Class 1: Actus/Mens Rea, Omissions, Bystanders.

Question 1

What is criminal law?

Answer 1

It is for controlling those who are governed.

Question 2

What is a crime?

Answer 2

An act that causes social harm. a harm is against the whole community.

Question 3

What does malum in se and malum in prohibitum mean?

Answer 3

Malum in se is something that is wrong of itself
Malum in prohibitum is something we have indented as a harm

Question 4

What are the 2 sources of criminal law? Whats the main source?

Answer 4

Common law and statutory.

Statutory is the main source (MPC)

Question 5

Is the MPC law?

Answer 5

Not until adopted. Some jurisdictions have adopted, some not.

Question 6

What is substantive due process? Who does it test?

Answer 6

Substantive due process is unenumerated individual rights (things like abortion rights, contraception rights, rights to privacy etc.)

It tests the governments justification for taking away life liberty or property.

Question 7

What is procedural due process? What does is test?

Answer 7

Procedural due process is designed to ensure that the government follow proper procedures when taking away liberty or property.

It tests the adequacy of the procedures

Question 8

Does the crown have to prove every element of the crime BRD?

Answer 8

YES.

Question 9

State v Owens.

Owens is sitting in his car, in his driveway of a private house and private driveway. Owens is drunk and passed out in the car. He was charged with a DUI. The code he was charged under said “you can only be convicted of a DUI if they drove on the public road”.

Owens argue state cannot prove he drove on public road.

Issue:

1. Does the court have to prove every element BRD?

Answer 9

Yes. A court must prove all elements BRD to prove the crime.

Where you are claiming the problem is the evidence at the appellate court, the interpretation of the evidence is to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

Question 10

What is jury nullification?

Why is it controversial?

Are courts willing to tell juries about it?

Why would a jury nullify a person?

Answer 10

Even if the state proves BRD, the jury can still acquit. It is highly controversial, and jury has this power to acquit even where the government proves BRD

It is very problematic that the law shows the defendant must be convicted. However, juries may convict, but they do not have to under this

Courts are very reluctant to tell juries that they have the option to have nullify the results. Instead, courts are careful to obscure jury nullification

Why would a jury nullify? They may not like the law and think it is unjust. They might say the prosecution is unfairly targeting the victim. They might acquit as a matter of mercy, as the person who can be convicted will die in prison, so they show mercy.

Question 11

What is actus reus and mens rea?

Answer 11

Actus reus is the physical component of the crime (the guilty act)

Mens rea is the mental component of the crime (the guilty mind)

Question 12

What happens if we have an involuntary act?

Answer 12

When we say there is an act requirement, there must be a voluntary act.

We will also consider circumstances where is no act required, but there is a failure to act (omissions)

Voluntary acts must be willed movement by the body. Swinging of a fist, kick, driving a car etc

Involuntary acts typically account to acquittal.

Question 13

State v. Utter

Utter was in the army during WWII. He was charged and prosecuted of manslaughter. The victim was his son, and the son tapped the father on the back and out of instinct, Utter stabbed and killed the son. Utter claims he had no recollection, and that it had to be an automated response because of his WWII experience.

Issue:

What did the court say you needed to prove an involuntary act?

Answer 13

Court held it was not an automated act.

They said “To claim an involuntary act, you must have sufficient evidence that you were not of conscious mind”

Question 14

Can voluntary intoxication be used as a defence?

If so, is there a difference if common law applies or MPC applies?

Answer 14

Yes, if it negates the mens rea of the crime.

If common law, can only negate specific intent crime.

If MPC, can be for general and specific intent as MPC does not note the difference.

Question 15

State v Deer

Deer was kissing and raping a 15-year-old boy while sleepwalking.

She claimed she was unaware of doing this and cannot be held liable.

Issue: Did she meet the actus reus of the offence?

1) Statutory rape is absolute liability. Thus the court held? (what is the only thing they need to prove)

2) Is lack of consent important?

Answer 15

Court held that this was statutory rape and just the actus reus must be proved.

The charge is only based on the age of the victim, and the consent or lack of consent is irrelevant.

Court held she could argue lack of conscious action, but this should be treated as an affirmative defence like intoxication, with the burden of proof resting on defence.

Thus, she was convicted.

Sleepwalking must be proved by the defense BRD to be used.

Question 16

R v Parks

While sleepwalking, Parks killed his father and mother-in-law. He claimed he was sleepwalking the entire time and thus he did not have a voluntary action.

Issue: Was he of conscious mind?

Answer 16

Held:

Parks showed sufficient evidence that he was indeed sleep walking and it was an involuntary act.

Sufficient evidence of sleep walking can be a complete acquittal of charges.

Question 17

What is an omission?

Is a moral obligation enough?

Answer 17

This is the failure to act that can result in criminal liability.

There might be a moral obligation, but this is not a legal obligation.

Question 18

What are the five exceptions where you do have a legal liability to act?

Think CND Criminal Law

Answer 18

Exceptions that give rise to a legal liability to act is when there is:

1) Special relationships
EXAMPLE (parents-kids, husband-wife, doctor-patient)

2) Contracts EXAMPLE (lifeguards)

3) Statutes EXAMPLES (good Samaritan statute, where you must act)

4) Creation of risk

5) Voluntary assumption of care

Question 19

State v Pestinikas

Walter and Helen assume the care of C who suffers from a condition. They did this in exchange for $300 a month.

Once the assumed care, they told the nurse taking care of C they won’t need the nurse. They put their names in C’s bank account and took 30k. A few years later, C died from dehydration, and no food.

Issue:
1) Is there a moral duty to act?
2) Whether there was evidence to impose a legal duty on the Pestinikas to care for C.

Answer 19

Ordinarily there is no duty to act, but if the law imposes a legal duty to act, they must act.

In the case, the court says that a contract existed, and that contract imposed a legal duty to act by the Pestinikas. Thus, there failure to act may be the basis of criminal homicide due to the omission. Thus, as there was a contract, there was a legal duty and they failed to act. They were prosecuted.

Court notes, that regardless of this omission, all the other elements must be proved.

A contract can impose a legal obligation, and failure of this obligation can constitute an omission and thus the actus reus of the offence is fulfilled.

Question 20

Florio v State

Florio was a babysitter for a child of his girlfriends. The child died and he was charged with omission as it was unclear who harmed the child.

Issue:
1) Did Florio have a legal duty to act?
2) Do all baby sitters have a legal duty to act?

Answer 20

Court held that although Florio was a babysitter, he had no legal duty to care for the child because he was not a parent.

Not all baby sitters have a legal duty to act.

Question 21

Barber v Superior Court

Facts: Accused were doctors who withdrew life support from patient and were charged with murder.

Issue: Were the doctors liable for murder under omission?

Answer 21

Court held that yes doctors have a legal duty to provide treatment but has no duty to continue treatment once it has been proven to be ineffective.

Thus no legal duty to continue treatment.

The doctor in this case has no legal duty to act.

Question 22

Do bystanders have liability to help?

Can a bystander ever have any liability?

Answer 22

A bystander is never guilty if they are just a bystander. There is no legal duty to aid another UNLESS they have some sort of other obligation (like contract to act)

The only way a bystander can be guilty is they are no longer just a bystander. If they have engaged in some actions with the perpetrator, they are no longer a bystander and they are guilty.

Question 23

State v Davis

Facts: Father and son. Son was trying to get victim to bed, and victim ran to father for help. Father did not help but rather held her hand when she was getting raped.

Issue: Did the father have a duty to act or was he just a bystander?

Answer 23

Holding/Analysis

It was held the father engaged in action; he was not a mere bystander and was not just witnessing. He was doing affirmative things to aid and encourage the son’s action

If you provide affirmative action, you are no longer a bystander but rather an accomplice and thus liable.