Actus Reus meaning “criminal act that was the result of voluntary bodily movement”.
Described as a physical activity harming another person or damages property anything from a physical assault or murder to the destruction of public property would qualify as an ‘Actus Reus’.
ACTUS REUS DEFINITION:
Actus Reus meaning “the action the person takes to perform the criminal act”. This is the physical action behind the crime. One important thing to note is that, if the physical action is a reflex, this is not criminal. Law a criminal action regarded as a constituent element of a crime, as compared with the state of mind of the perpetrator.
Merriam Webster ( Legal Dictionary) Define Actus Reus as: the wrongful act that makes up the physical action of a crime.
Whereas as per the Farlex (Dictionary) Actus Reus definition is as Guilty act, as an element of criminal responsibility, the wrongful act or omission that comprises the physical components of a crime. Criminal statutes generally require proof of both Actus Reus and mens rea on the part of a defendant in order to establish criminal liability.
INTRODUCTION:
Actus Reus is the Latin term used to describe a criminal act. Every crime must be considered in two parts-the physical act of the crime (Actus Reus) and the mental intent to do the crime. To establish Actus Reus, It must prove that the accused party was responsible for a deed prohibited by criminal law.
The Actus Reus includes only voluntary bodily movements, particularly one which society has an interest in preventing. Thus, if a defendant acted on reflex, then the defendant’s conduct does not satisfy the Actus Reus requirement. Contrast this with mens rea, which refers to the criminal intent element of a crime.
In order for an Actus Reus to be committed there has to have been an act. Various common law jurisdictions define act differently but generally, an act is a “bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary.” It was once ruled that a California law making it illegal to be a drug addict was unconstitutional because the mere status of being a drug addict was not an act and thus not criminal.
It was asserted that though lawyers find the expression Actus Reus convenient, it is misleading in one respect. It means not just the criminal act but all the external elements of an offence. Ordinarily, there is a criminal act, which is what makes the term Actus Reus generally acceptable but there are crimes without an act, and therefore without an ‘Actus Reus’ in the obvious meaning of that term. The expression “conduct” is more satisfactory, because wider; it covers not only an act but an omission, and (by a stretch) a bodily position. The conduct must sometimes take place in legally relevant circumstances.
ELEMENTS OF CRIME:
It is generally agreed that the essential ingredients of any crime are a voluntary act or omission (Actus Reus), accompanied by a certain state of mind (mens rea).
An act may be any kind of voluntary human behavior. Movements made in an epileptic seizure are not acts, nor are movements made by a somnambulist before awakening, even if they result in the death of another person. Criminal liability for the result also requires that the harm done must have been caused by the accused. The test of causal relationship between conduct and result is that the event would not have happened the same way without direct participation of the offender.
The relevant circumstances might include consent in the case of rape. The act of human sexual intercourse becomes a wrongful act if it is committed in circumstances where one party does not consent and/or one or more parties concerned are below the age of consent. Other crimes require the act to produce a legally forbidden consequence. Such crimes are called result crimes. … All that can truly be said, without exception, is that a crime requires some external state of affairs that can be categorized as criminal. What goes on inside a person’s head is never enough in itself to constitute a crime, even though it might be proven by a confession that is fully believed to be genuine.
Generally, for the purposes of criminal liability, an individual may be under a duty to act if:
OMISSION:
- A statute requires a person to act in a certain way.
- A contract requires a person to act in a certain way.
- Some special status relationship exists that creates a duty to act in a certain way (i.e. parental responsibilities).
- A voluntary assumption of care creates a duty to act in a certain way.
- The individual created the risk.
Omission, as an act of criminal negligence, is another form of Actus Reus. It lies on the opposite side of the spectrum from assault or murder and involves not taking an action that would have prevented injury to another person. An omission could be failing to warn others that you’ve created a dangerous situation, not feeding an infant who has been left in your care, or not completing a work related task properly which resulted in an accident. In all of these cases, the perpetrator’s failure to complete a necessary activity caused harm to others.
Alternately, the Actus Reus requirement can also be satisfied by an omission. This is true only when the individual had a duty to act, and failed to act.
It involves a failure to engage in a necessary bodily movement resulting in injury. As with commission acts, omission acts can be reasoned casually using the ‘but’ for approach. ‘But’ for not having acted, the injury would not have occurred. The Penal Code specifically outlines specifications for criminal omissions:
- The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense.
- Duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.
So if legislation specifically criminalizes an omission through statute; or a duty that would normally be expected was omitted and caused injury, an Actus Reus has occurred. In Criminal law, there is no Good Samaritan rule therefore one cannot be criminally liable for an omission unless a duty of care is owed. An omission can be criminal if there is a statute that requires one to act.
EXCEPTION TO ACTUS REUS, WHEN SATISFIED & WHEN NOT:
The exception to Actus Reus is when the criminal actions are involuntary. This includes acts that occur as a result of a spasm or convulsion, any movement made while a person is asleep or unconscious, or activities participated in while an individual is under a hypnotic trance. In these scenarios a criminal deed may be done, but it is not intentional and the responsible person will not even know about it until after the fact.
For the Actus Reus element of a crime to be present, there must be a voluntary, physical action made by the defendant. The prosecution must prove the defendant made a conscious and intentional movement. Additionally, a person can be held criminally responsible if he engages in an action, knowing that he may unintentionally become unconscious and hurt somebody. In one state appeals court held a defendant was criminally responsible for his actions because the accused knew that he was subject to epileptic attacks rendering him likely to lose consciousness. Thus, he was responsible for the harms caused while suffering an epileptic episode and driving his automobile over a sidewalk, resulting in the death of four people.
Historically when a law criminalizes a status or illness (such as drug addiction or alcoholism), that law has been found to be unconstitutional because the law may result in cruel and unusual punishment. The Courts have held that someone could not be arrested and charged with being a drug addict because being a drug addict is a status, not an action and even the criminal thoughts do not satisfy the Actus Reus element. Criminal thoughts, if not accompanied by any action, do not harm society in any way and will not lead to criminal liability.
CONCLUSION:
A failure to act, known as an omission, could satisfy Actus Reus and potentially give rise to criminal liability. In order to do so, three elements must be proved:
There was a legal duty to act;
The defendant knew that he had a legal duty to act.
It was reasonable for the defendant to perform the duty or the defendant was physically capable of performing the legal duty.
A legal duty to act arises in different situations. The first is when there is a special relationship between the defendant and the victim. These special relationships include parent-child relationships, employer-employee relationships, or husband-wife relationships. The second situation that forms a legal duty to act is one that is imposed by law or by legislation. The third method of creating a legal duty to act is through a private contract between parties. Lastly, a legal duty to act will arise if the defendant wrongfully created the peril for the victim. If the defendant wrongfully places the victim in danger, then his failure to help the victim could lead to criminal liability.
It is important to understand that there is no criminal liability for an omission when there is only a moral obligation to act. A party is not bound to perform or prevent harm to another “simply upon his humanity, or his sense of justice or propriety.” As in an instant case the Supreme Court approached the issue of whether the defendant, who was convicted of culpable homicide, had a legal duty to act to save the victim who overdosed on morphine in his presence. The court held that the man could not be convicted because he had no legal duty to take reasonable measures to prevent her death, even though saving her life was the right thing to do. Actus Reus will have to be proven alongside of mens rea in order to secure a conviction. Once both elements are, a jury can reasonably reach the conclusion that a guilty verdict is appropriate.
The law generally recognizes a number of particular situations in which the use of force, even deadly force, is excused or justified. The most important body of law in this area is that which relates to self-defense. Some jurisdictions require that the party under attack must try to retreat when this can be done without increasing the peril. Under many laws, the defendant may stand his ground unless he has provoked his assailant purposely or by gross negligence or unless the assailant has some incapacity such as inebriation, mistake, or mental disease other situations in which the use of force is generally justifiable. In general, the use of nonlethal force may be excused if the defendant reasonably believed himself to be acting under duress or coercion. Lethal force may be justified if the defendant was carrying out military orders he believed to be lawful.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
