A legal obligation to act arises in five 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. [4] The second situation that creates a legal obligation to act is a situation imposed by law or statute. [5] The third method of creating a legal obligation to act is a private contract between the parties. In a case that emphasized this legal duty to act, the defendants were convicted of third-degree murder following the death of a 92-year-old man who lived with the accused. [6] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the actus reus was fulfilled because the defendants had an oral contract to provide food and medical care to the deceased. Their failure to fulfil their part of the oral contract resulted in an omission. Finally, a legal obligation to act arises if the defendant has wrongly created the danger for the victim. If the accused unjustly puts the victim at risk, his or her failure to assist the victim could result in criminal liability. As an example, consider the definition of flight given in the introduction. The actus reus elements of theft are the « appropriation » of a « good » that « belongs to another ».
As you can see, there is no need for consistency – so it does not matter whether the defendant, for example, actually managed to get away with the property – theft is committed when there is an appropriation of someone else`s property with the necessary mens rea elements. Mens rea means « guilty spirit » and refers to the metallic element of a crime. This could be seen, for example, as an intention to steal or take a risk as to whether harm could be done to someone. There are several ways to categorize different levels of mens rea. Intent is clearly more culpable than mere recklessness. However, recklessness always shows that a risk was known and was taken anyway, which shows contempt for the well-being of others. An involuntary act does not satisfy the actus reus requirement. Subjective recklessness is the next level below intent with regard to mens rea for criminal responsibility.
R v. Cunningham that the defendant must have an assessment of the risk to others arising from his actions. If he then takes this risk and thus causes harm, it will meet the requirements of mens rea for most crimes (those that do not require intent of criminal responsibility). This decision was approved and upheld in R v. Gemmell and Richards, where two boys set fire to a garbage can, which then spread to a building and caused significant damage. The boys knew that their actions could have caused harm, and they took that risk, so they were found responsible. Criminal responsibility requires proof of a physical act before any discussion of criminal mental states. [1] This physical act requirement is known as actus reus and is a fundamental concept of U.S.
criminal law. [2] For the actus reus to be established, it must be shown that the act was performed voluntarily. If it was an involuntary act, it is usually not enough to obtain a conviction, except in rare cases such as no-fault offences. A famous dangerous incident in this context was Hill v Baxter. In this case, Lord Goddard stated that an « unknown disease » (as the defendant claimed) was not evidence of an involuntary act. Only something like a swarm of bees entering the car could portray the accused`s actions as involuntary. The actus reus covers only voluntary physical movements, especially those in the prevention of which society has an interest. This was approved by the Supreme Court in Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S.
514 (1968). Thus, if a defendant acted reflexively, the defendant`s conduct does not satisfy the actus reus requirement. Compare this to mens rea, which refers to the element of criminal intent of a crime. For example, if a thief pushes a gun into a victim`s side and says, « Your money or your life, » pushing the gun is the news reus. Second, criminal thoughts do not satisfy the actus reus element. Criminal thoughts, if not accompanied by an act, do not harm society in any way and do not entail any criminal liability.