Actus Reus (Voluntary Act, Omissions, Social Harm)

Question 1

What are the components of a Crime?

Answer 1

(1) actus reus

(2) mens rea

Question 2

What is an Actus Reus?

Answer 2

the physical or external part of the crime; both the conduct and the harmful result

Question 3

Actus Reus= ___________ + ___________ + _________________

Answer 3

= voluntary act + causation + social harm

Question 4

What is a voluntary act?

Answer 4

Under both the common law and MPC §2.01, a person is not ordinarily guilty of a criminal offense unless his conduct includes a voluntary act [or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable].

Question 5

Voluntary act requires:

Answer 5

• The prosecution must demonstrate that ∆’s act was motivated by a voluntary WILLED movement.
• overt act
• It was not automated (automism)
• It was the use of the mind, not the brain
• You can broaden the actus reus time span, like dawn to to dusk State. Utter.

Question 6

Does the criminal law punish mere thoughts?

Answer 6

NO; there must be a voluntary act;
One is responsible only for those consequences that are caused by his action and NOT for those things in which his body, but not his acting self, is causally implicated.

Question 7

Common Law definition of Voluntary Act:

Answer 7

the act is a willed muscular contraction or bodily movement by the actor.
Not just a physical movement.
Use of mind, not just brain.

Question 8

How much movement is required to constitute a voluntary act?

Answer 8

The slightest muscular contraction or bodily movement constitutes an act.

Question 9

What is a conduct crime?

Answer 9

the actus reus will not include any harmful, tangible result;
penalizes conduct

Question 10

what is a result crime?

Answer 10

offense seeks to prevent or punish a harmful result

Question 11

Involuntary Acts include:

Answer 11

• Reflex or convulsion.
• –Reflex like in State v. Utter could’ve been a partial defense. If he hadn’t been drinking all morning. They broadened the statute here so that they could reconcile the People v. Du case with State v. Utter. Since Du had been broaded to keep her on probation instead of free back to the streets.
• Bodily movement while unconscious or asleep.
• Conduct during hypnosis or as a result of hypnotic suggestion.
• Bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of effort/determination of actor, either conscious or habitual.

Question 12

What constitutes an involuntary act?

Answer 12

UNWILLED acts controlled by the brain and not by mind are involuntary.
Some bodily movements are the result of impulses from the brain that direct the person’s bodily movements. Seizures/Acts during sleep walking.

Question 13

How does MPC 2.01 deal with voluntary acts?

Answer 13

Does not provide a definition of voluntary act except by providing examples of involuntary acts.
§2.01 – Requires voluntary act/omission to perform act which the actor is physically capable. No liability for involuntary acts where ∆ has no conscious control.

Question 14

People v. Decina

Epileptic driver has a seizure and kills 4 people while driving

Answer 14

D knew that he suffered from epileptic seizures and continued to voluntarily drive car; he had a seizure while driving and killed 4 people;
prosecution is able to prove acts reus because even though the seizure was involuntary, the D shouldn’t have been driving if they knew they suffered from epilepsy.

Question 15

What is the Utilitarian’s rationale for the requirement of a voluntary act?

Answer 15

A person who acts involuntarily cannot be deterred. Therefore it is useless to punish the involuntary actor. It results in pain without the benefit of crime reduction.

Counter Argument – It is true that persons cannot be deterred during their involuntary conduct, but the threat of punishment might deter persons from placing themselves in situations in which their involuntary conduct can cause harm to others.
(Ex. Decina – driving while prone to epileptic seizures).

Question 16

What is the Retributivist’s rationale for the requirement of a voluntary act?

Answer 16

A more persuasive justification for the voluntary act requirement is that blame and punishment presuppose free will: a person does not deserve to be punished unless she chooses commit a wrongful act.

Question 17

Policy question:

Why does an act have to be voluntary?

Answer 17

It would undermine personal security to punish involuntary actions

Voluntary action means the person knows and willingly takes responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Utilitarian Reasons

Retributivist Reason

Address the purpose of the criminal law discussed (Blackstone and Harlan)

Question 18

What is the Rule of Omissions?

Answer 18

The criminal law generally punishes an individual only for the affirmative harm he himself inflicts.

Question 19

Can a D be held criminally liable for an omission?

Answer 19

Generally, one cannot be held criminally liable for an omission unless an exception applies and creates a LEGAL DUTY

Question 20

Does an omission satisfy actus reus?

Answer 20

NO; omission does not satisfy actus reus because it is NOT a voluntary act

Question 21

Omissions:
People v. Beardsley
Is one under a legal duty to care for a houseguest so that the failure to do so makes one criminally punishable for any resulting harm?

Answer 21

No. A legal duty to care for another is only established under limited circumstances. It can be imposed by law or by contract. It can also arise in situations where one takes the role of guardian or protector, such as a mother towards her child or a husband towards his wife. If one is under a legal duty of care and fails to provide it, that person is criminally liable for any resulting harm. But if no such legal duty exists, one is at most morally culpable for failing to assist.

Question 22

What is the rationale behind Omissions?

Answer 22

• Proving the Omitter’s State of Mind – Criminal conduct requires a guilty state of mind (mens rea). It is too difficult to determine the state of mind of one who fails to act. Because there are a possible hundred reasons for why someone didn’t act. Maybe they were too shocked to act, maybe it all happened too fast.
• Promoting Individual Liberty/Line Drawing Problems – In a society that is premised on individual liberties and limited government, the criminal law should be used to prevent persons from causing positive harm to others, but it should not be used to coerce people to act to benefit others. Criminal law should be limited only to punishing the most serious moral wrongdoings and not non-doings. Otherwise, where do you draw the line at what people should do? Personal Autonomy is the most important.
• Making Things Worse – Well meaning bystanders may make matters worse by intervening. Therefore a rule requiring assistance might cause more harm than good.

Question 23

MPC 2.01(3)(a) – Omission and Legal Duty

Answer 23

∆ has a legal duty to act if the statute defining the offense expressly states that failure to act is a crime.

∆ has a legal duty to act imposed by civil law.

Question 24

What is the Bystander Effect?

Answer 24

when there is a large group of people that witness someone in need, but nobody wants to take the responsibility of helping because they all feel that someone else in the group will take action before they have to.

Question 25

What is the EXCEPTION to the general rule of Omissions?

no criminal liability for omission.

Answer 25

An omission is a voluntary act for the actus reus component of the crime when a legal duty exists. MPC 2.01(1)

Legal duties (imposed by common law or statutes):
---Special relationship between victim and defendant (i.e. husband & wife)

—Established by statute

—Contractual duty to care

—Voluntary aid and seclusion from other aid; One who voluntarily assumes the care of another must continue to assist if a subsequent omission would place the victim in a worse position than if the good Samaritan had not assumed care at all.

—When the defendant creates the risk of harm to the victim

Question 26

What is the Utilitarian policy argument for omissions?

Answer 26

• Can’t deter because people wouldn’t have clear expectation of what constitutes a crime of omissions for deterrence.
• Punishing someone for not reporting a rape would not help, it would make it more likely people would have willful blindness or extra avoidance. Also, removes personal autonomy and wouldn’t be beneficial to society.
• Don’t hold law to a higher standard because law is the low bar and morals are the high bar. So we might think its moral responsibility of person to act, but that is the high bar.
• D should always try to plead invalid act instead of a defense. That way prosecutor has failure of proof.

Question 27

What is the Retributivist policy argument for omissions?

Answer 27

you can’t punish someone for something that they have not done, because you can’t show moral culpability that deserves to be punished.

Question 28

Linda Rushioni Case Study

Answer 28

picks up lottery ticket, there were some statutes on the book but the family said finders keepers and the prosecutors would not prosecute. It was morally condemned because the lottery ticket wasn’t there.

Question 29

Barber v. Superior Court of CA

(Is a physician under a legal duty to continue futile life-sustaining support absent objection from a spouse and does the withdrawal of such life-sustaining support with the consent of a spouse support a charge of murder?)

Answer 29

whereas euthanasia is an affirmative act to cease life, the cessation of “heroic” life support measures is NOT an affirmative act to cease life.

Rather, it is a withdrawal or omission of further treatment.
There is no criminal liability for failure to act unless there is a legal to duty to do so. Here, Barber had no legal duty to continue to provide treatment to Herbert once it was proved to be ineffective or futile in the opinion of qualified physicians.

Question 30

Ray E. Billingslea Case Study

(Ray lived with his 94 year old mother Hazel.
Hazel was found by police in her room with bed sores that contained maggots, she had broken bones, and her flesh was deteriorating due to negligent care.)

Answer 30

Billingslea’s omission did was not sufficient for criminal liability (even though he was a piece of shit); he did not have a legal duty.

Billingslea is an example of the LEGALITY PRINCIPLE–> no clearly defined statute= no conviction

Question 31

Define Social Harm:

Answer 31

the “negation, endangering, or destruction of an individual, group, or state interest, which is deemed socially valuable.”

-the loss suffered from a murder or other violent crime is experienced not only by the immediate victim, but also by society.

Question 32

What are the requirements of Social Harm?

Answer 32

Result, Attendant Circumstances, and Conduct

Question 33

Give an example of Conduct Crime:

Answer 33

A statute prohibiting DWI prohibits a certain TYPE OF DRIVING (DWI) and not a result of that driving (such as the death of another or injury to property).

Question 34

Give an example of Result Crime:

Answer 34

The social harm of murder is the death of another human being [result].

Question 35

What is an Attendant Circumstance?

Answer 35

—a condition that must be present in conjunction with the prohibited conduct or result, in order to constitute the crime.

—a fact that exists at the time of the actor’s conduct or at the time of a particular result, and which is required to be proven in the definition of the offense.

—only examine actus reus to determine

Question 36

Identify the Attendant Circumstance:

DWI: It is an offense to drive an automobile in an intoxicated condition.

Answer 36

“an automobile”
“in an intoxicated condition”

It is an offense to drive [conduct] an automobile [ac] in an intoxicated condition [ac] .

—the actus reus of the offense does not occur unless the actor drives her car (the conduct) while intoxicated (the circumstance that must be present at the time of her conduct).

Question 37

Break Down the Statute:
(Identify the mens rea, result, and attendant circumstances)

Homicide/MPC §210.1 – A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes the death of another human being.

Answer 37

Homicide/MPC §210.1 – A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently [mens rea] causes the death [result] of another [ac] human being [ac].

Question 38

Break Down the Statute:
(Identify the conduct, attendant circumstances, and mens rea)

Burglary: Breaking and entering a dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein.

Answer 38

Burglary – Breaking [conduct] and entering [conduct] a dwelling house [ac] of another [ac] at nighttime [ac] with the intent to commit a felony therein [mens rea].