 |
Note
the facts of Martin carefully. The statute he was convicted
under has several "elements." In other words, to be guilt of violating
this statute, Martin's conduct must satisfy each stated element.
The predicate facts must form the actus reus of the crime. What are the
elements that need to be met? |
|
The next question
is did Martin's conduct satisfy the elements of the crime? If so,
on what grounds did he appeal. It is not clearly stated and you must
infer. Did the court agree? What does it mean when it speaks
of the "plain terms of the statute?" The most important question
to consider is why is voluntariness so important to establishing that a
defendant committed the actus reus of a crime? The model penal Code
comment on page 174 gives one explanation. Is deterrence the only
one? |
|
|
|
Note that it
is important to distinguish duress from involuntary action.
What is the distinction between physically putting Martin in the street
and instructing him to do so with the threat of harm if he does not? |
|
|
|
People v.
Newton is a manslaughter case. Yet the issue is the same as it
was in Martin. Once you go over the facts of the case attempt to
write the issue in your own words. How do consciousness and voluntariness
relate to each other? Try to think what other kinds of events this
rule would reach. Read page 175 carefully. Read the Model Penal
Code referenced and see if it follows common law majority rule on consciousness. |
|
 |
|
Always think
in terms of a continuum. One one side is obviously involuntary "actions"
such as being physically pushed. On the other side is obviously voluntary
conduct such as habit (why is habit voluntary?). Along the continuum
are other states which are more open to argument.
Hypnosis:
note distinction between Code and common law page 176
Sleepwalking
Epileptic attacks
|
|
|
|
It is important
to maintain the analytical distinction between nonaction and excused actions
(page 179). Lack of a voluntary action means that no action occurred
at all. For example, if my hand is forced to pull a trigger, it logically
cannot be said that I acted to pull the trigger, for action is by definition
voluntary. There are of course hard choices, which would possibly
fall under excused conduct such as a duress defense. |
|
|
|
The
Act Must be Physical not Just A Thought |
|
Note that it
is possible to have mental disposition to do a wrong -- a bad thought --
and yet to not act upon it. We do not hold personss culpable for
wicked thoughts, only wicked deeds (and actus reus) accompanied by a wicked
thought. As Blackstone says we cannot know the inner hears
of humans, and too as Stephen remarks it is part of the human condition
to have wicked thoughts. The moral question is whether we choose
to act on those thoughts, or refuse them. Indeed, the most noble
human is the one who goes against his own desires and follows the law. |
