Actus Reus: The Requirement of Voluntariness

Case: Martin v. State [17 So. 2d 427; 1944] (Ct. Appeals, Alabama) p. 132

Summary: Martin was arrested and taken onto a public highway, then was charged with being
drunk in public. He was convicted, and appealed. The court said that under the statute, a
voluntary condition is presupposed. The court said it was erroneous, b/c he could not be guilty
if he was involuntarily taken to a public location (highway). Reversed.

RULE: A person cannot be guilty of a crime in the absence of voluntary conduct.

Notes:
o Purpose of the volition requirement
• Utilitarian - Criminal law cannot hope to deter involuntary behavior.
• Retributive - Not fair to make someone liable for actions beyond their control

Class Notes
• Police take him out of his house into the public, then slap a public intoxication charge on
him.
• Statute is fulfilled - in public, drunk, acting boisterous.
o But the voluntariness condition is presupposed in the statute
 "that he appear in public" - not enough that he is pushed out of his house,
but that he appear voluntarily.
 "Appear" is interpreted to be an active, voluntary act
o If statute said "while intoxicated in a public place, and manifests a drunken
condition."
 Then he voluntarily fulfilled all reqs of statute
• Rule of Lenity (applies only to criminal statutes)
o If court is faced when an ambiguous statute, they should construe it narrowly, and
in favor of defendant
• "time-framing"
o If Df did something that could reasonably cause him to be in public, then his
actions were voluntary. Df did voluntarily create the situation where he would be
in public.