis for a charge of criminal homicide.The Pestinakas’ failure to provide food and medical care which they agreed to (creating an oral contract) was sufficient to support a conviction.The court found that the jury instruction was appropriate, and the conviction was affirmed.
29People v. Oliver (1989)A special relationship can be created by assuming the care of an individual. Carol Ann Oliver took an extremely intoxicated man into her home, assisted him with the means to “shoot up” in her bathroom, later observed him lapse into unconsciousness, left him unattended to return to the bar, told her children to drag the man out of the house, where he was left to die. The initial assumption of care in this case created and imposed a legal duty, the failure of which constituted a criminal omission (involuntary manslaughter).
30State v. Miranda (1998)Santos Miranda was living with his girlfriend and her two children 5 months, when he called 911 to report the 4 month old child was “choking on milk”. Miranda admitted acted as a “step-father” to his girlfriend’s children. Upon examination at the hospital, it was determined that the child had multiple severe injuries. The court later determined that anyone who saw the child would have had to notice the injuries, deformities and reactions. A defendant, acting as a father figure, to the victim assumed a “familial relationship” (even though there was no marriage or blood relationship) upon which a duty of care may be established.
31Kitty Genovese’s Neighbor’s Omissions (1964) 37 individual “bystanders” watched as Winston Mosely stalked, and stabbed Kitty Genovese in 3 separate attacks over 35.None of these “good people” called the police, even though a single call could have potentially saved her lifeA moral duty does not constitute the basis for a criminal omission
32Summary of Case Holdings A failure to perform a duty imposed by contract may be the basis for a charge of criminal homicide. The Pestinakas’ failure to provide food and medical care which they agreed to (creating an oral contract) was sufficient to support a conviction. The jury instruction was appropriate. (Pestinakas)A special relationship can be created by assuming the care of an individual. The assumption of care creates a legal duty, the failure of which constitutes a criminal omission. (People v. Oliver)
33Summary of case holdings (continued) A defendant, acting as a father figure, to the victim assumed a “familial relationship” (even though there was no marriage or blood relationship) upon which a duty of care may be established (State v. Miranda)A moral duty does not constitute the basis for a criminal omission (Kitty Genovese Example)
34Possession as a Criminal Act Possession is not an act, it’s a passive conditionLegal fiction makes possession a voluntary actThe most common Criminal possessions include possession of weapons, illegal drugs and drug paraphernaliaSee table 3.2 for Criminal Possession StatutesReason we engage in legal fiction of pretending possession is an act:is in our desire to prevent worse crimesmost people get possession through a voluntary act
352 Kinds of PossessionActual possession—having actual physical control (the item is located on the person)Constructive possession—the person has the right to control the item, but it is not on their person (In my car, my apartment or other places I control)
36Kinds of PossessionActual and Constructive possession can take two forms: Knowing possession or mere possessionKnowing possession—person is aware what they have on them or what it is that they have control overMost states require possession to be knowing to be criminal actMere possession—person is not aware what they have on them or what they have control overEither don’t know they have it, or don’t know what it is they haveOnly two states hold that mere possession can be a criminal act
37Porter v. State (2003)“Although constructive possession can be implied when the contraband is in the joint control of the accused and another, joint occupancy of a vehicle standing alone is not sufficient to establish possession.” The state had to, and did, prove additional factors to determine constructive possession, including:
38Porter v. State (2003) Factors to Determine Constructive Possession: Whether the contraband was in plain viewWhether the contraband was found on the accused’s person or with his personal effectsWhether it was found on the same side of the car seat as the accused was sitting or in near proximity to itWhether the accused is the owner of the vehicle or exercises dominion or control over itWhether the accused acted suspiciously before or during the arrest
39People v. E.C. (2003)A bar bouncer followed company policy and confiscated 14 packets of cocaine seized through a frisk of a customer seeking entrance to the clubThe bouncer turned the substance over to police who responded to the bar for a separate incident, and was arrested for possession.The court held that temporary and innocent possession of illegal drugs (by a person who confiscates them from one possessing them illegally) is a defense to prosecution for possessionPractical Policy considerations require this result:Parents dealing with ChildrenSchool Personnel dealing with studentsCJ Personnel and Jurors examining evidence in their respective roles
40Summary of court holdings on Possession “Although constructive possession can be implied when the contraband is in the joint control of the accused and another, joint occupancy of a vehicle standing alone is not sufficient to establish possession.” The state had to, and did, prove additional factors. (Court looked at all surrounding factors and determined constructive possession) (Porter)
41Summary of court holdings on Possession Temporary and innocent possession of illegal drugs (by a person who confiscates them from one possessing them illegally) is a defense to prosecution for possession (People v E.C.)Policy considerations require this result