Actus reus

Scales of justice
Criminal law
Part of the common law series
Element (criminal law)
Actus reus · Mens rea
Causation · Concurrence
Scope of criminal liability
Complicity · Corporate · Vicarious
Inchoate offenses
Attempt · Conspiracy · Solicitation
Offence against the person
Assault · Battery
False imprisonment · Kidnapping
Mayhem · Sexual assault
Homicide crimes
Murder · Felony murder
Manslaughter
Negligent homicide
Vehicular homicide
Crimes against property
Arson · Blackmail · Burglary
Embezzlement · Extortion
False pretenses · Larceny
Receiving stolen property
Robbery · Theft
Crimes against justice
Compounding · Misprision
Obstruction · Perjury
Malfeasance in office
Perverting the course of justice
Defenses to liability
Defense of self
Defence of property
Consent · Diminished responsibility
Duress · Entrapment
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Infancy · Insanity
Intoxication defense
Justification · Mistake (of law)
Necessity · Loss of Control (Provocation)
Other common law areas
Contracts · Evidence · Property
Torts · Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Criminal justice · Law

Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, England, Ireland and the United States. In the United States, some crimes also require proof of an attendant circumstance.

Contents

Etymology

The terms actus reus and mens rea developed in English Law, are derived from the principle stated by Edward Coke, namely, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,[1] which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty"; hence, the general test of guilt is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness both in behaviour and mind.

Act

In order for an actus reus to be committed there has to have been an act. Various common law jurisdictions define act differently but generally, an act is a "bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary."[2] In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California law making it illegal to be a drug addict was unconstitutional because the mere status of being a drug addict was not an act and thus not criminal.

An act can consist of commission, omission or possession.

Omission

See main article omission (criminal)

Omission involves a failure to engage in a necessary bodily movement resulting in injury. As with commission acts, omission acts can be reasoned causally using the but for approach. But for not having acted, the injury would not have occurred. The Model Penal Code specifically outlines specifications for criminal omissions:[3]

  1. the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or
  2. a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.

So if legislation specifically criminalizes an omission through statute; or a duty that would normally be expected was omitted and caused injury, an actus reus has occurred.

Possession

Possession holds a special place in that it has been criminalized but under common law does not constitute an act. Some countries like the United States have avoided the common law conclusion in Regina v. Dugdale[4] by legally defining possession as a voluntary act. As a voluntary act, it fulfills the requirements to establish actus reus.[5][6]

Voluntariness

For conduct to constitute an actus reus, it must be engaged in voluntarily. Few sources enumerate the entirety of what constitutes voluntary and involuntary conduct. Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his 1881 book The Common Law, disputed whether such a thing as an involuntary act exists: "[a] spasm is not an act. The contraction of the muscles must be willed." A few sources, such as the Model Penal Code, provide a more thorough treatment of involuntary conduct:

  1. a reflex or convulsion;
  2. a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep;
  3. conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion;
  4. a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or the determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.

Reflex or Convulsion

Generally, if, during a uncontrollable flailing caused by a sudden paroxysmal episode, such as that produced by a epileptic seizure, a person strikes another, that person will not be criminally liable for the injuries sustained by the other person.[7] However, if prior to the assault on another, the seized individual was engaging in conduct that he knew to be dangerous given a previous history of seizures, then he is culpable for any injuries resulting from the seizure. For example, in People v. Decina, 2 N.Y.2d 133 (1956), the defendant, Emil Decina, appealed a conviction under § 1053-a of the New York Penal Code. On March 14, 1955, Decina suffered a serious seizure while operating a motor vehicle. He swerved wildly through the streets and struck a group school girls, killing four of them.[8] On direct examination, Decina's physician testified that Decina informed him that prior to the accident "he noticed a jerking of his right hand" and recounted his extensive history of seizures, a consequence of brain damage from an automobile accident at age seven.[9] Decina argued, inter alia, that he had not engaged in criminal conduct because he did not voluntarily strike the school girls.[10] The New York Court of Appeals disagreed and held that since the defendant knew he was susceptible to a seizure at any time without warning and decided to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway anyway, he was guilty of the offense. "To hold otherwise," wrote Froessel, J, "would be to say that a man may freely indulge himself in liquor in the same hope that it will not affect his driving, and if it later develops that ensuing intoxication causes dangerous and reckless driving resulting in death, his unconsciousness or involuntariness at that time would relieve him from prosecution[.]"[11]

Unconsciousness or Sleep

In Hill v Baxter, Kilmuir, LC, articulated the necessity of eliminating automatism, defined as "the existence in any person of behaviour of which he is unaware and over which he has no conscious control,"[12] in proving the voluntariness of the actus reus:

[N]ormally the presumption of mental capacity is sufficient to prove that he acted consciously and voluntarily and the prosecution need go no further. But, if after considering evidence properly left them by the judge, the jury are left in real doubt whether or not the accused acted in a state of automatism...they should acquit because the necessary mens rea—if indeed the actus reus—has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus, a person suffering from somnambulism, a fugue, a metabolic disorder, epilepsy, or other convulsive or reflexive disorder,[13] who kills another, steals another's property, or engages in other facially criminal conduct, may not have committed an actus reus, for such conduct may have been elicited unconsciously, and, "one who engages in what would otherwise be criminal conduct is not guilty of a crime if he does so in a state of unconsciousness[.]"[14] Depending on jurisdiction, automatism may be a defense distinct from insanity or a species of it.[15]

Hypnosis

While the general scientific consensus is that hypnosis cannot induce an individual to engage in conduct they would not otherwise engage in,[16] the Model Penal Code, as well as the criminal codes of Montana, New York, and Kentucky do provide hypnosis and hypnotic suggestion as negating volition, and consequently, actus reus.[17]

Perhaps the earliest case of hypnotism as negating voluntary conduct is California v. Ebanks, 49 P 1049 (Cal. 1897). In Ebanks, the court categorically rejected Ebanks' argument that the trial court committed reversible err in denying him leave to present expert testimony concerning the effects of hypnotism on the will.[18] The lower court bluntly remarked that "'[t]he law of the United States does not recognize hypnotism. It would be an illegal defense, and I cannot admit it.'"[18] Nearly sixty years later, however, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not err in allowing expert testimony on hypnosis, though it did not rule on whether hypnotism negates volition.[19] The Supreme Court of Canada ruled confessions made under hypnosis inadmissible because they are involuntarily given; Germany and Denmark provide a hypnotist defense.[20]

Omission

Voluntariness includes omission, for implicit in omission is that the actor voluntarily chose to not perform a bodily movement and, consequently, caused an injury. The purposeful, reckless, or negligent absence of an action is considered a voluntary action and fulfills the voluntary requirement of actus reus.[21][22]

See also

References

Notes

  1. ↑ Coke, chapter 1, folio 10
  2. ↑ Model Penal Code § 1.13(2)
  3. ↑ Model Penal Code § 2.01(3)
  4. ↑ Regina v. Dugdale, 1 El. & Bl. 435, 439 (1853) (ruled that the mere possession of indecent images with the intent to publish them was not a crime as possession did not constitute an act)
  5. ↑ N.Y. Penal Law § 15.00(2)
  6. ↑ Model Penal Code § 2.01(4)
  7. ↑ Holland, Winnifred H. (1982-1983). "Automatism and Criminal Responsibility". Crim. L.Q. 25: 106. "If X, during a grand mal seizure, by a reflex action kicks out and hits Y, then it is most unlikely there will be criminal liability.". 
  8. ↑ Decina, at 135
  9. ↑ Decina, at 138
  10. ↑ More particularly, he argued that a demurrer should have been sustained because the indictment did not charge a crime. Decina, at 139
  11. ↑ Decina, at 141
  12. ↑ Blair, Medicolegal Aspects of Automatism, qtd. in McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 106 (Ind. 1997)
  13. ↑ McClain, at 107
  14. ↑ State v. Caddell, 215 S.E.2d 348, 360 (N.C. 1975)
  15. ↑ McClain, at 108
  16. ↑ Bonnema, Mary Christine (1992-1993). "Trance on Trial: An Exegesis of Hypnotism and Criminal Responsibility". Wayne L. Rev. 39 (1299): 1311. "Although many believe the misconception that hypnosis is "a mystical ploy that sends someone into another world and puts them at the mercy of another's ideas...," the more modern view is that a hypnotist cannot make a hypnotized person do anything she does not want to do.". 
  17. ↑ Bonnema, p. 1316
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Ebanks, at 1053 qtd. in Bonnema, p. 1313
  19. ↑ California v. Marsh, 338 P.2d 495 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959) qtd. in Bonnema, p. 1314
  20. ↑ Bonnema, p. 1315
  21. ↑ Commonwealth v. Pestinikas, 617 A.2d 1339 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992)
  22. ↑ People v. Steinberg, 79 N.Y.2d 673 (1992)

Sources

External links