Actus Reus Cases Flashcards
Do you drunk on public highway by using loud and profane language?. Officers arrested him at his home, then took him onto the highway where he was drunk
Can be convicted of public intoxication ?
No. He must voluntary place himself in the public place and cannot be forcibly brought by an officer.
someone cannot be convicted on site unless they voluntarily place themselves there
Martin v. State (1944)
D was driving with his friend and pulled over officer addressed him, asked for license and inquired about the car ownership. D said it belong to someone else. Officer knew Dee and asked him to get out of the car, searched him and told him to go into the patrol car. Dee told the officer had no right to arrest him. Officer struck D in the face —> officer drew a revolver, D felt a sensation, heard an explosion and found himself at the hospital with no idea how he arrived. Doctor testified that a gunshot wound is likely to produce a reflex shock reaction which can result in unconsciousness.
Can he be convicted of homicide?
No. If there’s evidence of involuntary and unconsciousness, trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on unconsciousness as a defense.
Involuntary unconsciousness is a complete defense to criminal homicide
- Some states D only needs to present evidence and then it’s P’s burden to prove consciousness
- Other states unconsciousness is an affirmative defense
involuntary unconsciousness is a complete defense to criminal homicide
People v. Newton (1970)
D knew he was subject to epileptic attacks, making him lose consciousness. Then he drove his car on a public highway suffered an epileptic attack when he jumped with the curb and drove over the sidewalk killing four people..
Liable for negligence?
Yes. Awareness of his condition makes him liable.
- Broadly construed: his decision to drive us voluntary (not tethered to the harm the statue is trying to get at.)
- Narrowly construed: not voluntary because his seizure was in the moment
-Court’s decision: looks to the middle = awareness of his condition
awareness of a condition and disregarding the consequences for others can make someone liable for negligence
People v. Decina
Officers conducting an investigation and got a search warrant for drugs. Initially watching Miss Vernado, who made a purchase previously. Dogs found heroin inside wall mounted heater. Officer detained Miss Pharr outside the apartment and brought her in. Dee said Ms. Varnado was not living at the address, but was staying there that particular night, they had legal separation. He denied knowing drugs were in the heater.. had prior convictions of drug possession, firearms, and armed robbery.
Can he be charged with possession of heroin?
Yes. He had constructive possession and we view a fax in light was favorable to the prosecution.
- on appeal, Booth claimed there was insufficient evidence to support possession of heroin
a person can have constructive possession when drugs are under that person’s dominion or control
State of Louisiana v. Walter Booth (1999)
Statute: “no person shall use or be under the influence of or be addicted to the use of narcotics accepting when administered by other under the direction of a person, licensed by the state to prescribe an administer of narcotics”
8th A. requires a voluntary act and criminalizing addiction to narcotics violates the eighth amendment has a “cruel and unusual punishment” being involuntary.
Addiction is an illness in voluntary so you’re punishing this person status of being ill, which is cruel and unusual —> not morally culpable, a.k.a. there’s no way to deter people from being ill
Robinson v. California (1962)
Statute: “ whoever shall get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in any public place or at any private house, except his own shall be fine not exceeding $100”
Interpretted Robinson narrowly…
Allowed Texas to convict a chronic alcoholic for public intoxication
We’re not punishing the status, there’s a conduct element. You gotta be doing an act —public AND drunk.
- Whote: shouldn’t punish crimes for alcoholism but in this case, Powell made a choice to drink outside & didn’t show he was unable to stay off the streets
- By adding CONDUCT combined with “being in a public place,” this differentiated it from Robinson and held him criminally liable
Powell v. Texas (1968)
D found on side of ground and bushes appear, appeared drunk, and incoherent rocking back-and-forth. Officer arrested him for public intoxication. After a rest, he posted $104 cash bill and was released— because he was homeless he was not notified of his court date and did not appear for arraignment. Another warrant sent out and was arrested again for public intoxication on two occasions.
Subject to misdemeanor culpability for disorderly conduct by public intoxication?
Yes. Not because of his condition of being a homeless alcoholic, but rather because of his conduct that pose a safety hazard.
- If Kellogg, I’ve been drunk in public in a manner that did not pose a safety hazard (i.e. if he was able to exercise care for his own in the public safety was not blocking a public way) he could not have been educated guilty under section 647F.
People v. Kellog
Two homeless people convicted of violating Grants Pass’ public-camping laws
Illegal?
Yes. We are not criminalizing status for criminalizing the action like Powell. Sleeping outside is not involuntary and is voluntary. Criminalizing voluntary actions are not cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. It doesn’t matter who the person is who does the action it’s illegal (ex; homeless, a backpack on vacation, student who abandons his dorm room)
Dissent (Sotomayor): it doesn’t matter who the person is because the ordinance singles out homeless people by tacking on essentially bodily conduct with conduct they cannot do: sleeping breathing, blinking. The ordinance criminalizes status which is unconstitutional.
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson, et al. (2024)
8 individuals arrested and charged with vagrancy, 4 charged with “prowling by auto,” under Jacksonville’s vagrancy ordinance
Is the ordinance constitutional?
No. It (1) lacks giving notice the accused about what conduct is prohibited and (2) allows police to discriminatorily enforce the law since no standards are set for executing the ordinance
- People will have to conform to whatever the police want them to conform to
- ends up as a criminal procedure case
A vagrancy ordinance must give notice to the crime it’s prohibiting and offer standards to executing the ordinance
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972)
Chicago city Council enacted the Gang Congregation Ordinance which prohibits “criminal gang members” from “loitering” with one another over the other person’s in any public place.
Does it violate Due Process Clause of 14th A?
Yes. Violated both prongs of vagueness (1) does not notify what conduct is prohibited and (2) does not set a standard of conduct for citizens to understand.
- too much power given to police
- if two people do the same thing and only one gets stopped, it doesn’t feel like law anymore (not a society of laws, but of cops) —> disparities in stop rates for all crimes
Concurrence: ordinance could’ve been narrowly interpreted to cover loitering as it related to only gang member activity
Dissent: as long as constitutionally granted rights are not affected courts cannot judge on whether an ordinance and compasses too much harmless innocent conduct if that’s what the city/public policy want
- people are scared to walk outside —> imperils safety & security, detracts from property values, destabilize an entire neighborhood
City or Chicago v. Morales (1999)
LA Hill town Hall, where people complained about homeless people living on local streets illegally dumping trash and human waste on streets which was endangering public health. Venice homelessness task force were to site and arrest, homeless people using their cars as living quarters and to distribute influence, shelters and social services. The case was brought into section 42 USC 1983 = civil rights lawsuit against state actor multiple people’s common side of facts.
Is the code constitutional?
No. Fails both prongs (1) does not give notice (how to define “living quarters” or how long is “otherwise”) and this (2) leads to different interpretations by the police which do not ensure an equal and even-handed administration of the law (and rounds up “undesirables”/homeless only)
A municipal code cannot be vague as to not give notice of the behavior it seeks to criminalize leading to different interpretations by the police
Desertrain v. City of LA (2014)
Officers dispatched to a residence in response to reported weapons disturbance. Found with another man engaging in a sexual act. They were arrest arrested, held in custody overnight and charge it and convicted.
Is the statute legal?
No. The Texas statute is not valid— it’s not a crime for two gay people to have private sex.
These individuals are free adults, engaging in private conduct as protected by the Liberty under the due process clause of the 14th amendment — there is no legitimate state interest that can justify this intrusion.
Gay sex is protected under Due Process 14th A. and no state interest can intrude
Dissent: ours is persuasive because it criminalizes other sexual behaviors based on moral choices (ex: bigamy, adultery, incest). Majority says morality cannot be a reason to enforce law prohibiting a behavior. If this is the case, the aforementioned laws don’t have a rational basis for regulation.
Takeaway: How you interpret Lawrence will depend on how you extend it to other cases (your constitutional theory)—if you read as equal protection case, limits how far you go
- sex/gender could be equal protection
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
