CrimLaw Class Notes August 27, 2013 State v.

. Utter by not giving jury instructions was it a violation of constitutional rights? Argued that if cannot tell what happened in the room prosecution hasn't proven no way the jury could reasonably appellate court: should have gotten the instruction that the fathers reaction was an automated reaction and therefore not a voluntary act and therefore no guilt if the evidence doesnt EXCLUDE the possibility that it was an automatic response then prosecution has failed to meet its burden therefore the court is ASSUMING that it was NOT an automated response because your son came out of there stab we're going to PRESUME you did it voluntarily unless you can show otherwise YET IT IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF/OF PRODUCTION jury should have been told to consider whether the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that my act was voluntary if can't then they havent proved burden of proof of actus reus court was presuming voluntary and put burden of proof on the defendant VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS charged with murder in the 2nd degree convicted of manslaughter murder: malice: intent father intended to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm = murder convicted of manslaughter because they felt sorry father says he was entitled to an instruction that he didn't get, why consider reversing his conviction? Infringes on due process entitled to be judged by the law. If the judge gives wrong instruction, or a flawed instruction, and convicted its an arbitrary conviction because you were convicted on the wrong law don't know what the jury would have done because they didn't receive the right instructions / can't be confident of the outcome...have to be convicted for the RIGHT REASON re-trail would have been appropriate outcome of this case with the proper jury instructions why does the court say that the trial court got it wrong? They raised it as a plea of insanity (an excuse theory) insanity has to do with mens rea appellate court says it has nothing to do with mens rea but actus rea an act without volition is not an act. Whats the difference between volition and mens rea volition is a mental component (actus reus) of the crime but not the mens rea (malice) of the crime volition strictly related to physical movement doesnt have anything to do with why you're engaging in the physical movement mens rea: the why volition is the mental element (mental will) to produce physical movement mens rea is the mental state that motivates that physical action if you can prove the act has mens rea then can prove the act was in volition

HYPO: reckless driving what is the harm to society? Possibly injuring someone conduct crime. Mens rea: recklessness know you're creating a risk and do it anyway don't know you're prone to a seizure and run into someone not reckless if I know reckless choose to drive, create a risk, volition act + volition = legal act. All crime requires at least actus reus. actus reus: the physical component of the crime actus: physical act + volition = legal act omission + duty + capacity = legal omission possession + awareness = legal possession reus: social harm/ criminal result causation connects actus with reus the prosecutions obligation to prove that the D's physical conduct that qualifies as a lawful act caused the criminal harm Martin v. State prohibited act of this crime: appearance (physical action) public (not a physical action) attendant circumstances (ie: element of a crime to be proven by Prosecutor beyond a reasonable doubt that is not an act or mental state) intoxicated (not a physical action) attendant circumstances one or more people (not a physical action) attendant circumstances manifests drunken condition (physical action) why was his conviction reversed? Requirement that the state show that act was voluntary (implied) because appearance was not voluntarily it as if the person never appeared legal fiction. Physical action alone is not enough to establish a legal act a legal act is physical action + volition act causes result act can be satisfied by: physical act + volition (burden of proof on prosecution) an act without volition is not an act what is the act, mental state, attendant circumstances what is the mental state mens rea of this crime: there is none. This is a strict liability offense doesn't matter why you are out there. Doesnt require any mental trigger. Mens rea: mental state that sets in motion a criminal act HYPO: sexsomnia D sleeping & engages in intercourse with underage girl : problem was

there was physical action but no volition without violation don't have legal act not guilt. Normally physical action establishes there was volition RED FLAGS (pp 947) 1) a reflex or convulsions 2) bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep 3) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion ^ NO VOLITION ^ difference between mens rea and volition mens rea is part of volition People v. Beardsley if harm is the consequence of not acting, don't have a crime. Moral obligation is not enough to transform an commission into the actus reus of the crime omission alone is not enough to have a crime. To have a crime omission + legal duty omission + capacity to act = legal omission which will satisfy the actus reus component of the crime types of legal duty that will satisfy the legal component of the act: familial/marital (problem here because BB wasn't his wife) statutory duty contractual (ex. nurse/caregiver) if you create the danger assumption of response / voluntarily assume the care of another so as to prevent others from rendering aid to prove criminal: must have a legal duty. We dont impose a legal duty to act, law normally prohibits you from acting EVERY CRIME REQUIRES AN ACT