Week 2 - Omissions (The "Actus Reus" Requirement)

Why was the son let free in Bilingslea v. State?

Case name, court, year, Judge:
Billingslea v. State, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 1989 (Judge Duncan).

Issue(s):

1. Was the indictment defective because it failed to allege a statutory duty to act?

2. Was the evidence insufficient because the defendant had no statutory duty to act?

Facts:
Billingslea lived with his 94‑year‑old mother, Hazel, who became bedridden. He refused to let relatives or social workers see her. When authorities finally entered the home, she was found in severe neglect with infected bedsores, burns, and malnutrition, and she later died. Billingslea was charged with injuring an elderly individual for failing to obtain medical care for her.

Procedural posture:
A jury found Billingslea guilty and sentenced him to 99 years in prison.
The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered an acquittal, finding the indictment defective.
The State appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Judgment:
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of Billingslea’s conviction.

Applicable Rules and Precedent:

• V.T.C.A. Penal Code §22.04 (injury to a child or elderly individual).

• V.T.C.A. Penal Code §6.01(c) (a person is not criminally liable for an omission unless a statute imposes a duty to act).

• Prior cases: Ronk v. State (1976), Smith v. State (1980), Lang v. State (1979) — all required a statutory duty to act for omission‑based offenses.

Holding:
The indictment was defective because there was no statutory duty requiring Billingslea to provide care for his mother under the law at the time. Therefore, his omission (failure to seek medical help) could not be criminally punished.

Reasoning:
At the time of the offense, Texas law did not assign anyone a statutory duty to care for elderly individuals. Under §6.01(c), a person can be guilty for an omission only if a statute defines the duty. Moral or common‑law duties (like caring for one’s parent) are not enough under Texas criminal law. Because no such statutory duty existed, the indictment failed to allege an essential element of the offense.

Rule of Law:
A person cannot be criminally liable for failing to act (an omission) unless a statute specifically imposes a legal duty to act.

Key takeaway:
Before 1989, Texas law did not criminalize neglect of elderly individuals by omission because there was no statutory duty to care for them. The Legislature later amended §22.04 to fill this gap, explicitly creating liability when someone assumes care or custody of an elderly person and then neglects them.

What according to the law does not require proof of an underlying duty of any kind?

Acts such as “striking and burning”

When does the law require there must be proof of duty to perform?

Omission of act

Not matter how morally wrong the omission is…

when there is no duty, cannot be held liable

Statute defining the crime…

can create the legal duty to act

What happens if the legal duty is not found on the face of the statute?

Must be found in some other source of law that specifies legal obligation

What are the main categories of legal duty?

1. Duties based on Statute (written provision)

2. Duties based on Relationship (parent and child)

3. Duties based on Contract (lifeguard responsibility)

4. Duty based on voluntary assumption of responsibility (taking abandoned infant)

Two instances where sometimes legal duties may be based on…

1. control over the conduct of another (employer oversee employee)

2. land/business owner safety of invitees

Person who omits to perform an act does not commit an offense unless…

a statute makes the omission an offense or otherwise gives the person a legal duty to perform that act

Despite there being no statute, why did the court convict of neglecting her duty Regina in Regina v. Instan?

Facts:
A young woman lived with and was supported by her 73-year-old aunt. When the aunt got gangrene in her leg and became bedridden (unable to move or get help), the niece knew but did nothing. For 10-12 days, she took in food paid for by the aunt but gave her none, didn't call a doctor, and didn't tell anyone. The aunt starved and died from neglect. The niece was convicted of manslaughter.​

Key takeaway:
Even without a statute, voluntarily living off and caring for someone creates a legal duty. Her selfish silence killed her aunt, and courts won't let that slide.

Rule of law:
A moral duty becomes a legal duty when you voluntarily assume responsibility for someone helpless (like through cohabitation and dependency). Failing that duty = criminal omission (here, manslaughter).

Why was Jones not held liable in Jones v. State?

Facts:
Mary Jones took custody of two young children (brothers Robert and Anthony Green) from their unwed mother, Shirley Green. She was paid initially for the older child, but payment stopped, and there was dispute over any agreement for baby Anthony. Gas company collectors found the kids locked in Jones's filthy basement. Anthony, 10 months old, was severely malnourished (weighed just 7 lbs 13 oz vs. normal ~14 lbs), covered in sores from diaper rash, and died of starvation 34 hours after hospital admission despite feeding. Jones was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, but the appeals court reversed.

Key takeaway:
Even with shocking neglect and enough evidence to suggest a duty, courts must explicitly require juries to find a legal duty existed before convicting on an omission (failure to act). Without that jury instruction, conviction fails.

Rule of law:
Criminal liability for omissions (like failing to feed/care for someone) requires proof of a legal duty to act, which arises in specific ways: (1) statute, (2) contract, (3) voluntary assumption of care that secludes the victim from others' help, or (4) special relationship (e.g., parent-child). Moral duty alone isn't enough.

What did People v. Beardsley say about what kind of relationship is needed for a duty to rise?

Facts:
Beardsley, a married man, spent a weekend drinking heavily with Blanche Burns (his mistress) in his rooms. She also took morphine against his wishes. When he worried his wife would return, he moved the passed-out Blanche to a friend's room and asked the friend to watch her and sneak her out later. Blanche died hours later from alcohol/morphine effects. Beardsley was convicted of manslaughter for not calling for help, but Michigan's Supreme Court reversed.

Reasoning:
No legal duty existed just because they partied together. A casual drunken fling doesn't create the same responsibility as marriage, parenthood, or contract. If two men got wasted and one died, no one would charge the survivor with omission—gender doesn't change that. Moral guilt isn't legal duty.

Key takeaway:
Wild weekends with lovers don't make you a legal babysitter. Without a formal relationship or promise, you're not criminally liable for their self-inflicted harm.

Rule of law:
A legal duty to act (for criminal omission liability) requires more than moral obligation or temporary cohabitation—it must come from statute, contract, voluntary custodial assumption (secluding the victim), or special relationships like spouse, parent-child, or guardian. Mere adult consensual debauchery creates no duty.

Unlike friends or acquaintances, husbands and wives…

owe each other duties of care

Why did the defendant have a legal duty in People v. Oliver?

Facts:
Defendant met drunk Carlos Cornejo at a bar, drove him home (taking him from public view), gave him a spoon to shoot heroin in her bathroom, then left him collapsed unconscious and went back to the bar. Later, her daughter and friend found him, and on defendant's orders, dragged him outside behind a shed to hide him. He died of overdose by morning. She was charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Reasoning:
By driving the helpless drunk from public safety to her private home, allowing drug use there, and abandoning him in peril, she voluntarily took charge of someone unable to help himself—creating and worsening the risk. This imposed a limited duty to summon aid and prevent foreseeable harm like death.

Key takeaway:
Picking up a stranger, enabling their overdose in your home, and dumping them hidden outside? That's not just bad manners—it's a legal duty to call for help, or face manslaughter charges.

Rule of law:
A legal duty to act arises when you voluntarily assume control of a helpless person (especially by removing them from public help to private isolation) and your actions create or increase risk of harm. Omission then becomes criminal.

According to Macaulay, when should an omission be punishable?

Make omissions punishable just like actions when they cause the same harm—if the omission was already illegal for other reasons.

According to Macaulay, what counts as an illegal ommision?

• It's a crime itself

• Breaks a specific law

• Would win a civil lawsuit (like negligence)

What are the three bases that criminal liability can be based on?

• Affirmative act by law

• Failure to perform act required by law

• Liability for possession

What is considered as possession?

Being with act of acquisition, continued by failure to divest