parent nodes: actus reus | Amendment XIV | causation | common law | complicity | conspiracy | Constitution | Criminal Law | equal protection | fraud | mail fraud | mens rea | rape | status crime | strict liability crime
actus reus
A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable.
MPC 2.01(1)
To be convicted of an offense, a person must voluntarily commit an unlawful act. [Proctor v State] (conviction of "keeping a place with the intention of ... manufacturing, selling," etc. of liquor reversed where keeping a place was itself legal and where defendant possessed no liquor).
Note that Amendment VIII prohibits the status of a person from constituting an actus reus. [Robinson v California] (law making addiction a crime struck down); but see [Powell v Texas] (conviction of chronic alcoholic for public intoxication upheld). Furthermore, Amendment XIV invalidates laws with insufficient specificity.
Voluntary and involuntary acts
The following are not voluntary acts within the meaning of this Section:
(a) a reflex or convulsion;
(b) a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep;
(c) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion;
(d) a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.
MPC 2.01(2)
An act outside of the actor's physical control cannot constitute an actus reus. [Newton v State] (conviction for possessing handgun on plane reversed where passenger carried gun on international flight diverted to US). Involuntary acts may be caused by the acts of a third person, see [Newton v State]; [Martin v State] (public drunkenness conviction reversed where drunk defendant dragged into public by police), or by a physical ailment outside of the actor's control. [People v Grant] (new trial required where defendant who attacked policeman possibly suffering from grand mal seizure). Note that a person who knowingly subjects others to a risk of involuntary behavior may be held liable for the consequences. [People v Decina] (epileptic killed four people while having a seizure during driving).
The possession of a controlled substance showing "dominion and control" over that substance is a sufficient actus reus. A person's possession may be "constructive" as well as "joint," so that the existence of an actus reus depends on the amount of dominion or control a person exercises over the property. [US v Maldonado] (constructive possession where defendant aiding drug sale to a friend by third party left room with unpurchased drugs locked in his hotel room).
A person must have the actual possibility of exercising dominion over an item in order to constructively possess it. [State v Clark] (conviction for possessing entire drug shipment reversed where police intercepted shipment and sent only fraction of shipment to defendant). Proximity to the substance is not enough to infer "dominion" and "control." [US v Jenkins] (possession conviction reversed where defendant sitting on couch in dealer's house next to seized drugs had no cocaine on his person and had not used it). "Dominion" and "control" may depend on the social circumstances of a person's potential to control a chattel. [US v Manzella] (Posner, J.) (defendant must have "recognized authority in his criminal milieu to possess" the prohibited chattel).
A person need not have a physical copy of an item in order to control it. [US v Tucker] (child pornography conviction upheld where defendant downloaded images to his hard drive and destroyed images in his cache file).
Omissions
A person typically must have some duty in order to be held liable for an actus reus caused by the person's failure to act. Jones v US (involuntary manslaughter conviction reversed where third party entrusted with care of child allowed child to die from malnutrition).
Cases
Cases finding actus reus
[US v Maldonado] (constructive possession where defendant aiding drug sale to a friend by third party left room with unpurchased drugs locked in his hotel room)
[US v Tucker] (child pornography conviction upheld where defendant downloaded images to his hard drive and destroyed images in his cache file)
[People v Decina] (epileptic killed four people while having a seizure during driving)
Cases finding no actus reus
[Proctor v State] (conviction of "keeping a place with the intention of ... manufacturing, selling," etc. liquor reversed where keeping a place was itself legal and where defendant possessed no liquor)
Jones v US (involuntary manslaughter conviction reversed where third party entrusted with care of child allowed child to die from malnutrition)
[Newton v State] (conviction for possessing handgun on plane reversed where passenger carried gun on international flight diverted to US)
[US v Jenkins] (possession conviction reversed where defendant sitting on couch in dealer's house next to seized drugs had no cocaine on his person and had not used it)
[Martin v State] (public drunkenness conviction reversed where drunk defendant dragged into public by police)
[People v Grant] (new trial required where defendant who attacked policeman possibly suffering from grand mal seizure)
[State v Clark] (conviction for possessing entire drug shipment reversed where police intercepted shipment and sent only fraction of shipment to defendant).