ACTUS REUS and MENS REA

Basic Common Elements of all Crimes

• 1. A voluntary act (“actus reus”)
• 2. A culpable intent (“mens rea”)
• 3.”concurence between the mens rea and
actus reus
• 4. Causation of harm
 ACTUS REUS
• The requirement that the defendant have
committed a voluntary act “actus reus”
• Distinguished from: (1) thoughts, words,
states of possession and status; (2)
involuntary acts (e.g. sleep-walking); and
omissions (e.g., failure to act)
 Distinguished from thoughts,
words, possession and status
• Mere thoughts are never punishable as crimes
must commit an overt act
• Even saying “ I intend to kill X” will not
constitute the actus reus. Statement of
intent to a 3rd party.
• However, words as acts may be a crime (e.g.
conspiracy or aiding and abetting criminal
activity).
 Possession as Criminal act

• Mere possession may sometimes be a criminal

act e.g. possession of narcotics.
• However, must have conscious knowledge of
possession. That you have it ,but not necessary
to prove you knew it was illegal to have.
• You must also have had time to terminate your
possession.
• Presumptions- weapon in a car all deemed to
have possession.
 Act Must be Voluntary
• Cannot satisfy actus reus unless it is voluntary
• Four particular acts are held to be involuntary.
• Reflex or convulsion
• Unconsciousness or sleep
• Hypnosis
• Self-induced state- epileptic seizure
• However, risk knowingly imposed on others
drive drunk fall asleep you are in trouble.
 Omissions
• Usually no criminal liability from failing to act.
• Exceptions:
• Distinguished from affirmative acts push him in
lake you better save him
• Legal Duty due to:
• Special relationship, Interdependence, Duty
based on contract, Danger caused by the
defendant, Undertaking.
• Statutory requirements- must report a crime,
file Income tax return
 MENS REA
• “A culpable state of mind”
• A mental state with either

intent or knowledge
However sometimes “mens rea” is
merely negligence or recklessness
 General vs. Specific Intent

• 3 types of intent with crimes

• General – the defendant desired to commit
the act which served as the actus reus.
• Specific-the defendant in addition to desiring
to bring about the actus reus must have
desired to do something further.
• Assault vs. Burglary example
• Negligence
 Different States of Mind
• Purposely- his conscious object
• Knowingly-he is aware
• Recklessly-he consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk
• Negligently-he should be aware of a
substantial and unjustifiable risk
 Strict Liability Crimes
• No culpable mental state at all must be shown
it is enough that the defendant performed the
act in question, regardless of his mental state.

• Examples: Statutory Rape, Mislabeling of

drugs, Pollution, Anti-Hijacking statute
 Vicarious Liability
• A distinct kind of absolute liability may be
imposed upon one person for the act of
another. The requirement of “actus reus” has
been dispensed with not the requirement of
wrongful intent.
• Defendant must have had control over the
defendant

Employer Liability, Automobile owner, Tavern

cases
 Mistakes of Fact or Law
• Mistakes of fact often prevent the requisite
mental state from existing. Rape examples
• Moral wrongs do not get the defense
• Mistake must be reasonable MPC adds
unreasonable mistakes
• Mistakes of law are never a defense. Divorce
example.
• MPC retains lesser crime theory. Stealing
jewelry example.
 CONCURRENCE
• There must be concurrence between the
mens rea and the actus reus.
 TEMPORAL CONCURRENCE
• What happens when the D at some point has
the mens rea for a particular crime and later
commits an act meeting the physical
requirements for that crime, but the mental
state did not exist at the time the act
occurred.
• D stabs his victim intending to kill him, but just
wounds him and, thinking the victim to be
dead, throws the body into a river, so that
drowning is the actual cause of death?
 TEMPORAL CONCURRENCE
• You take someone’s umbrella by mistake from
a restaurant 5 minutes later you realize it is
not yours and decide to keep it. Have you
committed larceny the taking of another’s
property with intent to deprive him of it?

• The fact that he later acquired the requisite

mental state is irrelevant.
• Mental state must cause the act one
exception voluntary intoxication.
 TEMPORAL CONCURRENCE
• Concurrence must be with the act not the
results.
• Change of mind will not nullify the crime. Car
bomb example.
• Concurrence may be with any act that is legal
cause of harm. Epileptic seizure case.
• What about if the defendant is mistaken as to
the victim’s death? Thinks he killed but it is
really when he destroys or conceals the body.
 CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND
AND RESULT
• What happens when the the D has the mens
rea necessary for one crime and his act meets
the requirements for a different crime?

• D intends to commit a simple battery on his

victim, but the victim turns out to be a
hemophiliac and unforeseeably bleeds to
death?
 CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND
AND RESULT
• There must be concurrence between the
mens rea and the harmful result, at least in
the case of those crimes defined in terms of
bad results. (e.g. homicide, rape, etc…)

• Thus if the harm which actually occurs is of a

completely different type from what the D
intended, so that the result associated with a
different more heinous crime, the D will not
be guilty of the graver crime.
 CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND
AND RESULT
• Exceptions to this rule are:

• Felony Murder-if engaged in certain

dangerous felonies.

• Misdemeanor-manslaughter-Fight that
occurred at the softball game and the first
case of the hemophiliac
 CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND
AND RESULT
• If the actual harm is greater, and related to,
the intended result, the general principle is
that there is no liability for the greater harm
• Exceptions
• Apparent exceptions for resulting death.
Hemophiliac
• Intent-to-grievously-injure murder. D shoots V
in eye to injure but kills him he will be guilty of
murder.
 CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND
AND RESULT
• If the harm which actually occurs is less
serious then that intended, and is of the same
general type as that intended, but associated
with a different and less serious crime, the D is
liable for the less serious crime.
• D shoots at V intending to kill him. Instead the
bullet just grazes V. D can be convicted of
battery and also attempted murder.
 CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND
AND RESULT
Different victim-Suppose the D intends to injure
one victim and ends up injuring a different
one ( D shoots at X, and hits V)

Courts will hold there is sufficient relationship

between the mens rea and the harmful result.
 CONCURRENCE BETWEEN MIND
AND RESULT
Manner of harm- If the harm that occurs is of
the same type as that intended by the D, but it
occurs in a radically different manner from
that anticipated or intended there is no
concurrence problem.