Question about criminal law Forum

[yogi1467]

For strict liability crimes, is the state constitutionally required to prove causation? Or can the state just prove the actus reus BRD? Basically, is causation constitutionally required for the prima facie case?

[2807]

Can you list a few strict liability crimes that have a causation issue?

[yogi1467]

One might be being drunk in public. Does the state just have to prove the result / act - that you were drunk in public, or does it have to prove the causation element too? I don't even know what the causation analysis would look like here, maybe but for your act, you wouldn't have been drunk in public? I dunno.

Ultimate question - does US v. Balint require that the state just prove the actus reus or does the state have to prove actus reus and causation for every strict liability crime?

[2807]

I am reading that case very different than you.
I don't know what your prof has parlayed this case into, but the case is about "scienter" and that it was not needed to violate the narcotics act in the early 1900s. Merely selling the drug was the crime and the defense of "I didn't know it was a drug" did not stand up on appeal.

This is not a causation issue. It is a scienter issue.

As far as public intox, the crime is "intoxicated in public" if you are--> then you are guilty.
The state need not prove "causation" by proving you actually drank beer or something.

Merely the objective symptoms suffice, and maybe a breath test if you comply. (in CA you are presumed public intox at .15%)

I think you are crowbar-ing in a causation concern.
Go back to your prof and see where you got this concern.
Causation is a loaded word, make sure you are using it correctly.

[yogi1467]

Thanks!

[sd5289]

This is not a causation issue. It is a scienter issue.

As far as public intox, the crime is "intoxicated in public" if you are--> then you are guilty.
The state need not prove "causation" by proving you actually drank beer or something.

This. (disclaimer = aced Crim, and Crim is kinda my thing employment wise)

There's no causation "issue" when it's strict liability. It's either you did it or you didn't. Given the harshness of that concept, strict liability crimes are very few and far between.

Another example of a strict liability crime would be stat. rape in certain jurisdictions: either you slept with someone under the age of 14 (and you're over the age of 18) or you didn't. You can't claim "mistake" (of age, obvi) as a defense. Strict liability = down and out bitches.

ETA: Seriously? A BAC of .15 in California? I think I'm living in the wrong state...

[yogi1467]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! Really helpful!

[lawman4]

I think you are looking to far into causation.

Strict liability is a public policy concern where the State gets away with not having to prove whether the def had a mens rea or not. It is there for purposes of public policy and that is merely it.

ex. You drive with an open container in your car (that might have been your buddies from the night before) and do not know it's there = strict liability due to the public policy concern of deterring this type of 'open container' issue = You have a duty to inspect your car, basically.

It doesn't even exist under a MPC jurdx. MPC would just label it as a reckless mens rea.

[Micdiddy]

Strict liability is NOT a substitute for causation, only mens rea. Yes often when something is strict liability the cause is clear, but there are easily situations that are strict liability but have a huge causation concern. For example, felony-murder is strict liability. What if someone is robbing a bank and one witness trying to escape the robbery gets hit by car? The prosecution does not need to prove the bank robber had mens rea for that person's death, but still needs to show the robber's actions were the cause-in-fact and proximate cause of the death.

[yogi1467]

But isn't causation part of the actus reus anyway? So it's not as if the prosecution has to prove causation in addition to the actus reus, it only has to prove actus reus and causation is a part of that.

[Micdiddy]

But isn't causation part of the actus reus anyway? So it's not as if the prosecution has to prove causation in addition to the actus reus, it only has to prove actus reus and causation is a part of that.

Those are two very distinct elements. Actus reus is the intent of the physical actions of robbing the bank. If he was sleeprobbing then you can still find causation but not actus reus.

[encore1101]

You're mixing up a few terms, so let's start from the beginning:

"strict liability" crimes means those crimes for which there is no mens rea. It doesn't matter what your intention was or wasn't, or whether you were acting recklessly or negligently.
For example, New York Penal Law § 265.01(1) (CPW 4): A person is guilty of CPW 4 when he possesses any firearm.

Notice how there is no requirement that the individual intentionally carry a firearm, or carry a firearm through acts of negligence or recklessness (for example, infant toddler puts it into the person's backpack without that person's knowledge).

Also notice that there is no "causation." There is no cause-and-effect present here, because "causation" is not a necessary requirement of an actus reus. But the actus reus here is simply "possessing any firearm."

Now, compare that to NYPL § 125.25 Murder 2: Person is guilty of Murder 2 when, with intent to cause the death of a third person, he causes the death of such person. (red = mens rea, blue = actus reus).

Here, the People would have to prove the mens rea (intent to cause death) so its not a strict liability crime. The People would also have to prove that the defendant did, in fact, cause the death of a third person, so there is a causation analysis. For example, the People would need to bring up witnesses that would testify that the victim was alive at some point, he was shot by the defendant, and the gunshot wound attributed to the defendant was the cause of the victim's death. If the defendant had witnesses that would testify that the victim was dead before the victim was shot by the defendant, then the causation element may not be met, and so the actus reus element not established.

To return to the "actus reus without causation," let's look at New York Penal Law § 155.25 Petit Larceny: A person is guilty of petit larceny when he steals property.
"Steals property" is elsewhere defined as "with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself, he wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds such property from an owner." There is no "causation" to prove; the People don't have to prove that, through the Defendant's actions, the Owner was deprived of property; the People just have to prove that the Defendant wrongfully took property from someone. The focus is on the actions of the defendant, not the impact it had on the owner.


TL;DR: strict liability crimes only refer to what is the mens rea. causation may be part of an actus reus analysis, but not necessarily.

[encore1101]

But isn't causation part of the actus reus anyway? So it's not as if the prosecution has to prove causation in addition to the actus reus, it only has to prove actus reus and causation is a part of that.

Those are two very distinct elements. Actus reus is the intent of the physical actions of robbing the bank. If he was sleeprobbing then you can still find causation but not actus reus.

I don't think this is right.

[Micdiddy]

But isn't causation part of the actus reus anyway? So it's not as if the prosecution has to prove causation in addition to the actus reus, it only has to prove actus reus and causation is a part of that.

Those are two very distinct elements. Actus reus is the intent of the physical actions of robbing the bank. If he was sleeprobbing then you can still find causation but not actus reus.

I don't think this is right.

Well it is. If you did not intend to take those physical actions (e.g. Sleeprobbing), then you don't have Actus Reus. Heck some courts have found shooting an officer while in shock to not constitute Actus Reus.

[encore1101]

But isn't causation part of the actus reus anyway? So it's not as if the prosecution has to prove causation in addition to the actus reus, it only has to prove actus reus and causation is a part of that.

Those are two very distinct elements. Actus reus is the intent of the physical actions of robbing the bank. If he was sleeprobbing then you can still find causation but not actus reus.

I don't think this is right.

Well it is. If you did not intend to take those physical actions (e.g. Sleeprobbing), then you don't have Actus Reus. Heck some courts have found shooting an officer while in shock to not constitute Actus Reus.

Actus reus means "guilty act," and one of the requirements of a guilty act is that it must be voluntary, so acts performed while asleep, in shock, or a reflex, or other involuntary actions, do not constitute actus reus. But the question isn't on intent; its on voluntariness. While the two terms are similar, the way you described it makes it sound like you're conflating mens rea analysis.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Well it is. If you did not intend to take those physical actions (e.g. Sleeprobbing), then you don't have Actus Reus. Heck some courts have found shooting an officer while in shock to not constitute Actus Reus.

Actus reus means "guilty act," and one of the requirements of a guilty act is that it must be voluntary, so acts performed while asleep, in shock, or a reflex, or other involuntary actions, do not constitute actus reus. But the question isn't on intent; its on voluntariness. While the two terms are similar, the way you described it makes it sound like you're conflating mens rea analysis.

Yep. This.

[Micdiddy]

Well it is. If you did not intend to take those physical actions (e.g. Sleeprobbing), then you don't have Actus Reus. Heck some courts have found shooting an officer while in shock to not constitute Actus Reus.

Actus reus means "guilty act," and one of the requirements of a guilty act is that it must be voluntary, so acts performed while asleep, in shock, or a reflex, or other involuntary actions, do not constitute actus reus. But the question isn't on intent; its on voluntariness. While the two terms are similar, the way you described it makes it sound like you're conflating mens rea analysis.

Yep. This.

I completely agree. There are multiple ways to use the word intent. But I also agree on an exam you should err on the side of using "voluntary action." I don't see how what I said in anyway conflates with Mens Rea analysis however.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Well it is. If you did not intend to take those physical actions (e.g. Sleeprobbing), then you don't have Actus Reus. Heck some courts have found shooting an officer while in shock to not constitute Actus Reus.

Actus reus means "guilty act," and one of the requirements of a guilty act is that it must be voluntary, so acts performed while asleep, in shock, or a reflex, or other involuntary actions, do not constitute actus reus. But the question isn't on intent; its on voluntariness. While the two terms are similar, the way you described it makes it sound like you're conflating mens rea analysis.

Yep. This.

I completely agree. There are multiple ways to use the word intent. But I also agree on an exam you should err on the side of using "voluntary action." I don't see how what I said in anyway conflates with Mens Rea analysis however.

Because one of the varieties of mens rea is intentional, but not all crimes require that mens rea. So talking about intent when discussing acts gets confusing. The point *isn't* that you intended to take the guilty act; the point is that you took that act voluntarily. The question of what you intended is different and goes to your mental state.

[encore1101]

Well it is. If you did not intend to take those physical actions (e.g. Sleeprobbing), then you don't have Actus Reus. Heck some courts have found shooting an officer while in shock to not constitute Actus Reus.

Actus reus means "guilty act," and one of the requirements of a guilty act is that it must be voluntary, so acts performed while asleep, in shock, or a reflex, or other involuntary actions, do not constitute actus reus. But the question isn't on intent; its on voluntariness. While the two terms are similar, the way you described it makes it sound like you're conflating mens rea analysis.

Yep. This.

I completely agree. There are multiple ways to use the word intent. But I also agree on an exam you should err on the side of using "voluntary action." I don't see how what I said in anyway conflates with Mens Rea analysis however.

It took me a few re-reads to understand what you were saying (which wasn't incorrect, btw, once I understood it). My first interpretation was that the "intent to perform culpable acts" was sufficient to satisfy actus reus, not "intentionally performing culpable acts," but I see how that was mistaken.

[Micdiddy]

Actus reus means "guilty act," and one of the requirements of a guilty act is that it must be voluntary, so acts performed while asleep, in shock, or a reflex, or other involuntary actions, do not constitute actus reus. But the question isn't on intent; its on voluntariness. While the two terms are similar, the way you described it makes it sound like you're conflating mens rea analysis.

Yep. This.

I completely agree. There are multiple ways to use the word intent. But I also agree on an exam you should err on the side of using "voluntary action." I don't see how what I said in anyway conflates with Mens Rea analysis however.

It took me a few re-reads to understand what you were saying (which wasn't incorrect, btw, once I understood it). My first interpretation was that the "intent to perform culpable acts" was sufficient to satisfy actus reus, not "intentionally performing culpable acts," but I see how that was mistaken.

So we're agreed. You called me out based on misreading my post, and I should attempt to use language more closely aligned with expectations of the subject while answering substantive based questions. Fair enough.