Actus Reas and Men Rea

Actus Reus and Mens Rea Actus reus and mens rea atomic number 18 two of the five elements of a crime that the pursuance whitethorn shoot to prove to model a reliance in a iniquitous human face. Actus reus is the poisonous arrange. Mens rea is the in xt to post the crime. In general, the to a greater extent serious a crime is, the more important it is for the pursuit to prove that twain(prenominal) a felon be bustling was committed and that in that location was bend intent. These more serious crimes ar besides cognise as subscribe crimes. non surprisingly, conduct crimes involve the proof of savage conduct. felonious conduct is often muzzy with criminal acts.The distinction is that criminal conduct involves both actus reus and mens rea, whereas a criminal act solitary(prenominal) involves actus reus. In the most operose of crimes, such as criminal homicide, tierce more elements of crime must be proven concurrence, attendant circumstances and a bad result. Actus reus and mens rea are important because both elements are necessary to get a conviction beyond a conceivable doubt in a criminal display tapship (Samaha, 2008, chap. 3). In couch to discard as actus reus, the act must be deemed a embodied movement that was voluntary.The fence for this is that the law is intended to avenge pot who meant to commit the act or posterior be blamed for the act. Only and so are they creditworthy for the criminal acts they commit. Criminal law does non intend to punish people who are non amenable for the acts they committed. The problem is that most criminal codes fork out vague descriptions of what a voluntary act is. M either times, the definition exigencys to be inferred by looking at the attend of exceptions (involuntary acts) to voluntary acts. An appeal in case of Brown v. extract centered around whether the insure panel should be given specific instruction manual by the judge on how to get whether an act was voluntary. T he defendant in that case, Alfred Brown, was bumped with a moholding was that the defendant was entitled to harbor the jury consider the voluntariness of his acts (Samaha, 2008, chap. 3). In order to experience Mens Rea, one of two kinds of chemise command to be effected inhering or objective fault. Subjective fault is more easily identifiable. Subject fault is having a bad mind, or doing something that you knew to be wrong. moreovert fault does non involve a purpose-made or conscious bad mind. Objective fault involves establishing that the act should brook been known to be wrong by the fair(a) person. In the appeal of the case of State v. Stark, the defendant, Calvin Stark, challenged a second degree encounter conviction on the grounds that he did not intend to inflict bodily harm by having unprotected wind up after he was versedly human immunodeficiency virus positive. Mr. Starks appeal was on the grounds that subjective fault could not be established for the crime he was alleged to have committed.Mr. Starks lost the appeal in wide part because objective fault was undeniably present in this case since the norm person knows that HIV can be passed to another person by having unprotected sex (Samaha, 2008, chap. 4). Good Samaritan chemical formula and American Bystander rule The Good Samaritan overshadow and the American Bystander design both address the requirements of what a person has to do if they are witnessing and possibility where a situation requires assistance. there are really no other similarities mingled with these sees.The Good Samaritan regain is only employ in a few jurisdictions. This rule amazes a person legally trustworthy to either friend or chitchat for help when a person is in need. In contrast, the American Bystander Rule states that there is no legal art to help someone in need, even if it the bystander is risking aught by helping someone or calling for help. Even in cases where it is distinctly morally wr ong to stand by and watch someone suffer, the bystander is not violating any criminal law by doing zippo (Samaha, 2008, p. 91). In the case of Commonwealth v.Pestinakas, the defendants, Helen and Walter Pestinakas were convicted of deuce-ace degree murder in protoactinium for neglecting to finagle for an fourth-year man who was terminally ill. In the appeal to this case, the judgments of sentence (five to ten years in prison for distri neverthelessively defendant) were upheld because the court ruled that there was a legally binding oral castrate in place for the Pestinakases to provide care for the victim, Joseph Kly. The Good Samaritan Rule does not bear in Pennsylvania and the American Bystander Rule does apply.The dissenting opinion was interesting in that it was pointed out that the legislature may not have intended for a contractual duty to be a duty imposed by law. If indeed that were not the intent of the legislature, then the Pestinakases may really well have won th eir appeal based on the American Bystander Rule. Although neglecting an elderly man while serving as his caretaker is in all likelihood morally wrong in the eyes of most, the American Bystander Rule would have protected the Pestinakases from legal prosecution (Samaha, 2008, p. 92-93). In the case of State v.Kuntz, the defendant, Bonnie Kuntz stabbed her boyfriend, warren Becker, and then did not call for help, so he bled to death. In addition to be convicted of negligent homicide, the defendant was also aerated with a separate crime for disappointment to beat up for medical aid. Ms. Kuntz appealed the latter conviction with the American Bystander Rule as her basis. There are some exceptions to the American Bystander Rule that do make a bystander criminally liable for a failure to act. In the opinion of the court, this case met one of those exceptions, since Ms.Kuntz had a duty to summon for help because she created the peril. In other words, if you mortally wound someone, you are criminally liable if you dont summon for aid, notwithstanding the American Bystander Rule (http//www. soc. umn. edu). The Good Samaritan Rule is also not always so cut and dry out. Although the rule requires that you help someone in need or summon for help, but a recent ruling, avant-garde schnozzle v. Watson, held that a state statute only protects people who attempt to provide medical care to someone who needs it.In Van Horn v. Watson, court held that the co-defendant, Lisa Torti was held liable for version the defendant, Alexandra Van Horn, paraplegic after puff Van Horn from a fomite that Torti thought was going to explode (Miller, 2009). Although this was not a criminal case, this shows that the Good Samaritan Rule does not provide protection against every scenario of helping a victim in need, just as the American Bystander Rule does not the bystander from needing to help or summon for help for a person in need.Although the rules seem to be opposites, each has exception s that make them more similar. Constructive and Actual stubbornness Constructive stubbornness is when someone has control of a ban substance, but it is not on his/her person. In other words, it may be in or on something he/she owns, such as a vehicle, a place they live, such as their house, or another area he/she controls, such as his/her office. Actual obstinacy is when someone has physical control of the banned substance. In other words in might be in their shoe.Constructive and active self-command both need to conform to the two aspects of obstinance. In order to call possession as a criminal act, there needs to be both control of the items and awareness of the control. The main passing between constructive and active possession is that with active possession, the substance is free-base on the person, whereas with constructive possession, the substance is found in an area in which the person is responsible (Samaha, 2008, p. 97). The case of Miller v.State provides a su bstantially discussion in the courts opinion on constructive possession. In that case, a passenger in a car was convicted of possession of marijuana and cocaine. The defendant, pile Luther Miller, appealed the case on the grounds that he did not knowingly possess the drugs. new(prenominal) passengers in the car were smoking marijuana and they had crack cocaine stashed in the car. In the appeal, the court affirmed the marijuana possession conviction and reversed and dismissed the cocaine possession conviction.According to the court opinion, in order to constitute constructive possession in a case involving multiple occupants in an automobile, there are several things that need to be considered. These factors include whether the drugs were in knit view of the accused, whether they were found on the accused, whether they were in close proximity to the accused, whether the accused is the possessor of the car and whether the accused acted suspiciously.In this case, many of these fac tors were probably true in the case of the marijuana, but none of them were definitively true in the case of the cocaine. In the case of the cocaine, the court found that Mr. Miller did not have knowing possession of the cocaine and instead had holy possession. Only Montana and Washington do not require knowing possession to charge someone with criminal possession. Since this case was in Arkansas, the appeal was successful for Mr.Miller on the cocaine possession charge (Samaha, 2008, pp. 97-98). References Did she have a legal duty to inform or intervene? Retrieved from http//www. soc. umn. edu/samaha/cases/state_v_kuntz_omission. htm. Miller, C. (2009, January 14). Calif. lawmakers rush to deliver good samaritans in wake of court ruling. The Recorder. Retrieved from http//www. law. com/jsp/article. jsp? id=1202427434865&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1. Samaha, J. (2008). Criminal Law. (9th ed. , chap. 3-4). Belmont, CA Thomson Learning, Inc.