Voluntariness Actus reus

1 voluntariness

1.1 reflex or convulsion
1.2 unconsciousness or sleep
1.3 hypnosis
1.4 omission

voluntariness

for conduct constitute actus reus, must engaged in voluntarily. few sources enumerate entirety of constitutes voluntary , involuntary conduct. oliver wendell holmes, in 1881 book common law, disputed whether such thing involuntary act exists: [a] spasm not act. contraction of muscles must willed. few sources, such model penal code, provide more thorough treatment of involuntary conduct:

reflex or convulsion

generally, if, during uncontrollable flailing caused sudden paroxysmal episode, such produced epileptic seizure, person strikes another, person not criminally liable injuries sustained other person. however, if prior assault on another, seized individual engaging in conduct knew dangerous given previous history of seizures, culpable injuries resulting seizure. example, in people v. decina, 2 n.y.2d 133 (1956), defendant, emil decina, appealed conviction under § 1053-a of new york penal law. on march 14, 1955, decina suffered serious seizure while operating motor vehicle. swerved wildly through streets , struck group of school girls, killing 4 of them. on direct examination, decina s physician testified decina informed him prior accident noticed jerking of right hand , recounted extensive history of seizures, consequence of brain damage automobile accident @ age seven. decina argued, inter alia, had not engaged in criminal conduct because did not voluntarily strike school girls. new york court of appeals disagreed , held since defendant knew susceptible seizure @ time without warning , decided operate motor vehicle on public highway anyway, guilty of offense. hold otherwise, wrote froessel, j, man may freely indulge himself in liquor in same hope not affect driving, , if later develops ensuing intoxication causes dangerous , reckless driving resulting in death, unconsciousness or involuntariness @ time relieve him prosecution[.]

unconsciousness or sleep

in hill v baxter, kilmuir, lc, articulated necessity of eliminating automatism, defined existence in person of behaviour of unaware , on has no conscious control, in proving voluntariness of actus reus:

[n]ormally presumption of mental capacity sufficient prove acted consciously , voluntarily , prosecution need go no further. but, if after considering evidence left them judge, jury left in real doubt whether or not accused acted in state of automatism...they should acquit because necessary mens rea—if indeed actus reus—has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

thus, person suffering somnambulism, fugue, metabolic disorder, epilepsy, or other convulsive or reflexive disorder, kills another, steals s property, or engages in other facially criminal conduct, may not have committed actus reus, such conduct may have been elicited unconsciously, , 1 engages in otherwise criminal conduct not guilty of crime if in state of unconsciousness[.] depending on jurisdiction, automatism may defense distinct insanity or species of it.

hypnosis

while general scientific consensus hypnosis cannot induce individuals engage in conduct in not otherwise engage, model penal code, criminal codes of montana, new york, , kentucky provide hypnosis , hypnotic suggestion negating volition, , consequently, actus reus.

perhaps earliest case of hypnotism negating voluntary conduct california v. ebanks, 49 p 1049 (cal. 1897). in ebanks, court categorically rejected ebanks argument trial court committed reversible err in denying him leave present expert testimony concerning effects of hypnotism on will. lower court bluntly remarked [t]he law of united states not recognize hypnotism. illegal defense, , cannot admit it. sixty years later, however, california court of appeals ruled trial court did not err in allowing expert testimony on hypnosis, though did not rule on whether hypnotism negates volition. supreme court of canada ruled confessions made under hypnosis inadmissible because involuntarily given; germany , denmark provide hypnotist defense.

omission

voluntariness includes omission, implicit in omission actor voluntarily chose not perform bodily movement and, consequently, caused injury. purposeful, reckless, or negligent absence of action considered voluntary action , fulfills voluntary requirement of actus reus.