What Actions Constitute A Crime?

The determination of whether an action constitutes a crime is a complex process that varies across jurisdictions. Generally, a crime consists of four elements: a criminal act (actus reus), criminal intent (mens rea), the concurrence of these two elements, and causation. The actus reus, or guilty act, refers to an unlawful bodily movement that must be intentional and voluntary. Mens rea, or guilty mind, pertains to the mental state or intent behind the act. Causation examines the direct link between an individual's actions and the resulting crime. Finally, concurrence ties together the actus reus and mens rea, requiring evidence of their simultaneous presence. These elements are essential in establishing criminal liability and accountability.

Explore related products

Criminal Law Handbook, The: Know Your Rights, Survive the System

$27.13 $39.99

Criminal Law

$53.5 $297.95

The Business of Criminal Law: How to Build a Criminal Defense Practice You and Your Clients Will Love

$19.99

Inside the Criminal Mind (Newly Revised Edition)

$12.73 $20

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; 2025 Edition

$12.5

Criminal Law Vocabulary In Use: Master 400+ Essential Criminal Law Terms And Phrases Explained With Examples In 10 Minutes A Day

$8.47

Criminal intent (mens rea)

Mens rea is a Latin term that translates to "guilty mind". It refers to the criminal intent or the mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime. The defendant must be mentally sound and must have consciously intended to commit the crime. The Model Penal Code has identified four states of mind with regards to establishing mens rea: purposeful, knowing, reckless, and negligent.

The level of intent required can differ depending on the type of offense being considered. For general intent crimes, it is necessary to prove that the accused intended to do the act, whereas specific intent crimes require knowledge of facts that make their conduct criminal. When assessing mens rea, three elements are typically looked at: intentionality, recklessness, and negligence. Intentional behaviour indicates that someone has consciously desired a certain outcome from their actions and intended to cause it. Recklessness involves not considering potential consequences, and negligence suggests a lack of due care in relation to foreseeable risks or outcomes. Depending on the offense in question, one or more of these elements may need to be present before assigning legal liability.

For example, murder usually requires a purposeful mental state, that is, a purposeful intention to kill the person. On the other hand, some forms of manslaughter will require a negligent or reckless mental state. In the case of Danny Driver, who sees his ex-girlfriend walking down the street with her new lover and then rams her with his car, he may be charged with intentional murder because he was purposeful in his effort to kill his ex-girlfriend. Now, imagine that Danny Driver has five or six beers before hopping behind the wheel of his car. On his way home, he swerves into oncoming traffic and hits another vehicle head-on. In this scenario, Danny's actions may be considered manslaughter due to his negligent or reckless mental state while intoxicated.

In some cases, the mental state element of mens rea can also include the defendant's awareness that their conduct is risky or dangerous, even if they do not intend to break the law. This is often referred to as "recklessness". For example, in Powell v. Texas (1968), the US Supreme Court upheld the defendant's conviction for "drunk in public", despite the defendant's status as an alcoholic. The Court held that it is difficult but not impossible for an alcoholic to resist the urge to drink, so the behaviour was considered voluntary. The Court also ruled that the state has an interest in treating alcoholism and preventing alcohol-related crimes that could injure the defendant and others.

Criminal act (actus reus)

Actus reus, which is Latin for "guilty act", refers to any unlawful act or omission of an act that takes place. An actus reus requires that a crime was indeed committed. It is not a crime, for example, to think about committing an unlawful act, so mens rea alone is not prosecutable. The intention must be followed by a criminal action. For an act to be criminal, it must be intentional and voluntary.

The act must be voluntary for it to be deemed a criminal act. If a defendant acts on reflex, then they may not be liable for their actions. An example of an involuntary act is a person having a seizure and falling into a storefront window, breaking it. This would not be considered vandalism because the seizure and the resulting fall were involuntary.

In some cases, an omission to act can constitute an actus reus if there is a legal duty to act. For example, if someone fails to report a crime they know about or fails to provide aid in an emergency, they could be found guilty of committing a criminal offence.

In certain cases, an actus reus can also include a state of affairs or mental element. For instance, possession crimes require proof that the accused had knowledge and control over an item with criminal potential, such as drugs or weapons.

Criminal acts can also be committed through words. Examples of this include perjury, verbal threats, conspiracy, or solicitation.

Causation

In some cases, the causation may be more complex, with multiple factors contributing to the outcome. In such cases, the prosecution must still prove that the defendant's actions were a substantial factor in causing the harm or injury. This can include situations where the defendant's actions were one of several causes or where there were intervening factors.

It is important to note that causation is not always a straightforward concept, and there may be debates over the extent to which a defendant's actions contributed to the outcome. The 'but-for' test may not always be sufficient to determine causation, and other factors, such as foreseeability and proximity, may also be considered.

Additionally, the actus reus, or criminal act, must be connected to the crime's result for liability to be assigned. This means that the defendant's actions must have directly led to the harm or injury in question. However, it is essential to consider that not all crimes involve physical actions, and some crimes may be committed through omission or failure to act when legally obligated to do so.

Explore related products

The Tools of Argument: How the Best Lawyers Think, Argue, and Win

$12.5

Criminal Law: A Quickstudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

Criminal Law & Procedure: Essential Law Self-Teaching Guide (Essential Law Self-Teaching Guides)

$24.95 $26.95

Reversing Your Criminal Conviction: Develop Your Winning Strategy

$12.95

Criminal Justice (Quick Study Academic)

$6.95

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, Newest Edition, Trade Paperback

$10.99 $16.95

Criminal liability

Actus Reus

The actus reus, or "guilty act" in Latin, refers to the criminal act itself, which must be unlawful and voluntary. This means that the defendant must have control over their actions, and it must be proven that a crime was indeed committed. For example, in the case of *Government of Virgin Islands v. Smith* (2010), the defendant was not convicted of battery because he was hypnotized when he smashed a pie into his girlfriend's face, and therefore did not commit the act voluntarily.

Mens Rea

Mens rea, or "guilty mind" in Latin, refers to the criminal intent or mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime. This element focuses on the defendant's state of mind and intent, rather than their actions. The mental state element is often referred to as the defendant's intent to break the law or their awareness that their conduct is risky or dangerous.

Causation and Concurrence

In addition to actus reus and mens rea, criminal liability also involves establishing causation and concurrence. Causation refers to the direct link between the defendant's actions and the resulting crime. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions led to the crime in question, typically involving harm or injury. Concurrence refers to the connection between the actus reus and mens rea, where both elements must be present and occur simultaneously for a crime to be established.

Specific Crimes

It is important to note that certain crimes have their own unique elements in addition to actus reus and mens rea. For example, specific intent crimes require knowledge of facts that make the defendant's conduct criminal, while general intent crimes focus on proving that the accused intended to commit the act. Additionally, crimes such as fraud require proof of intent and knowledge, while possession crimes require proof of knowledge and control over an item with criminal potential.

Defences

A defendant going on trial for allegedly committing a crime is entitled to present a defence, which may take various forms. One of the four major defences is innocence, where the defendant asserts their non-commission of the crime in question, providing evidence to support their claim. Another major defence is insanity, which is based on the idea that a person either did not understand the nature of their actions or could not control their behaviour.

An affirmative defence is a defence that raises an issue separate from the elements of the crime. For example, a defendant may argue that they should be excused for their conduct, or that their criminal conduct was justified under the circumstances. A justification defence may be based on the use of physical force in defence of premises or a person in the course of a burglary. In New York, a defendant charged with a crime involving the use of deadly force may be provided with a complete defence or no defence at all.

A denial or failure of proof defence focuses on the elements of the crime and prevents the prosecution from meeting its burden of proof. In such a case, the defence counsel may rely on the prosecution's failure to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant may also attempt to poke holes in the prosecutor's case, argue that another individual committed the crime, or that they had a legal and reasonable defence for doing so.

Other defences include the statute of limitations, where the defendant argues that it is too late for the government to prosecute the crime, and constitutional violation, where the defendant asserts that their constitutional rights were violated during arrest or charging. Entrapment is also a defence, where the defendant argues that the government induced them to commit the crime and attempts to punish them for it.

Frequently asked questions