Generally, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) actus reus (or guilty act); (2)

mens rea (or guilty mind); concurrence in time between the act and the requisite mental state; (4) causation between defendants act and the harm suffered; and (5) harm to victim resulting from defendants criminal conduct. Act Requirement To be convicted of a crime, the defendant must have committed a criminal act; the law does not punish mere criminal thoughts. Generally, liability is based upon an affirmative physical act by the defendant; however under some circumstances, liability can rest upon a total failure to act at all (omission). A crimes required act is commonly referred to as the actus reus of the crime. The Need for an Act or Culpable Omission Proctor v. State Proctor was convicted of "keeping a place, to wit, a two-story building, with the intent and for the purpose of unlawfully selling, bartering, and giving away spirituous, vinous, fermented and malt liquors," Failed to charge Proctor with an "overt act" in connection with the alleged culpable intent. An "overt act" is an act that can clearly be proven by evidence - something physically done that could have been seen, etc. MPC 1.12, 1.13, and 2.01 OMMISSION Jones v. United States Under certain circumstances, liability may be based upon a defendants failure to act. This issue most typically arises in homicide cases where the defendants conviction is sought on the ground that he failed to take steps to save the victims life. However, regardless of his intent or motives, the defendants omission will support finding of criminal liability only where it is shown that: (1) Defendant was under a legal duty to act; (2) Defendant had the necessary knowledge; and (3) It would have been possible for defendant to act. The Act of Possession United States v. Maldonado The elements of constructive possession: (1) effective power over the thing possessed, and (2) the intention to control it. possession includes not only immediate physical possession, but also constructive possession, and joint as well as exclusive possession. Constructive possession is defined as "the power and intention to exercise control, or dominion and control, over an object not in one's "actual"

possession. So, you can be in possession of something hidden somewhere in your house, or held by someone else. So because the drugs were left in Zavala's room, while he was waiting for Palestino to come pay for them and with Zavala's consent and knowledge, the Court held that they were in his possession. Also, just because the hotel room was under Palestino's name, Zavala was still occupying it, and could easily return there at will. Voluntariness Martin v. State RULE: A person cannot be guilty of a crime in the absence of voluntary conduct. People v. Grant RULE: If the conscious mind loses control over the body's acts, then the act in question was not voluntary. However, if there is adequate prior notice of the person's susceptibility to engage in violent involuntary conduct, and still acts consciously to cause that behavior, then those actions are voluntary. (widen the "time-frame")

People v. Decina someone prone to epileptic seizure was driving, have a seizure while driving and killed 4 people. Anticipating involuntariness - there was a history of seizure, they knew this could happen The voluntary act is the choice to drive even though there is a history of seizure. So it is culpable. But, this doesnt count if this is the first time some medical condition has occurred. There was no warning so the act was involuntary.

Status Offenses Robinson v. California RULE: It can not be a crime to have a "status" of something; there must be an act.

Powell v. Texas It was a public intoxication statute. How is trying to use Robinson in his case, by invoking the illness. Addicts are sick, and acted involuntarily. Powell argues that he cant help being an alcoholic, it's a disease. It's involuntary.

But conviction upheld. The statute in question punished the act of being drunk while in public, not the status of just being an alcoholic. This statute fine b/c it punishes an act. It doesnt become unconstitutional just because committed the act while suffering from his disease, alcoholism. RULE : It's unconstitutional to punish someone who has not committed an act.

Principle of Legality: Legislativity, Prospectivity, Specificity, Lenity Rogers v. Tennessee Ex-post facto laws. Under the Constitution, ex post facto laws are also prohibited. o Retroactively makes conduct criminal o Retroactively enforces a stricter punishment for the same conduct; or o Retroactively alters procedural or evidentiary rules in a way that makes conviction of the criminal defendant easier.

Chicago v. Morales In 1992, the City of Chicago enacted the Gang Congregation Ordinance, which prohibits people from loitering with one another in any public place. The question is whether the ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. It did not provide sufficiently specific limits on the enforcement discretion of the police (and so may encourage discriminatory or arbitrary enforcement), nor did it provide sufficient notice to citizens who wish to use the public streets. Rule of Lenity: If a criminal statute is ambiguous, court should construe statutes narrowly (in favor of Df). Void-for-vagueness doctrine.