Actus reus and mens rea outline

Imposition of criminal punishment: general deterrence; specific deterrence; incapacitation;

rehabilitation; retribution and the expression of community values.
Note: these rationales are used as useful guides for the judge rather than requirements.
Retribution 报 应 is a legitimate reason to punish. The heart of retribution is that a criminal
sentence must be directly related to the personal culpability of the criminal offender.
If retribution applied, a serious punishment may be warranted for defendant’s offense.
Deterrence: 威 慑 specific deterrence: court concerns about ensuring that other people in
defendant’s situation do no engage in criminal conduct like defendant in the future.
Incapacitation: 失能
Rehabilitation: 复原

Actus reus: a voluntary criminal act

Active or an omission
Strictly liability only applies to men reas. The actus reus elements is different from the mens rea
element. An accused has not committed a voluntary criminal act if he has act involuntarily whatever
the requisite criminal intent element required.
Voluntary:
As long as the person is engaged in conscious and volitional movement, the act is considered
voluntary; an act is voluntary if it is a product of a person’s free will, manifested by a corresponding
external body movement.
This means that the person’s brain was engaged at the time of the act.
So when defendant had realized that he possesses this sleep disorder, he could act to prevent his
sleepwalking symptoms but choose not to do so. His action resulted in injury may not be
involuntary.
Note: actions and behavior which are the result of a person’s voluntary intoxication or drugged
condition are not subject to an involuntary act defense. Earlier act of becoming intoxicated or
drugged was a voluntary act.
It doesn’t mean the defendant really wanted to do the act or got great satisfaction out of it.
The law only can punish those who act consciously and voluntarily. But if defendant knowingly that
his action would cause harm but continue to do it, the defendant is held responsible. The
chargeable criminal act would be knowing of the substantial risk. So under such circumstances,
defendant’s knowledge, couple with her behavior, would may make for clear culpability and criminal
liability.
Involuntary act
MPC: (1) reflex or convulsion; (2) bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep; (3) bodily
movement under hypnotic suggestion; and (4) bodily movement not otherwise the product of the
effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual. In other words, when a person is
acting like an automaton because her brain is not engaged with the body, the person may have a
claim that her act was not voluntary.
Unconsciously at the time the burning took place: must establish that the act in question was
involuntary as it was not a product of his or her free will. Voluntary intoxication does not reflect
involuntary act.
Omissions
A classic legal duty is where a contractual obligation exists.
Legal duty: bill was employed as a lifeguard and had the contractual duty to look out for and come
to the aid of drowning swimmers.
Generally, the criminal law imposes no duty to act to help others. This general rule remains true
even in situation in which a failure to act seems morally reprehensible. The law is in refusing to
impose an obligation to act.
Exception: a duty exists in limited situation, such as those involving close familial relationship.

Note: law punishes culpable intent together with actions, but the criminal law does not punish mere
thought.
Status crimes (illness, alcoholic, same sex etc.)
US Supreme Court held that the illness of drug addiction could not by itself be considered a criminal
offense. It means the mere status of being a drug addict could not be criminalized. But six years
later the court upheld Powell case that being in public while drunk on a particular occasion- not for
this status as an alcoholic.
Note: if the defendant is engaging in the specific conduct even if he was some obsession claimed as
a status, the criminal law can prohibit such behavior (eg. prostitution solicitation)

Possession crimes
Two ways to argue: 1. Under the MPC, one can argue that the defendant did not have a voluntary
act for the crime because she was unaware of the counterfeit. Or 2. Even if the defendant possessed
the counterfeit, she did not have a culpable mental state for the crime.
To establish possession, the prosecution must prove that the accused was aware of his or her
possession of a contraband item to a degree sufficient to be able to exercise control over it, and
that he or she acted knowingly and voluntarily in possessing it.
Constructive possession: knowledge( intent to control) and dominion to control over it. Constructive
possession when it is found in a place where the accused is shown to have been aware of its
existence and to have exercised control over it.
Mens Rea: culpable mental state
There is no crime without a vicious will.
Maliciously: was interpreted to require at least reckless conduct. Absent a statute that clearly
indicates otherwise, criminal violations requires a defendant act with at least a reckless state of
mind.

Common law and MPC terminology

a. maliciously
maliciously simply means that the defendant realizes the risks her conduct creates and engages
in the conduct anyway. The MPC term for this level of intent is recklessness.
Did defendant maliciously fire the ship? He didn’t have ill will toward the ship, he didn't really want
to fire the ship; nonetheless, his action damaged the whole ship. But although he had no evil design
to burn the ship, he would have been acting maliciously if he knew he was taking a risk of causing a
fire and he disregarded it.

b. intentionally
c. negligently
different from torts case, some court held that ordinary negligence, rather than gross
negligence, was sufficient.
d. willfully
it means doing an act with the purpose of violating the law.

MPC terms
a. purposely: A person acts purposely if it is the defendant’s goal or aim to engage in particular
conduct or achieve a certain result. MPC §2.02(2)(a). Acting with some conscious object to engage
conduct that is prohibited.
b. knowingly: next highest level of intent. A person acts knowingly if she is virtually or practically
certain that her conduct will lead to a particular result.
As a general principle, if the defendant intended to perform act X, and act X is proscribed by a valid
statute, it's not a defense that the defendant didn’t know that performing act X against law.
c. recklessly:
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will
result from his conduct. Its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a
law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.
Conscious: did defendant actually realize(know) and disregard the risk that the furnace put victim
in danger of death or serious injuries?

Next level of intent. A person acts recklessly if she realizes that there is a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that her conduct will cause harm but consciously disregards the risk. Eg. a
defendant is late to work and there takes a shortcut by driving her car through a local playground.
She hits one of the many children playing on the playground; it may not have been the defendant’s
purpose but defendant also may have been virtually certain that she would do so.
The charge of reckless endangerment involves subjective awareness of a substantial risk. If the
government could show the defendant knowingly planted a bomb – even an inoperative bomb – on
the train, that element would be satisfied because placing a bomb in such circumstances was a
reckless action that could lead to harm or injury.
e. negligently: a person acts negligently is she is unaware of and takes a risk that an ordinary
person would not take.
To prove negligently, it would have to prove that she should have been aware that there was a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that he was placing victim in danger of death or injury.

General intent: only require that the defendant intend to commit the act that casues the harm
Specific intent: refers to crimes that require a higher level of intent. The prosecution must prove
that the defendant acted either with the specific purpose to cause the harm or while knowing the
harm would result.
If it is a general intent crime, if defendant intended to do the act of possessing a firearm, knowing
that he was a felon, that is sufficient intent for the offense. If the court had ruled it was a specific
intent offense, the prosecution would have to prove that not only did defendant know he had the
weapon and was a felon, but also that he knew it was illegal for a felon to have such a weapon.
Determine whether a crime is a strict liability offense
Strict liability crimes require no showing of a particular mental state (drunken driving).
In the absence of another statute creating a reasonable mistake of fact defense, defendant cannot
defend.
It should never be presumed that a crime is a strict liability offense. Strict liability offense are the
exception, not the rule.
Supreme court held that even though the statute did not use any mens rea language, mens rea is a
requirement of all crimes unless there is clear legislative intent not to require mens rea
To determine whether a crime is a strict liability offense, 1. Loo at the language of the statue. If the
statute expressly state that no mens rea is required, it is a strict liability. 2 look at the legislative
history of the offense. Eg. some legislative history states that a defendant who distribute children
pornography is guilty regardless of whether he knows the age of the child in the porno. 3. Loom at
the purpose of the law and amount of penalty imposed, strict liability generally carry very low
penalties, such as fines or minimal jail time.
Public welfare offense are strict liability. It is perfectly lawful and quite common for legislatures to
enact regulatory criminal statutes that do no contain mens rea elements.

Intoxication and drugged condition

Intoxication or drugged condition is not a good defense to the crime of rape.
In a majority of jurisdictions, the fact that an accused was intoxicated or drugged at the time he or
she committed a criminal act is considered to be a valid defense, but only if the crime has a specific
intent mens rea element and intoxication condition is so extreme.
The first degree murder is a specific intent crime because the actor’s intention goes beyond the
assaultive conduct being committed and includes the further intention that that conduct result in
the death of the victim.

General v. specific intent:

Differ by jurisdiction. A crime is deemed to be general intent when he mens rea requires only the
intent to do the act that causes the harm.
Mistake of fact
Mistake of fact is a claim that the defendant did not have the necessary mens rea for the crime
because the defendant made a mistake or was ignorant of a fact she had to know to be guilty of the
charged offense.
The focus is on whether despite her ignorance or mistake, the defendant knew enough to be guilty
of the crime. If she does, mistake or ignorance of fact is not a defense; if she does not, mistake or
ignorance is a defense.
If the crime is labeled a specific intent offense, it is much more likely that the defendant will be
entitled to a mistake of fact defense than if the crime has been labeled a general intent offense.
In some jurisdiction, a mistake of fact defense must establish not only that he or she honestly
believed in the mistaken circumstance that negative the mens rea required for the offense charged,
but also such a mistaken belief was reasonable.
If defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter, defendant is guilty because as
reasonable person he should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the
victim would die as a result of his or her conduct.

B. No mens rea, no crime

M.P.C:
Ignorance or mistake … is a defense when it negatives the existence of a state of mind that is
essential to the commission of an offense …
If the defendant has the required mens rea regardless of the mistake, it is no defense.

Some mistakes matter, some do not

If the defendant already knows enough to be guilty of the crime, the defendant’s mistake is
considered immaterial.
A mistake of fact only matters if it shows that the defendant did not know something she needed to
know to be guilty of the crime.

Material element
Material elements are elements that relate to the harm or evil the offense is designed to prevent.
Jurisdictional elements: simply dictate which court has jurisdiction to decide the case. If a defendant
makes a mistake as to a jurisdiction element, there is no mistake of fact defense.
Eg. defendant attack the federal officer and he argued that he thought he attacked officer; but don’t
know he’s federal officer. So issue here is whether the requirement that officer be federal is a
material element or jurisdictional element? If jurisdictional element, any mistake the defendants
made as to this fact was immaterial and not a defense.
Eg. “ the authorities charge him in federal court because he sold within 1000 feet of a school” …
this is a jurisdictional elements.
Statute interpretation
To determine how to interpret statute, always need to look beyond the statutory language.
So look at legislative history and common sense and public policy.
Eg. statute” willfully passing information the defendant knows to be classified” so if no mens rea,
it's a defense.
Look at legislator’s intention.

Mistake of fact does not provide an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense supposes that the
accused is guilty of the crime, but for policy considerations – such as the conclusion that people
should be able to provide a reasonable level of self-defense – the defendant can be exonerated.

Mistake of law
General rule: mistake of fat is a defense, mistake of law is not a defense
Exceptions: 1. When mistake of law operates just like mistake of fact. 2. When a defendant has
been misled by a judicial authority or official misstatement of the law. 3. There has been
insufficient notice of the defendant’s legal duty.

1. MPC 2.04(1): mistake as to matter of fact or law is a defense if the mistake negatives the
purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to establish a material element
of the offense.
It means if the law requires that the defendant know that he is acting contrary to the law, and
he doesn’t know that fact, he does not have the mens rea for the crime.
Defendant has a defense to a crime that requires him to knowingly violate the law, if he does not
understand the legal aspects of his actions

2. mislead by official authority

exception for his exception: 1. When it comes to relying on a judicial decision, make sure that
the decision was issued by the controlling jurisdiction. A defendant cannot claim mistake of law
when he incorrectly relied upon a decision from another jurisdiction or a higher court in his
jurisdiction has overruled the decision upon which he relies.
2. if the defendant claims he is relying upon an official interpretation of the law, he can only
make this defense if he is receiving that interpretation from the highest official charged with
interpreting the law.

Whether this is a good defense or not depends on the mens rea elements of the possession of
narcotics when defendant convince a jury that he honestly and reasonably believed that the
drug he planted were actually tea. If it is strict liability, no defense for mistake of fact.

Note: mistake of law is a defense when it negatives expressly that prescribed element owner
know that this conduct is unlawful.