Actus Reus
The difference between a voluntary and an involuntary act.
Bonus: Is a habitual act voluntary or involuntary?
Voluntary acts are of the conscious mind and deterrable. Involuntary acts are not conscious and cannot be deterred.
Bonus: Habitual acts are voluntary because they can be deterred.
Acting with a certain, conscious objective to achieve said goal.
Purposely (MPC 2.02(2)(a))
All crimes require an actus reus and mens rea. Strict liability requires only actus reus.
Cedric has a diagnosed muscle spasm condition. While at the shooting range with some friends, Cedric is lining up his shot while a friend is down range fixing targets. Cedric spasms and ends up shooting and killing his friend. Cedric is charged with murder.
People v. Decina
Defendant has a known medical condition that causes involuntary spasms
Defendant made voluntary act before involuntary spasms
Defendant charged with the killing of others
Jacque Closeau thinks about stealing the Pink Panther Diamond from the museum every day. Closeau talks about his desire to steal the diamond to everyone he meets. Closeau dreams about stealing the diamond, draws the diamond, and posts about it online.
To prevent such a crook, police arrest Closeau and charge him with theft of the diamond. Is Closeau liable?
Crimes require actus reus and mens rea.
We do not punish for thoughts alone.
Bonus: These are the acts the MPC defines as involuntary.
Voluntary Act: MPC 2.01(1) -- physically capable
Involuntary Act: MPC 2.01(2)(a)-(d)
Bonus:
(a) Reflex/convulsion
(b)Bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep
(c) During hypnosis or hypnotic suggestion
(d) Bodily movement not a product of the effort or determination of the actor
Failure to appreciate a risk that is a gross deviation from the standard care of a reasonable person.
Negligently (MPC 2.02(2)(d))
Case law to cite for strict liability rules.
United States v. Balint
Morissette v. United States
Staples v. United States
United States v. X-Citement Video
Selene is a professional knife thrower. After practicing for months, she pulls out her new, perfected trick where she throws knives behind her back with her eyes closed. Her most recent volunteer is much larger than the dummy she practiced with, resulting in her knife substantially wounding the volunteer.
People v. Hall
Defendant is an expert/held to have more knowledge in their field/activity
Defendant did not perceive a risk in order to consciously disregard (for recklessness)
Defendant physically harmed victim
Raphael is sick and tired of his two neighbors and feels like they have to die, but he doesn't want to deal with trauma of killing them.
Raphael hires the Great Drowzee to hypnotize him, asking the Great Drowzee to suggest Raphael murder his neighbors. During a state of hypnosis, Raphael stabs and murders his neighbors.
Is Raphael liable for murder? Why or why not?
Raphael is liable for murder. While Raphael acted while under hypnosis, his last voluntary act -- hiring the hypnotist specifically for the purpose of a hypnosis induced murder -- is considered for the actus reus (Decina).
This rule comes from People v. Decina.
Liability can be inferred from the defendant's last voluntary act.
Acting with practical certainty of the result.
Bonus: MPC provision of acting with awareness of high probability. Parallel case law result.
Knowingly (MPC 2.02(2)(b))
Bonus: MPC 2.02(7) -- knowledge of high probability satisfies practical certainty for "knowingly"
United States v. Jewell
The MPC provision for strict liability.
The MPC does not consider strict liability.
MPC 2.02(1) requires a mens rea to each material element of a statute.
Jill is helping Manny move states. Manny loads a long box into Jill's car, telling her "Don't open this one, no matter what." When Jill asks what is in the box Manny replies, "It's better that you don't know."
Jill is later arrested for knowingly trafficking illegal firearms across state lines.
United States v. Jewell
Defendant is charged with knowingly violating statute without affirmative knowledge
Third-party acts with affirmative knowledge and uses the defendant as transport/"mule"
A rental boat company rents a canoe to two partygoers late at night. The partiers are drunk, but the renter is unaware of the level of intoxication. The partiers sink the canoe and end up drowning.
The renter is charged with homicide. Is the renter liable for the deaths? Why or why not?
The renter is not liable. In general, people do not have a duty of care to one another absent a legal duty.
No statute required the duty.
There is no special relationship.
The renter did not voluntarily assume care and seclude the partiers from care.
The renter did not create the harm.
Factors that create a person's legal duty of care.
(1) Statute imposes duty of care
(2) Special relationship
(3) Voluntarily assumed care and secluded the victim from the care of others
(4) Defendant created the harm
Pope v. State; State v. Shell
The conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Recklessly (MPC 2.02(2)(c))
Factors when considering if a statute imposes strict liability.
1) heavily regulated industry
2) disproportionate punishment
3) punishes otherwise innocent conduct
4) risk of harm to society*
Jeff and Lori are Paul's adult children. Paul is elderly and suffered an injury that is causing him to need intensive medical care. Paul is unconscious and needing intubation to sustain breathing. Despite Paul's medical directives saying otherwise, Lori and Jeff (pressured by his sister) choose to have Paul intubated.
When Lori is gone, Jeff decides to honor his father's wishes and pull the oxygen going to Paul, ending his life.
Barber v. State (distinguish)
Defendant voluntarily ended life support of a person, ending their life
Distinguishment: duty of care to hold liability for omission
Statute -- Reckless Endangerment: Recklessly endangering the life and safety of others.
Pearl grabs an axe and starts swinging wildly at her would-be boyfriend, Howard. Pearl argues she should not be charged with reckless endangerment because she was not reckless, she wanted to kill Howard.
How should the court rule?
Pearl is guilty for reckless endangerment.
MPC 2.02(5): A statute requiring a lower mens rea is satisfied by a higher mens rea
Purposely > Knowingly > Recklessly > Negligently
The case law and MPC provision you should cite if the issue of impossibility is raised.
People v. Likine
MPC 2.01(1)
Subjective...it is up to the jury to determine whether or not they believe the defendant's subjective state of mind. The jury must consider if the risk was so obvious that it had to be disregarded.
A statute reads: It is prohibited to purposely use generative AI to defraud a city's government, knowingly use generative AI to defraud a state's government, or use generative AI to defraud the federal government.
Under the MPC, what mens rea apply in this statute?
Purposely: MPC 2.02(2)(a)
Knowingly: MPC 2.02(2)(b)
MPC does not have strict liability. If mens rea is not specified, any mens rea stated earlier applies to all elements unless a contrary purpose plainly appears (MPC 2.02(4)). Because a contrary purpose appears, MPC 2.02(3) requires to read in at least "recklessly."
Geralt is charged with illegal possession of firearms, specifically five grenade launchers. Geralt argues that it is his 2nd Amendment right to own the firearms and to punish him would be punishing innocent conduct.
Staples v. United States (distinguish)
Defendant possessed illegal firearms
2nd Amendment issue raised
Distinguish: grenade launchers pose greater risk and therefore require higher scrutiny; Staples cites possessing a grenade itself is different than innocently owning a rifle
Statute -- Theft: Knowing taking the property of another with the intent to deprive a person of the property's benefit
Statute -- Burglary: Unlawful entry into a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein
Boris sleep walks into his neighbors house. Boris broke a window to enter. Upon waking up inside, Boris notices a nice Prada purse. Thinking that his neighbor has enough nice things, Boris takes the purse back to his home.
What crimes are Boris liable for?
Liable for theft. Boris knew the Prada bag belonged to his neighbor and took the purse to deprive his neighbor of its benefit.
Not liable for burglary. Boris did not enter unlawfully because his sleep walking was involuntary. Additionally, Boris had no intent to commit a crime at the time of entry because Boris was not conscious.