To prove criminal responsibility must prove concurrence of 4 elements

(1) A Voluntary Act [Actus Reus]

(2) Occurrence of Social Harm specified in offense (Prohibited Conduct or Result]
(3) Actual and proximate relationship between (1) and (2)
(4) Requisite Mens Rea of offense
Common Law - Actus Reus
(1) Voluntary Act [Utter (PTSD Dad)] (or, omission)
(a) Act - Willed bodily movement (i.e. muscular contraction) or omission of a possible & legally-required act
Act involves an exercise of the will; signifying something done voluntarily Utter
(b) Voluntary - A person consciously, of his own volition, willed the movement to occur Martin v. State
Possibly umbrella statute requiring acts be voluntary (similar to MPC), or Statute may presuppose such Martin
Unconscious person at time of act which would otherwise be criminal, is not responsible Utter
Lack of consciousness precludes possibility of act being voluntary
Such act is merely a physical event or occurrence for which there can be no criminal liability
Distinguish from insanity, if willful act is caused by infirmity, that act is still voluntary, but may not be culpable under defense
(2) That Causes - See Actual/Proximate Cause
(3) Social Harm - Result or conduct prohibited by Statute [Elements of Crime]
The negation, endangering, or destruction of an individual, group, or state interest which is deemed socially valuable
Tangible (Death, Property damage, etc.), or Intangible, (Harming sense of Social Safety, Morally Degrading
society, etc.)
Martin v. State
Stat. prohibits, “Person, while intoxicated or drunk, appears in any public place” Presupposes voluntary appearance. ∆ involuntarily taken into public cannot therefore be
convicted of the crime charged
State v. Utter
∆ (Father) had PTSD-like-syndrome and 'conditioned response' to certain abrupt stimuli from time in military; reacted to son's appearance, killed him
Court held, insufficient evidence to from which the jury could reasonably infer the existence of a triggering stimuli; But acknowledged voluntary acts requirement
Common Law [Omissions]
Generally, one has no criminal law duty to act to prevent harm, to another, even if she can do so at no risk to herself, and even if the
person imperiled may lose her life in the absence of action Beardsley (Dead Mistress)
A moral obligation to act does not create a legal duty, only where one ignores a legal duty does an omission create liability
Exceptions
When a legal relation to another as a protector exists, and actor is able to assist, without risk to self: Duty to Act
Legal Relation created by special relationship to person in peril; Often dependence/interdependence of imperiled on actor
Ex. Spousal; Parent to minor child; employer/employee; inviter/invitee Beardsley
Other Duty creating Legal Relationships
(1) Where statute imposes a duty
(2) Where one assumes contractual duty to another (Ex. Babysitter; caretaker of elderly/infirmed; etc.)
(3) Where one voluntarily assumes care of another & isolated the person from the help of others
(4) Where one creates a risk of harm to another (Ex. Negligent Driving, Assist after harm created by criminal act)
Defense of Omissions Rule
Administrability - Evidentiary problems in showing causation and Mens Rea (Everyone guilty of good they fail to do)
Administrability - Will create morel litigation and overburden the courts
Requiring one to act removes their bodily autonomy, a human right valued in law (See, battery, false imprisonment, etc.)
May create issue with Principles of Legality; Specify / fair notice requirement, because some may not know their duty to act has triggered
Issue in drawing the line where an omission creates liability (Ex. Person attacked on subway in front of 100 others)
Critique of Omissions Rule
Utilitarian - May be further disincentive to criminal, as it may promote social cohesion and increase likelihood of intervention
Culpability Retributionist - Many act with very culpable mindset in ignoring another's peril
People v. Beardsley
D and mistress, drinking; woman took morphine tablets, entered stupor and lost consciousness; D asked friend to take Mistress to basement so wife would not
see her; she then died
Court held that there was no legal duty owed, so D could not be convicted for omission
Common Law - Strict Liability
Strong presumption against strict liability in crimes Morissette
Lack of stated Mens Rea will not make offense strict liability, but presumption may be overcome if:
(1) If offense does not sweep in otherwise innocent conduct; Ex. Gun ownership Staples
Prohibited conduct/result does not conform with the normal patterns of behavior for a law-abiding citizens
If Conduct undertaken is a moral wrong such that the actor should be put on notice Garnett
(2) If the activity is inherently dangerous or highly regulated, more likely to be strict liability - Public Welfare offense, guns not
included
If engagement in conduct has barriers similar to gun ownership, or car purchasing, then not strict liability (common place, but
dangerous) Staples
 Public Welfare/Regulatory Offenses Staples - Legislature may create strict liability offense if:
(1) Offense regulate dangerous or harmful devices or obnoxious waste materials (Explosives ownership Staples)
Single violation may result in harm done to many people
(2) Conduct should make one aware that duties of those in control of particular industries, trades, properties, or activities
are heightened
(3) If offense has small penalty and conviction will not besmirch the ∆'s name (Analogize to MPC)
(4) Court's must enact legislature's intent; Overcome if overriding governmental interest in promoting health, safety, and
welfare of its citizens Garnett
Legislative history will help determine legislative intent, if the text is ambiguous
Other sections of statute have mens rea requirement, while the age section does not - list exclusion
Consider Status Crime
Lambert v. California - Woman convicted for failure to register as felon, under statute requiring all felons in city to register
SCOTUS held, unconstitutional (Due Process), citing lack of notice, because infraction did not require any positive conduct, but
only living in the city
'Actual knowledge of duty or proof of the probability of such knowledge" is required to convict this type of infraction'
'Circumstance which might make one to inquire as to the necessity of registration are completely lacking'
Morissette v. United States
Man went to a bombing range to hunt; then found, took, and sold spent shell casings from range; Man believed casings were abandons and his conduct was proper
Held, lack of expressed mens rea requirement does not make crime strict liability, because there is a common law presumption of requisite Mens Rea
Staples v. United States
Statute requires a automatic weapons to be registered, and made possession of unregistered weapon punishable; ∆ had modified full auto gun; Claimed he was unaware of
automatic ability
Held, not strict liability, because gun ownership is common place and the purchase of product wouldn't put an average person on notice of their responsibility for a public danger
Garnett v. United States (Moral Wrong Cite)
∆ mentally handicapped 20y/o, had sex with 13 y/o girl, satisfying Statutory Rape requirements
Court held , Statute is strict liability, and it is not the place of the judiciary to interfere with clear congressional intent
Model Penal Code - Actus Reus
Person not guilty of offense unless liability is based on conduct including a voluntary act or omission MPC §2.01
Voluntary Act - Bodily movement that is not:
(1) A Reflex/Convulsion, (2) A Movement during unconscious/sleep, (3) Resultant from hypnotic suggestion, or (4) "A
Bodily Movement otherwise not the product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual"
MPC only provides an incomplete definition of Voluntary Act, through an exclusionary list
Possession is an act, if the possessor knowingly (1) procured, (2) received, or (3) was aware of his control thereof for a
sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession
Strict Liability - Exception
Exception to Voluntary Act - Not applicable to Violations, unless (1) the Court determines that requiring a voluntary act is
consistent with effective enforcement of the law MPC §2.05(1)
Violation - An offense where the mandatory penalty is a fine or civil penalty
Exception to Voluntary Act - Not applicable where a Legislative Purpose to impose absolute liability for the offense or any
material element plainly appears MPC §2.05(1)
Model Penal Code §2.01 [Omissions]
One must be physically capable of performing the act constituting the omission
Liability for omission only when:
(1) Omission is made expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense, or
(2) Duty to perform omitted act is otherwise imposed by law (Includes common law tort duties)