1. Chapter 4 Actus Reus

2. Introduction—Basic Issues  All crimes are composed of three main elements:  Actus reus (criminal act or omission)  Mens rea (criminal intent)  Concurrence (between actus reus & mens rea)

3. Basic Issues (cont.)  An act may be innocent or criminal depending on the context or “attendant circumstances.”  Crimes require different attendant circumstances.  Some offenses require that an act cause a very specific harm.  In result crimes, the defendant’s act must be the actual cause of the resulting harm.

4. Criminal Acts  An act involves a bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary.  Criminal law punishes voluntary acts.  Criminal law does not penalize thoughts.

5. Voluntary Criminal Acts  A conscious choice by an individual to commit or not to commit an act.  It would be fundamentally unfair to punish individuals who do not consciously choose to engage in criminal activity, & who, therefore, cannot be considered morally blameworthy.  People v. Decina (1956)

6. Voluntary Criminal Acts (cont.)  Some defendants have been acquitted by persuading judges or juries that their crime was an involuntary act.

9. 4.1. You Decide: Reed  Discuss the various issues surrounding the voluntariness of Reed’s actions in this case.  Should the court take into consideration the expert witness testimony? Why or why not?  Should Reed be held at least somewhat liable for her actions since she “knew” about her medical condition? Why or why not?  Should the jury be responsible for making decisions regarding Reed’s medical/mental condition? If so, why? If not, who should anyone else?

10. Status Offenses  A crime requires an act & individuals may not be punished based on a mere status or condition.  Robinson v. California (1962)  Powell v. Texas (1970)  People v. Kellogg (2004)

11. 4.2. You Decide: Moore  Discuss the issues related to possession as an act as well as status/condition as an act in Moore’s case.  How would you decide? Why?

12. Omissions  A failure to act or a “negative act.”  The American Bystander Rule  The basic rule in the US is that an individual is not legally required to assist a person who is in peril.  People v. Beardsley (1907)  The Good Samaritan Statute  This rule obligates individuals to intervene (common in Europe—European Bystander Rule).  Kitty Genovese (1964)

13. The Duty to Intervene  There is a duty to assist another under certain limited circumstances.  The primary requirement is that a duty must be recognized under either the common law or a statute.

14. Duties Created Under Certain Conditions  Status  Statutes  Contracts  Assumption of a duty  Creation of peril

15. Duties (cont.)  Control  Property owner  Possession of knowledge of the peril  Acted with the required intent  Caused the harm to the victim

16. Duties (cont.)  The law excuses persons from fulfilling their duty in those instances in which they would be placed in peril.

19. 4.3. You Decide: Cash  Should Cash be held criminally liable for failing to come to the victim’s assistance while she was assaulted, molested, & subsequently strangled by his friend? Why or why not?  Discuss this case & the issues presented relying on the legal elements & circumstances surrounding omissions (failures to act) as criminal acts.

20. Possession  A preparatory offense—punishing possession should deter & prevent the next step  There is a requirement that the accused knowingly obtained or received the contraband or failed to immediately dispose of the property.  Typically defined as: “The ability to exercise dominion & control over an object.”

21. Central Concepts of Possession  Actual possession  Constructive possession  Joint possession  Knowing possession  Mere possession  Hawkins v. State (2002)

22. Possession (cont.)  The fleeting possession rule is a limited exception to criminal possession.  Permits an innocent individual to momentarily possess & dispose of an illegal object.  The most difficult issue for courts is joint possession.  People v. Mijares (1971)  US v. Byfield (1991)

25. 4.4. You Decide: Gonzalez & Cruz  Discuss this case regarding whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for knowing possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute against Gonzalez & Cruz. Why or why not?  Remember to address the various issues related to knowing (versus other kinds) of possession.

26. Key Issues  Elements of a crime  Actus reus, mens rea, & concurrence  Types of criminal acts  Voluntary nature  Status offenses  Omissions  The American Bystander Rule  The Good Samaritan Rule  The duty to intervene  Possession