ACTUS REUS and MENS REA

Basic Common Elements of all Crimes 1. A voluntary act (“actus reus”) 2. A culpable intent (“mens rea”) 3.”concurence between the mens rea and actus reus 4. Causation of harm

ACTUS REUS The requirement that the defendant have committed a voluntary act “actus reus” Distinguished from: (1) thoughts, words, states of possession and status; (2) involuntary acts (e.g. sleep-walking); and omissions (e.g., failure to act)

Distinguished from thoughts, words, possession and status Mere thoughts are never punishable as crimes must commit an overt act Even saying “ I intend to kill X” will not constitute the actus reus. Statement of intent to a 3rd party. However, words as acts may be a crime (e.g. conspiracy or aiding and abetting criminal activity).

Possession as Criminal act Mere possession may sometimes be a criminal act e.g. possession of narcotics. However, must have conscious knowledge of possession. That you have it ,but not necessary to prove you knew it was illegal to have. You must also have had time to terminate your possession. Presumptions- weapon in a car all deemed to have possession.

Act Must be Voluntary Cannot satisfy actus reus unless it is voluntary Four particular acts are held to be involuntary. Reflex or convulsion Unconsciousness or sleep Hypnosis Self-induced state- epileptic seizure However, risk knowingly imposed on others drive drunk fall asleep you are in trouble.

Omissions Usually no criminal liability from failing to act. Exceptions: Distinguished from affirmative acts push him in lake you better save him Legal Duty due to: Special relationship, Interdependence, Duty based on contract, Danger caused by the defendant, Undertaking. Statutory requirements- must report a crime, file Income tax return

MENS REA A mental state with either intent or knowledge “A culpable state of mind” A mental state with either intent or knowledge However sometimes “mens rea” is merely negligence or recklessness

General vs. Specific Intent 3 types of intent with crimes General – the defendant desired to commit the act which served as the actus reus. Specific-the defendant in addition to desiring to bring about the actus reus must have desired to do something further. Assault vs. Burglary example Negligence

Different States of Mind Purposely- his conscious object Knowingly-he is aware Recklessly-he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk Negligently-he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk

Strict Liability Crimes No culpable mental state at all must be shown it is enough that the defendant performed the act in question, regardless of his mental state. Examples: Statutory Rape, Mislabeling of drugs, Pollution, Anti-Hijacking statute

Vicarious Liability A distinct kind of absolute liability may be imposed upon one person for the act of another. The requirement of “actus reus” has been dispensed with not the requirement of wrongful intent. Defendant must have had control over the defendant Employer Liability, Automobile owner, Tavern cases

Mistakes of Fact or Law Mistakes of fact often prevent the requisite mental state from existing. Rape examples Moral wrongs do not get the defense Mistake must be reasonable MPC adds unreasonable mistakes Mistakes of law are never a defense. Divorce example. MPC retains lesser crime theory. Stealing jewelry example.

CONCURRENCE There must be concurrence between the mens rea and the actus reus.

TEMPORAL CONCURRENCE What happens when the D at some point has the mens rea for a particular crime and later commits an act meeting the physical requirements for that crime, but the mental state did not exist at the time the act occurred. D stabs his victim intending to kill him, but just wounds him and, thinking the victim to be dead, throws the body into a river, so that drowning is the actual cause of death?

TEMPORAL CONCURRENCE You take someone’s umbrella by mistake from a restaurant 5 minutes later you realize it is not yours and decide to keep it. Have you committed larceny the taking of another’s property with intent to deprive him of it? The fact that he later acquired the requisite mental state is irrelevant. Mental state must cause the act one exception voluntary intoxication.

TEMPORAL CONCURRENCE Concurrence must be with the act not the results. Change of mind will not nullify the crime. Car bomb example. Concurrence may be with any act that is legal cause of harm. Epileptic seizure case. What about if the defendant is mistaken as to the victim’s death? Thinks he killed but it is really when he destroys or conceals the body.

CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND AND RESULT What happens when the the D has the mens rea necessary for one crime and his act meets the requirements for a different crime? D intends to commit a simple battery on his victim, but the victim turns out to be a hemophiliac and unforeseeably bleeds to death?

CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND AND RESULT There must be concurrence between the mens rea and the harmful result, at least in the case of those crimes defined in terms of bad results. (e.g. homicide, rape, etc…) Thus if the harm which actually occurs is of a completely different type from what the D intended, so that the result associated with a different more heinous crime, the D will not be guilty of the graver crime.

CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND AND RESULT Exceptions to this rule are: Felony Murder-if engaged in certain dangerous felonies. Misdemeanor-manslaughter-Fight that occurred at the softball game and the first case of the hemophiliac

CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND AND RESULT If the actual harm is greater, and related to, the intended result, the general principle is that there is no liability for the greater harm Exceptions Apparent exceptions for resulting death. Hemophiliac Intent-to-grievously-injure murder. D shoots V in eye to injure but kills him he will be guilty of murder.

CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND AND RESULT If the harm which actually occurs is less serious then that intended, and is of the same general type as that intended, but associated with a different and less serious crime, the D is liable for the less serious crime. D shoots at V intending to kill him. Instead the bullet just grazes V. D can be convicted of battery and also attempted murder.

CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND AND RESULT Different victim-Suppose the D intends to injure one victim and ends up injuring a different one ( D shoots at X, and hits V) Courts will hold there is sufficient relationship between the mens rea and the harmful result.

CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND AND RESULT Manner of harm- If the harm that occurs is of the same type as that intended by the D, but it occurs in a radically different manner from that anticipated or intended there is no concurrence problem.