Actus Reus (Voluntary Act Requirement) Flashcards
Dalton Case
Facts: Man imprisoned for writing CSAM content in diary as part of his therapy treatment for pedophilia.
Rule: Actus reus requires conduct/omission, not just thought.
Holding: Since D only wrote fiction, government cannot prove actus reus. Court construed writing in journal was an “act” in the sense D “created,” but to make consistent with 1A CSAM exception, construed only writings about real minors could be prohibited.
Wisconsin v Mitchell (1993)
Facts: D, who is Black, attacked child for being white. Aggravated battery conviction sentence was enhanced by hate crime statute.
Rule: Sentences can take motives like racial animus into account since punishments are calibrated for extent of SH.
Holding: Sentence could be enhanced since enhancements based on racial animus are permissible. Hate crime statutes to enhance sentences address racist conduct as a SH. Motive =/= mens rea - mens rea is about degree of desiring to commit SH, not what motivated to do the SH.
Referenced two other cases applying related rules: Dawson - evidence of white supremacy beliefs barred in trial because unrelated to the crime. Barden - Black nationalism evidence was admissible to inform motive for purpose of a sentencing enhancement.
Martin v State (1944)
Facts: Cops move a drunk guy to a public place, then arrest him for public drunkeness.
Rule: To fulfill the elements of an actus reus, the person must undertake each element with volition.
Holding: D wins because while he committed volitional drunk acts on the highway, he didn’t have a choice when the cops forced him there, so he did not fulfill the willful physical movement of the conduct element “appear” in the statute.
State v Decina (1956)
Facts: D knows about his history of seizures, drives car, has a seizure, and hits people
Rule: Knowledge of a condition that leads to involuntary harmful actions can make those actions volitional for the purposes of establishing the elements of an actus reus.
Holding: D loses because he knew he had a history of seizures, and the statute he’s challenging has language that makes it illegal to take actions that harm others when the perpetrator knows their actions may cause the harm.
People v Beardsley (1907)
Facts: Man having affair doesn’t stop mistress from taking pills she ordered. Man tries to hide her after she passes out.
Rule: One is not under a legal duty to care for a houseguest such that the failure to do so makes one criminally punishable for any resulting harm.
Holding: D wins because there was no statute or contract imposing a duty of care, and there was no special relationship between the two.
Commonwealth v Howard (1979)
Duty to Act - Special Relationship
Facts: D’s boyfriend beats her daughter regularly. During a beating the girl falls, strikes her head, and dies.
Rule: A parent may be convicted of involuntary manslaughter for a child’s death if the parent failed to protect the child from a known and substantial risk of harm that directly caused the child’s death.
Holding: D loses because as a parent she had a special relationship to her daughter and therefore had a duty to act.
Commonwealth v Pestinikas
Duty to Act - Omission
Facts: Ds tell hospital they will take care of old man after he gets out of hospital. Instead Ds hide man in a shack and refuse to give him his medicine. The old man dies.
Rule: A failure to perform a duty imposed by a private contract may be the basis for a criminal charge.
Holding: Ds lose because they did not act to save the old man after telling the hospital they would, which the court interprets as the creation of a private contract between Ds and the hospital. The creation of the contract turns Ds’ moral duty to act into a legal duty
