Crim: Elements (Actus Reus Through Causation)

Front 1

Actus Reus

Back 1

The "actus reus" of an offense is the physical, or external component of a crime-- what society does not want to occur. To be convicted of a crime, the defendant must have committed a criminal act; the law does not punish mere criminal thoughts. Generally, liability is based upon an affirmative physical act by the defendant; however, under some circumstances, liability can rest upon a total failure to act at all—i.e., an omission.

Front 2

Acts vs. Omissions

Back 2

Generally, liability is based upon an affirmative physical act by the defendant. However, under some circumstances, liability can rest upon a total failure to act at all—i.e., an omission.

Front 3

The Elements of Criminal Liability

Back 3

Mens Rea + Actus Reus + Attendant Circumstances + [Causation + Result]

Front 4

Affirmative Acts

Back 4

Where criminal liability is based on the defendant’s affirmative act (as is the usual case), there must be a showing that the defendant made some conscious or volitional movement.

Front 5

Omission

Back 5

Under certain circumstances, liability may be based upon a defendant’s failure to act. The defendant’s omission will support a finding of criminal liability only where it is shown that the defendant was under a legal duty to act. There are 4 situations that impose a legally cognizable duty:
(1) a duty is imposed by statute; (2) the defendant stands in a status relationship to another (e.g. parent-child); there is a contractual duty; or (4) the defendant has voluntarily assumed care and secluded the injured party from others in order to prevent the distribution of aid.

Front 6

Attendant Circumstances

Back 6

In addition to the elements ordinarily common to all crimes (actus reas, mens rea, etc.), many crimes require proof of certain circumstances that must have existed at the time of the act in question. Absent a showing of these extrinsic facts, the conduct of the accused will not constitute a crime.

Front 7

Attendant Circumstances-- Interaction with Mens Rea

Back 7

Attendant circumstances elements often raise questions as to whether the defendant must have been aware of the existence of the circumstances. These issues involve application of the mens rea requirement.

Front 8

Strict Liability

Back 8

Criminal liability without a mens rea requirement (or with a limited mens rea requirement) is called “strict liability.” It is an exceptional type of criminal liability and constitutional considerations limit the extent to which it can be imposed.

Front 9

Identifying Strict Liability Crimes

Back 9

Whether a crime imposes strict liability turns initially at least upon the legislature’s intent. However, as is quite often the case, criminal statutes do not clearly indicate on their face what the legislative intent was, so that courts must look to other factors.

Front 10

Factors Suggesting Strict Liability

Back 10

Legislative intent to impose strict liability is suggested by the following characterizations:
1.The crime is a new statutory offense rather than one of the common law offenses;
2. It does not involve a direct infringement on the rights of other persons;
3. It is part of a broad, regulatory scheme
4. It imposes a relatively light penalty upon conviction
5. Requiring proof of mens rea would impede implementation of the legislative purpose.

Front 11

Factors Suggesting No Strict Liability

Back 11

Courts are less likely to conclude that the legislature intended to eliminate mens rea as an element if the crime is or closely resembles a traditional common law offense that requires mens rea; if the act constituting the crime involves a direct and serious infringement upon the rights of others; and if a severe penalty is imposed upon conviction. Morisette v. United States.

Front 12

Strict Liability-- Constitutional Considerations

Back 12

If strict liability would clearly or likely be unconstitutional, the legislature probably did not intend it. Therefore, a showing that a serious constitutional issue would be presented by strict liability will encourage courts to construe legislative intent as requiring mens rea. Due process is less likely to bar strict liability if the crime is a “new” statutory offense and imposes only a minor penalty upon conviction.

Front 13

Strict Liability-- Regulatory Offenses

Back 13

Applying the above considerations, courts often construe crimes that are part of regulatory schemes designed to further the general welfare as imposing strict liability. These “regulatory” or “public welfare” offenses are particularly likely to impose strict liability if they regulate items that are potentially harmful or injurious.

Front 14

Modern Classifications of Mens Rea

Back 14

Under modern law, there is a trend away from the traditional classifications of mens rea. In its place, contemporary criminal codes tend to adopt the Model Penal Code approach, which provides a more structured and carefully defined analysis. These codes distinguish four different levels or qualities of state of mind, and—unless specifically provided otherwise—require at least recklessness concerning all elements of the offense.

Front 15

Purpose

Back 15

A person acts purposely if it is her conscious desire to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result. She acts purposely with regard to attendant circumstances if she hopes, knows, or believes that they exist.

Front 16

Knowledge

Back 16

A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of her conduct is she is aware that her conduct is of that nature or that certain circumstances exist. She acts knowingly in regard to a result of her conduct if she is aware that it is “practically certain” that her conduct will cause the result.

Front 17

Recklessness

Back 17

A person acts recklessly if she is aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain result will occur because of her conduct or that a certain circumstance exists.

Front 18

Concurrence between Mens Rea and the Act

Back 18

The act constituting the crime must be the result of the intent that constitutes the mens rea. Generally, this means that the defendant must have had the requisite intent at the moment he performed the act.

Front 19

Causation

Back 19

If a crime requires proof of a result, the prosecution must prove that the defendant’s conduct was the legal cause of that result. Problems of causation most often arise in connection with homicide crimes, where the prosecution must show a causal relationship between the defendant’s act and the victim’s death. However, the issue can also be encountered in the context of other crimes. The necessary causation is of two types: "cause-in-fact" and “proximate” causation. Both must be proved before liability can be imposed.

Front 20

Cause-in-Fact

Back 20

The prosecution must first establish that the defendant’s acts were the factual cause of the result—i.e., that “but for” the defendant’s acts, the result would not have happened as and when it did. This does not require that the defendant’s acts alone caused the result; causation exists even if other actions and circumstances contributed to the bringing about of the result as long as the result would not have happened as and when it did “but for” the defendant’s acts.

Front 21

Proximate Cause

Back 21

As a general rule, the defendant will be regarded as the proximate cause if the result occurred as a “natural and probable consequence” of his act and no intervening factor sufficient to break the chain of causation affected the events