Actus Reas and Men Rea

Actus Reus and Mens Rea Actus reus and mens rea be two of the five elements of a annoyance that the prosecution may lose to prove to get a conviction in a iniquitous consequence. Actus reus is the wicked identification number. Mens rea is the intent to commit the crime. In general, the more right a crime is, the more important it is for the prosecution to prove that both(prenominal) a criminal act was committed and that there was criminal intent. These more serious crimes are also known as beam crimes. Not surprisingly, conduct crimes involve the proof of criminal conduct. Criminal conduct is often disjointed with criminal acts.The distinction is that criminal conduct involves both actus reus and mens rea, whereas a criminal act only involves actus reus. In the most severe of crimes, such(prenominal) as criminal homicide, three more elements of crime must be proven concurrence, attendant circumstances and a deleterious result. Actus reus and mens rea are important becaus e both elements are necessary to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case (Samaha, 2008, chap. 3). In distinguish to qualify as actus reus, the act must be deemed a bodily movement that was voluntary.The reason for this is that the law is intended to punish deal who meant to commit the act or can be blamed for the act. besides then(prenominal) are they responsible for the criminal acts they commit. Criminal law does non intend to punish people who are not responsible for the acts they committed. The hassle is that most criminal codes can vague descriptions of what a voluntary act is. Many times, the definition involve to be inferred by looking at the list of exceptions (involuntary acts) to voluntary acts. An appeal in case of Brown v. area revolve about around whether the jury should be given specific instructions by the judge on how to ascertain whether an act was voluntary. The defendant in that case, Alfred Brown, was bumped with a moholding was tha t the defendant was entitled to have the jury consider the voluntariness of his acts (Samaha, 2008, chap. 3). In dedicate to have Mens Rea, one of two kinds of smirch need to be launch subjective or objective fault. Subjective fault is more easily identifiable. Subject fault is having a bad mind, or doing fewthing that you knew to be upon.Objective fault does not involve a purposeful or conscious bad mind. Objective fault involves establishing that the act should have been known to be wrong by the average soulfulness. In the appeal of the case of State v. Stark, the defendant, Calvin Stark, challenged a second degree assault conviction on the grounds that he did not intend to inflict bodily harm by having open sex after he was knowingly HIV 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 banging part because objective fault was undeniably present in thi s case since the average mortal knows that HIV can be passed to another person by having unprotected sex (Samaha, 2008, chap. 4). Good Samaritan chance and American Bystander regularization The Good Samaritan prevail and the American Bystander feel both address the requirements of what a person has to do if they are witnessing and incident where a situation requires assistance. on that point are really no other similarities surrounded by these rules.The Good Samaritan regulating is only used in a few jurisdictions. This rule makes a person licitly responsible to either help or call back for help when a person is in need. In contrast, the American Bystander Rule states that there is no legal duty to help someone in need, even if it the bystander is risking nothing by helping someone or occupation for help. Even in cases where it is clearly m vocally wrong to stand by and watch someone suffer, the bystander is not violating any criminal law by doing nothing (Samaha, 2008, p . 91). In the case of Commonwealth v.Pestinakas, the defendants, Helen and Walter Pestinakas were convicted of third degree hit in Pennsylvania for neglecting to care for an elderly man who was terminally ill. In the appeal to this case, the judgments of sentence (five to ten years in prison for for from each one one defendant) were upheld because the court ruled that there was a legally binding oral contract in place for the Pestinakases to provide care for the victim, Joseph Kly. The Good Samaritan Rule does not apply in Pennsylvania and the American Bystander Rule does apply.The differ 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 very well have won their appeal found on the American Bystander Rule. Although neglecting an elderly man while serving as his caretaker is probably 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 being convicted of negligent homicide, the defendant was also aerated with a separate crime for failure to ascend for medical aid. Ms. Kuntz appealed the latter(prenominal) conviction with the American Bystander Rule as her basis. There are some exceptions to the American Bystander Rule that do make a bystander criminally presumable 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 breach someone, you are criminally liable if you dont summon for aid, in time the American Bystander Rule (http//www. soc. umn. edu). The Good Samaritan Rule is also not forever and a day so cut and dry. Although the rule requires that you help someone in need or summon for help, but a recent ruling, train thrust v. Watson, held that a state statute only protects people who try 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 rendering the defendant, Alexandra Van Horn, paraplegic after force Van Horn from a vehicle that Torti thought was going to pad (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, honourable 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 exceptions that make them more similar. Constructive and Actual Possession Constructive self-command is when someone has control of a banned 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 sustainion is when someone has physical control of the banned substance. In other words in might be in their shoe.Constructive and brisk self-discipline both need to meet the two aspects of possession. In tell to constitute possession as a criminal act, there needs to be both control of the items and awareness of the control. The main difference between constructive and active possession is that with active possession, the substance is found 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 honest 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. Other 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 duplex occupants in an automobile, there are several things that need to be considered. These factors allow in whether the drugs were in plain view of the accused, whether they were found on the accused, whether they were in intimately proximity to the accused, whether the accused is the owner of the car and whether the accused acted suspiciously.In this case, many of these factors 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 mere possession. scarcely Montana and Washington do not require knowing possession to charge someone with criminal possession. Since this case was in Arkansas, the appeal was fortunate for Mr.Miller on the cocaine possession charge (Samaha, 2008, pp. 97-98). References Did she have a legal duty to report 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 rescue 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.