Criminal law requires both a guilty act and a guilty mind to establish criminal liability. This concept, known as concurrence, ensures that the physical and mental elements of a crime align.
Concurrence can be temporal, where the guilty mind exists at the moment of the criminal act, or motivational, where the mental state drives the action. Understanding concurrence is crucial for determining criminal responsibility and potential defenses.
Actus reus and mens rea
- Actus reus refers to the physical element of a crime, the guilty act, while mens rea is the mental element, the guilty mind
- Both elements must be present at the same time for a crime to have occurred under the concurrence requirement in criminal law
- The concurrence of actus reus and mens rea is a fundamental principle that helps establish criminal liability
Temporal concurrence
- Temporal concurrence requires that the actus reus and mens rea exist at the same point in time
- The guilty mind must be present at the moment the criminal act is committed for temporal concurrence to be satisfied
Beginning of the act
Top images from around the web for Beginning of the act
Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Beginning of the act
Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Chapter 4: How Public Law Structures Politics – Politics, Power, and Purpose: An Orientation to ... View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Temporal concurrence is established at the beginning of the criminal act
- The mens rea must be present at the initiation of the actus reus (pulling the trigger of a gun)
- If the mens rea forms after the criminal act has begun, temporal concurrence may not be met
Completion of the crime
- Temporal concurrence extends until the completion of the criminal act
- The guilty mind must persist throughout the entire criminal act until it is finished (continuously intending to steal while shoplifting)
- If the mens rea dissipates before the crime is completed, temporal concurrence could be negated
Motivational concurrence
- Motivational concurrence requires that the mens rea motivates or causes the actus reus
- The guilty mind must be the driving force behind the criminal act, not merely coinciding with it
Mens rea causing actus reus
- The mens rea must be the direct cause of the actus reus for motivational concurrence
- The criminal intent must lead to the guilty act (forming the intent to kill before shooting someone)
- If the actus reus occurs independently of the mens rea, motivational concurrence may not be established
Mens rea as causal impetus
- The mens rea must serve as the impetus or catalyst for the actus reus
- The guilty mind must provoke or trigger the criminal act (deciding to rob a bank leading to the actual robbery)
- Without the mens rea as the causal factor, motivational concurrence could be lacking
Crimes vs attendant circumstances
- Concurrence requirements differ between the intent for the criminal act itself and the knowledge of attendant circumstances
- Attendant circumstances are factors that must be present for a crime to occur but are not part of the actus reus
Intent for criminal act
- The mens rea for the criminal act must concur with the actus reus
- The intent to commit the crime must be present during the guilty act (intending to steal while physically taking property)
- Concurrence is essential between the mens rea and actus reus of the core criminal offense
Knowledge of circumstances
- Knowledge of attendant circumstances must exist at the time of the criminal act
- The awareness of factual circumstances that make the conduct criminal must coincide with the actus reus (knowing a gun is loaded while pointing it at someone)
- Concurrence of knowledge and action is required, but the circumstances need not be intentional
Liability for unintended consequences
- In some cases, concurrence can extend liability to unintended consequences of criminal acts
- Defendants may be held responsible for additional harm caused by their initial criminal conduct
Natural and probable consequences
- A defendant can be liable for natural and probable consequences stemming from their criminal act
- If further crimes are reasonably foreseeable results of the original act, concurrence may apply (assaulting someone who later dies from their injuries)
- The mens rea for the initial crime is deemed to concur with the unintended but probable outcomes
Felony murder rule
- The felony murder rule holds defendants liable for deaths occurring during the commission of a felony
- If a death results from the commission of certain inherently dangerous felonies, the intent to commit the felony is considered to concur with the murder (a victim dying during a bank robbery)
- This transfers the mens rea from the felony to the murder charge, establishing concurrence
Concurrence exceptions
- Some exceptions to the concurrence requirement exist in criminal law
- These exceptions allow for criminal liability even when strict concurrence is not present
Transferred intent doctrine
- The transferred intent doctrine applies when the mens rea and actus reus concur, but the actual harm occurs to an unintended victim
- If a defendant intends to harm one person but mistakenly harms another, the intent is transferred to the actual victim (shooting at Person A but hitting Person B instead)
- Concurrence is maintained by transferring the intent from the intended to the actual target of the criminal act
Strict liability offenses
- Strict liability offenses do not require mens rea, so concurrence with an actus reus is not necessary
- Certain crimes, often minor offenses, impose liability based on the act alone, regardless of mental state (traffic violations, statutory rape)
- The lack of a mens rea requirement eliminates the need for concurrence in strict liability crimes
Key Terms to Review (15)
Actus reus: Actus reus refers to the physical act or conduct that constitutes a criminal offense. It includes not just the actions taken by an individual but also omissions or failures to act in certain situations where there is a legal duty to do so, playing a crucial role in determining liability in criminal law.
Mens Rea: Mens rea refers to the mental state or intent of a person when committing a criminal act. It plays a crucial role in distinguishing between different levels of culpability, as it assesses whether the individual had a guilty mind at the time of the offense, which is essential for establishing liability in criminal law.
Preponderance of Evidence: Preponderance of evidence is a legal standard used in civil cases, requiring that the evidence presented by one side outweighs that of the other. This standard is met when it is more likely than not that a claim is true, tipping the scales in favor of one party. This concept is crucial for understanding how liability and defenses are evaluated in various legal scenarios.
Volitional Act: A volitional act refers to a conscious and deliberate action taken by an individual, reflecting their intention and will to perform that act. This concept is crucial in criminal law as it helps distinguish between actions that are performed with intent versus those that occur accidentally or involuntarily, which can impact liability and culpability in legal cases.
Intentionality: Intentionality refers to the quality of being deliberate and purposeful in one’s actions, particularly in the context of criminal law where it signifies that a person acted with the intention to bring about a specific result. This concept is crucial as it distinguishes between various levels of culpability based on the actor’s state of mind when committing an act, impacting how crimes are classified and prosecuted.
Foreseeability: Foreseeability refers to the ability to predict or anticipate potential consequences of actions or events. In the context of law, it plays a crucial role in establishing liability, as it helps determine whether a person should have anticipated the results of their conduct. It links closely to the concepts of concurrence and causation, as determining foreseeability can impact whether an act and its consequences are legally connected.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in criminal trials, requiring that the evidence presented by the prosecution must leave no reasonable uncertainty in the mind of a juror about the defendant's guilt. This standard underscores the principle that it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be wrongfully convicted. This concept is crucial as it establishes the threshold for conviction and plays a vital role in the interplay between elements of a crime and defenses.
Cause-in-fact: Cause-in-fact is a legal concept that establishes a direct link between an individual's actions and the resulting harm or consequence. It determines whether the harm would have occurred 'but for' the defendant's actions, meaning that if the defendant had not acted in a particular way, the harmful outcome would not have happened. Understanding cause-in-fact is essential for determining liability in criminal law, as it helps establish the connection between the defendant's conduct and the resulting effect.
People v. Smith: People v. Smith is a significant legal case that deals with the principles of criminal law, particularly focusing on the elements of concurrence in the context of criminal liability. In this case, the court examined how a defendant's intent must align with their actions at the moment of committing a crime, establishing the necessity for a direct link between mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty act). This ruling underscores the foundational concept that both elements must coincide for an individual to be held criminally responsible.
R v. Cunningham: R v. Cunningham is a landmark case in criminal law from 1957 that established the concept of recklessness in the context of mens rea, or guilty mind. This case addressed whether the defendant had acted with the requisite state of mind necessary for a conviction of unlawfully causing harm to another, leading to the clarification of how courts interpret recklessness in criminal offenses.
Proximate Cause: Proximate cause refers to an event that is legally sufficient to result in liability, establishing a direct link between the defendant's actions and the injury suffered by the victim. This concept is crucial in determining whether a defendant should be held legally responsible for the consequences of their actions, emphasizing that the harm must be a foreseeable result of those actions. It helps to delineate between the direct and indirect effects of a defendant's conduct on an outcome.
Substantial Factor Test: The substantial factor test is a legal standard used to determine whether a defendant's actions can be considered a significant cause of a particular outcome or harm in tort law and criminal law. This test helps establish causation by examining if the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the result, distinguishing it from other contributing factors that may also be involved.
Concurrence Requirement: The concurrence requirement is a principle in criminal law that mandates the simultaneous existence of both the actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind) in order for an individual to be held criminally liable for an offense. This means that the intent to commit a crime must coincide with the actual commission of the criminal act, ensuring that individuals are not punished for actions taken without the requisite state of mind. This concept plays a crucial role in establishing culpability and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.
Motivational Concurrence: Motivational concurrence refers to the alignment between an individual's intention to commit a crime and the actual act of committing that crime. This concept highlights the necessity for both the mental state (mens rea) and the physical act (actus reus) to coincide in order for a criminal offense to occur. Understanding motivational concurrence is essential as it plays a crucial role in determining culpability and the legal consequences of actions within the framework of criminal law.
Temporal Concurrence: Temporal concurrence refers to the requirement that the actus reus (the physical act) and the mens rea (the mental state) must coincide in time for a crime to be established. This principle ensures that a person's intention to commit a crime aligns with their actions, creating a necessary link between what someone intended and what they actually did. Without this connection, it becomes challenging to hold someone criminally liable for their actions.