To prosecute or find an accused guilty of a crime, the state must prove both actus reus and mens rea.
Actus Reus: Refers to the physical act of committing a crime.
Mens Rea: Refers to the mental state or intent behind committing the crime.
Key elements covered so far include:
Conduct (commissions and omissions)
Voluntariness
Causation
In the second semester, the topic of unlawfulness will be explored further.
Mens rea elements of crime:
Capacity has been addressed tangentially (e.g., intoxication and youth).
Focus in current lectures will shift to fault as the next element of criminal liability.
Fault is a mens rea element and can be expressed as:
Intention (Dolis)
Legal intention to commit the crime.
Negligence (KALPA)
Failing to act as a reasonable person would, creating a potential for harm.
Common law crimes predominantly require intention as the requisite mens rea, with exceptions:
Culpable homicide predominantly requires negligence.
Statutory offenses indicate whether intention or negligence is necessary.
Strict Liability Crimes: Fault isn't a requirement, allowing for conviction even without intent or negligence (e.g., speeding).
Fault must extend to every element of the crime:
Example: In homicide, the accused must intend to act unlawfully, intend to kill (as opposed to injure), and intend to kill a human being (not an animal).
Mens rea must be contemporaneous with actus reus:
Fault is tested at the moment of the unlawful act, not based on prior intentions.
Example: If an accused plans to kill but acts negligently during the act (causing harm), they can only be held liable for negligence
Definition of abduction: Unlawfully taking an unmarried girl under 21 from her guardian against their will for sexual intercourse.
Acused claimed not to have realized the girl was under 21, impacting mens rea.
Conviction was overturned because intent did not extend to all elements of the crime.
This relates back to mens rea:
Each aspect of the crime definition must have corresponding intention.
For culpable homicide, there's a necessity for a reasonable person standard in negligence.
Negligence (Objective Test): Did a reasonable person foresee the harm?
Intention (Subjective Test): Did the accused subjectively foresee and act reckless regarding the possibility of harm?
The VERSARI doctrine (no longer applicable) suggested that intention for one crime (e.g., felonies) could be imputed to any subsequent crimes resulting from that initial intention.
Critique: It violates the principle of contemporaneousness. If harm or subsequent actions were unforeseen and unintentional, the accused should not be liable.
Wallendorf: Ignorance of a police officer's status led to wrongful conviction via VERSARI.
Matseppe: Negligent driving led to injury, but prior intentions (driving negligently) wrongly led to liability for subsequent unintended consequences.
Major decisions against VERSARI include Van de Meste (1962) and Bernadis (1965), reinforcing the necessity that mens rea be contemporaneous with the actus reus.
Bernadis Case: An accused could not be liable for culpable homicide simply based on intent to harm when the actual foreseen consequences (death) were not reasonable to expect.
Study of fault's foundational principles is essential, and understanding its implications for liability remains critical for analyzing criminal cases.
The lecture series on fault will detail aspects such as dolus eventualis and the standards of a reasonable person in negligence.