Actus Reus

Question 1

Questions to Ask About Actus Reus

Answer 1

1. Was the act voluntary?
2. Is there a legality principle issue?
3. Is there a void-for-vagueness issue?
4. Is there an omissions issue?
5. Is there a possession issue?
6. Is there an attempt? (See Attempt Section)

Question 2

MPC 2.01

Answer 2

A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable.

Question 3

MPC - acts that are not voluntary (2.01)

Answer 3

(a) a reflex or convulsion;
(b) a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep;
(c) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion;
(d) a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.

Question 4

MPC - liability for omission (2.01)

Answer 4

Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless:

(a) the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or
(b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.

Question 5

MPC 2.01 - Possession

Answer 5

Possession is an act, within the meaning of this Section, if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.

Question 6

Martin v. State

Answer 6

1. Martin was drinking at home, police show up, place him under arrest, bring him outside to public highway, manifests drunken condition, is then charged for being drunk in public
   - -> Crime Elements (1) Intoxicated/drunk person, (2) appear in public place, (3) 1+ persons present, (4) manifest drunken condition (by boisterous or indecent conduct, loud or profane discourse)
2. Argued that he didn’t satisfy appearing in a public place, all other elements were satisfied
3. Court says statute presupposes voluntary (the appearance must be voluntary)
4. His conduct was not voluntary because he was brought out

Question 7

People v. Decina

Answer 7

D was driving, epileptic seizure, hit and killed children, convicted of negligent homicide in motor vehicle, seizure was involuntary but defendant knew he suffered epileptic seizures, voluntary act is getting the car with the knowledge this could happen

Question 8

People v. Gastello

Answer 8

D brought drugs into jail, said he didn’t voluntarily bring drugs into jail though he intentionally put them in his pocket before arrest, has since been overruled (chose not to dispose of drugs, foreseeable that he’s going to prison and he voluntarily took drugs with him)

Question 9

For an act to be voluntary…

Answer 9

some kind of mental decision-making must take place

Question 10

Punishment arguments for voluntary requirement

Answer 10

a. Deterrence isn’t served
b. Retribution to prevent evil choices and punish morally repugnant acts isn’t served because there’s no intention
c. Argument could be made for incapacitation

Question 11

Legality Principle

Answer 11

1. Crimes must be codified and only applied prospectively
2. Cannot be punished for a crime that hasn’t been defined in advance by appropriate body
3. Legislature is the body given the authority of crime definition, but courts can also describe conduct that will be punished in the future

Question 12

Rex v. Manley

Answer 12

This is an example of judge made law that would violate the principle of legality today

1. Manley told police that man hit her and stole her purse, had lied about that, arrested for public mischief, attorney argued the “indictment disclosed no offence known to the law,” court held that all offences that are public in nature are indictable and she was convicted

Question 13

Pros of Legality Principle

Answer 13

i. Statutes on the books in advance provide notice for law abiding
ii. Political legitimacy to the crimes
iii. Keeps police and prosecutorial (“street actors”) power limited
1. They do not operate in the open
2. They decide whether to proceed or not proceed
3. Biased policing and prosecutions

Question 14

Cons of Legality Principle

Answer 14

i. Concrete statutory language doesn’t mean certainty
1. Speeding clear but, but police can choose who to pull over
2. Still allows discretion, which can be biased

Question 15

Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine

Answer 15

1. Statutes must give adequate, constitutional notice of what is prohibited (due process – 14th Amd. argument)
2. Conduct (that is specified in advance by the legislature) to be sufficiently precise
3. Court is concerned with notice to the police, gives police meaningful standards - can’t delegate basic policy matters to police, judges, and juries for resolution on a subjective basis (Shuttlesworth)
4. Purpose of crim. statute cannot just be to prevent future crimes (Papacristou)
5. You cannot criminalize statuses or states of being (i.e. being a drug addict or being homeless) – see Lanzetta

Question 16

Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville

Answer 16

1. Vagrancy laws
2. Ds stopped in used car lot that had been broken into before, charged with prowling by auto in violation of the vagrancy ordinance
3. Ordinance punished things like status rather than conduct (like habitual loafers, people relying on wages of wives)
4. Said the statute was void vagueness for failing to give person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that contemplated conduct is forbidden and because it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions (the net cast by the statute is large enough to catch a lot of people and can encompass everyday behavior)

Question 17

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham

Answer 17

Group was standing in front of a department store, didn’t move, arrested for loitering, void - based on whim of police officer in city and doesn’t clearly define rules

Court adopted anti-delegation principle – vague laws delegate basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc, subjective basis

Question 18

Lanzetta Case

Answer 18

1. Crime of being a gangster based on prior acts and states of being, punishment was up to 20 years.
2. Court held that this was unconstitutionally vague
   • Statute must inform what conduct will render someone liable to certain penalties
   • It condemned no act or omission, and vague terms, violate due process clause

Question 19

Omissions

Answer 19

Must have a legal duty to act in order to punish someone for failure to act (don’t look for a duty if there is conduct)

Most jurisdictions recognize that legal duties to act can be rooted in contract, common law source, statute (more flexible about source of legal duty to act)

Question 20

Billingslea v. State

Answer 20

In TX, legal duty to act must come from a statute. So omission of care in elderly abuse statute, which required an omission, was no good because there was no legal duty to take care of an elderly person in statute.

Statute can’t just make an omission offense simply by saying “an omission is an offense”

Question 21

Categories of Legal Duty

Answer 21

1. Duties based on statute, on relationship (parent/child), on contract (employment responsibilities of lifeguard), on voluntary assumption of responsibility that effectively precludes aid from others
2. *Could also include obligation of an employer to oversee employees and a landowner or businessman may have a legal duty to provide for safety of people invited onto property

Question 22

People v. Beardsley

Answer 22

1. Man had no duty towards a woman with whom he drank for 2 days, observed take morphine and later died – no legal duty with this relationship
2. However, some courts will find that a duty arises when person cannot take care of themselves

Question 23

Possession basic definition

Answer 23

Act of acquisition + failure to divest

Consists of a hybrid of act and omission (act of acquirement/receiving followed by failure to divest)

Includes an element of knowledge – person must know they have it and knows what it is

However, there is also constructive knowledge of possession

Question 24

Criminal Liability must rest on conduct of some kind

Answer 24

1. Act
2. Omission
3. Possession

Question 25

US v. Nevils

Answer 25

1. LAPD officers found Nevils asleep with two firearms (his lap and leg). Charged with
   1. Felon
   2. In knowing possession of firearm,
   3. Firearm in/affecting interstate commerce (federal hook - usually met by drugs and guns)
2. D said he was at a party and got drunk, friends took him to that apartment to pass out, no firearms/drugs, first aware of them when police arrived
3. 9th Circuit said firearms physically touching him was not sufficient to constitute knowing possession (2nd element) (consciously possessed what he knew to be a firearm)
4. Said the knowledge and intent to control falls short of requirement
5. 9th circuit en banc reversed the decision – only have to ask if a reasonable jury would reach that conclusion

Question 26

US v. Kitchen

Answer 26

1. Undercover feds trying to sell cocaine to D, met with them to complete the buy, went to inspect merchandise, voiced concern about the purity of drugs. His confederate was holding the cash and stayed behind
2. Agents said he momentarily held the cocaine, D said he never touched it. Charged with possession of drugs.
3. Court said momentary holding (or just physical holding) does not constitute possession
4. Didn’t show that he had control or authority over the drugs
5. Sale of drugs was incomplete, no transaction took place, didn’t have the ability to control the drugs, despite the fact he momentarily held it (need domain or control)

Question 27

Constructive possession

Answer 27

Possession occurs when person knows what they possess is a firearm and is aware of its presence and has physical control of it, or has the power or intention to control it