Module 2 - Actus Reus

What are the elements of a crime?

Crime = Actus reus + mens rea

What is the rule/definition for Actus Reus?

A voluntary act/omission causing a demonstrable, articulable social harm prescribed by statute. Can’t be hypothetical.

Define result and conduct crimes (different types of harm) and how they are punished.

1. Result crimes require and punish a harmful outcome (e.g. murdered person)

2. Conduct crimes punish the behavior itself. The risk alone is the harm.

Defendant buries grandpa in the backyard without notifying authorities. What's the harm?

Disease

Inability to rule out foul play without an autopsy

Defendant drives drunk with no one else around. What’s the harm?

1. You can kill yourself

2. You can’t know for CERTAIN no one is on the road

3. Risk to the others

How should you break down Actus Reus in the exam?

Analyze the statute:

1. Conduct - the prohibited behavior - usually the VERBS

2. Result - the outcome (if required)

3. Attendant circumstances - extra facts required alongside (e.g. while intoxicated)

Statute says: "It is a felony for a person to knowingly take alcohol from a shop established within the last 5 years with the intent to drink and drive."

Break down the actus reus in this statute.

• Conduct: "take" (the voluntary physical movement).

• Result: None. This is a conduct crime, not a result crime.

• Attendant Circumstances: The object is "alcohol," the location is a "shop," and the shop was "established within the last 5 years."

What are the conditions for criminalizing conduct?

PH-VC

1. Past occurrence (cannot be punished for crimes not yet committed)

2. Harmfulness: Must cause demonstrable harm

3. Voluntariness: Act must be a choice

4. Conduct, Not Merely Thought: The behavior must involve physical conduct, not just thought crimes.

What is the exception to the Conduct requirement?

Attempt law

D drives to a store he intends to burglarize. Attempt?

No, not enough

D buys tools to break into a store. He drives to a store he intends to burglarize. Attempt?

Yes, substantial step

Argue for and against Attempt law.

For: Punishing early prevents completed harm

Against: Punishes people who may change their mind. Where do we draw the line on enough steps?

Also, everyone has bad thoughts, making all prosecutable.

What are involuntary acts?

Any non-conscious/non-habitual movement. Examples include reflexes/convulsion, movement during sleep/uncosciousness, hypnosis.

Can status be criminalized (e.g. addiction, mental illness, cruel, unusual)?

No, but can criminalize conduct flowing from status, e.g. public intoxication

D voluntarily fires at a target at a gun range. Victim walks into the line of fire. Murder?

No. There was a voluntary act but no mens rea for murder.

D skips medication for a controlled tic, then reflexively injures someone. Actus reus satisfied?

Jurisdictions are split on whether the earlier voluntary choice (skipping meds) satisfies actus reus

Martin: Police forcibly carried an intoxicated D from his home onto a public highway, where he was loud/profane. Lower court convicted him of public drunkenness. What happened in the appellate court?

Reversed - D never voluntarily appeared in public.

Utter: D, a combat veteran, stabbed his son, claiming an automatic "conditioned response" (war-trained reflex), not a conscious act. Will D be convicted?

Unconsciousness IS a valid defense, but no valid evidence was presented in this case

What is the general rule for omissions?

No duty to act to prevent harm to another - even if helping is costless and inaction is fatal.

What are the exceptions to omissions where you have a duty to act?

1. Statutory duty (e.g. duty to report)

2. Status relationship (parent, child, spouse)

3. Contractual duty (babysitter)

4. Voluntary assumption + seclusion (start helping, then isolate victim from other aid)

5. Creation of risk (D causes the peril, e.g. D hits a pedestrian but doesn’t stop to help)

Why is there no duty to act?

Inaction may be innocent - fear, panic.

Well-meaning help can backfire.

Beardsley: D had a third party seclude his intoxicated companion (who'd voluntarily taken morphine) in a basement, telling him to "look after her"; she died. Did D have a duty to act?

No. D had no legal duty.

Barber: Physicians (Defendants) withdrew a respirator, then IV nutrition/hydration, from a permanently comatose patient at the family's request. Affirmative act or omission?

Technically an affirmative act. But court created a legal fiction for policy reasons: the medical treatment was futile, and so the duty to continue the treatment ends.

Some states narrowly criminalize failure to assist. What’s the rule for Minnesota?

Only “reasonable” aid required. 1) must be at scene 2) KNOW person faces grave harm 3) be able to help without danger to self/others.

Hypo: A child is abducted from a playground. 5 nearby parents (each with a phone, each scared/shocked, none recognizing the abductor) don't call 911 until 5 minutes after the van leaves. A proposed "Good Samaritan" law would criminalize failing to intervene (Class A misdemeanor, 12 mo. prison + $50k fine).

Argue for and against liability for the bystanders.

For liability: deters bad actors who know bystanders must call 911. Protects kids who can’t protect themselves.

Against: hard to prove a witness actually knew of the danger. Risks false reporting. Parents may avoid public spaces.

Statute: It is a felony to threaten any crime of violence (a) intending to terrorize, (b) intending to cause evacuation of a building/assembly place/public transit, or (c) recklessly disregarding the risk of terror/evacuation.

1. What is the actus reus?

2. What is the harm prevented?

3. What are the ambiguities?

1. “threatens to commit any crime of violence” (e.g. bomb threat, driving through crowd)

2. Fear/risk of violence + disruption to peace/business/government (fake bomb threat still causes panic)

3. What is sufficient "terror"? Does a shed count as a "building"? Is a park a "place of assembly"? What is "public transportation"? What does "terrorize" mean?