Actus Reus

What is an attendant circumstance?

what is true when these things happen 

What is Actus Reus?

• Conduct itself 

  • Must be an act (brain moving body)

  • Act must be voluntary 

    • Involuntary acts: (sleeping, reflexes…)

    • Voluntary acts (ex: lighting a bomb, lighting a fire)

What is the simple criminal law model about harm?

• Harm  

  • This can be split into  

    • Conduct/behavior  

      • Ex: Driving Drunk 

    • Result 

Is an intentional act causes harm a mens rea/actus reus argument?

Both

An act intentionally causes harm a mens rea/actus reus argument?

only a mens rea argument

What does Martin v. State elucidate?

Helping understand the in/voluntary nature of an act (want to confirm it was voluntary)

Martin v. State (who wins, phrase that pays, facts, points of analysis remem)?

• Who wins: Martin wins

• Phrase that pays: “appears”

• Facts: 

  • Memorable Fact: Think Wizards of Waverly place I was “appeared” (drunk forcefully by wizard police) on highway

  • Martin pulled from home after drinking by officers

  • Officers took him to highway where he manifested loud and profane language 

• Analysis 

  • Martin had been pulled by home by officers and put onto the highway involuntarily while drunk there was no act to constitute a violation of the statute

  • He was appeared -involuntary so no act

What does Martin v. State elucidate?

the in/voluntary nature of an act (reflex [invol] v. vol action). Looking more at what is not a reflexive thing

State v. Utter (who wins, phrase that pays, facts, points of analysis remem)?

• Who wins: State

• What’s the statute

• Phrase that pays: “By the act”

• Analysis: 

  • Court was basically like you did kill him: “act must be willed in the moment” 

    • Vol got drunk 

    • Claims a automatism defense bc of the jungle warfare PTSD, but the court says there is no evidence for this. Automatism defense would be valid if proved.

    • Weighing these two vol got drunk. Don’t think about the vol drunk part too much 

• Fact 

  • Memorable Oops accidentally killed my son bc of my jungle warfare PTSD 

  • Mr. Utter army service 1942 w/honor discharged Oct 1946 

  • Utter living w/son drunk in the morning and then went out to get more

  • Son enters apt heard saying “dad don’t”

  • Seen stumbling out having been stabbed saying “Dad stabbed me” 

  • Utter remembers nothing else 

  • Idea of conditioned responses proposed act or pattern occurred so rapidly and uniform as to be a uto response to certain stimuli = automatism defense

What does People NY v. Decina elucidate?

 the in/voluntary nature of an act (reflex [invol] v. vol action). Looking more at what is not a reflexive thing

People of NY v. Decina (who wins, phrase that pays, facts, points of analysis remem)?

• Who wins: People of NY 

• Phrase that pays: “operates or drives”

• Fact:

  • Memorable: I ran over some kids bc of my epilepsy 

  • Decina driving alone in car 

  • Swerved left across center line due to epileptic attack

  • Group school girls walking on sidewalk 3/6 killed 

  • After striking kids crashed into a grocery store and went to hospital where he repeated history of epilepsy to dr. knew this was why he’d lost consciousness

• Analysis:

  • Court found that he knew of his epilepsy yet still chose to get into the car majority sees that he delib took a chance by making a conscious choice to drive in disregard of a consequence which he knew might follow from conscious act of driving which did occur here

What was the dissents argument in People NY v. Decina? How might you argue that Decina’s actions were involuntary and not fitting for actus reus?

• Dissent notes that the clock on his action didn’t start when he got in the driver's seat, but when he was having an epileptic seizure 

What does State v. Shell elucidate?

legal duty act

State v. Shell (who wins, statute, phrase that pays, facts, points of analysis remem)?

• Who wins: Shell wins for the charge important to us manslaughter 

• What’s the statute: "bc missouri's invol manslaughter statute does not explicitly consider a defendant's failure to act, a duty to perform the omitted act must be otherwise imposed by law" 

• Phrase that pays: “duty to act”

• Facts: 

  • Memorable fact: Heroin broskis

  • Shell purchased heroin for both him and his friend

  • Shell took 3 and james took 4 himself

  • Shell drove james back to parents house

  • James told mom tired maybe started load laundry went to bed

  • 1PM James’s mom finds him dead after trying to wake him up 

  • Investigation revealed shell and he was charged w/distribution controlled substance and invol manslaughter

• Analysis 

  • At issue fs was number 4 but shell took James home to mom did not seclude him james moved around himself too 

  • No status relationship either unlike voss case where he had provided heroin and helped prep vic to shoot up

What is the 4 situations that state v. shell gives us for when someone has a legal duty to act?

1. Where statute imposes duty to care for another

2. Where def certain relationship

3. Where def assumes contractual duty for another

4. Where one vol assumed care of another and so secluded helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid