Johnny Juneau - Illustrating Actus Reus, Mens Rea and Mistake of Fact - Essay Example

Johnny Juneau Case: illustrating actus reus, mens rea and mistake of fact I. Defense for Johnny Juneau Johnny Juneau must be an unfortunate chap. Aside from not making much out of his life, he is now facing serious criminal charges of which he does not have the intention to commit. The charges hurled against him ranged from the possession of the nutria, theft of the gas, and the murder of the neighbor and faces long if not life jail term if convicted. The two charges, namely, murder and theft are the most serious of the three because if convicted, Johnny could be imprisoned for life. To begin with the defense of Johnny, it is important to stress the elements of a crime. Crime should constitute actus reus and mens rea or the intention and execution of such unlawful act. The mistake of information shall also be invoked to profess that it was never an intention of Johnny to defraud the gas station that prompted the owner to file theft charges against Johnny. The actual act of the crime is actus reus. It was derived from the principle stated by Edward Coke that stated actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty". Such, the guilt of a crime requires culpability and proof of fault both in intent and act. Following the principles of actus reus, criminal act is committed by doing it, omission and possession. Acting on a crime meant a “bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary” to consummate the crime (Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 1962). Applying this principle to Johnny, the alleged criminal charge of murder was not a product of his bodily movement. Omission pertains to the failure to act the necessary bodily movement that resulted to harm which in Johnny’s case, the electrocution of his neighbor of which he was charged for being responsible of the neighbor’s death. It is important to note however that the Criminal Penal Code can only qualify such act under omission to be criminal if its satisfies the following two elements; that 1. The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or 2. A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law (for example one must file a tax return). Lastly, for possession to become a criminal act, it should be engaged as a voluntary act. For the act to be exempted from voluntary act that would constitute the culpability of actus reus, exemption falls under the following elements; 1. A reflex or convulsion; 2. A bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep; 3. Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion; 4. A bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or the determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual. Mens rea as a component of crime on the other hand is the intent, process or planning to commit the crime. It is the deliberative aspect of committing a crime which in Johnny’s case must be satisfied to qualify the electrocution of his neighbor as murder. To illustrate actus reus and mens rea, we would be compelled to cite an example to differentiate these two concepts. Planning to kill or rob as a mens rea is not a crime until it acted upon (mens rea). These two concepts when linked together constitute a crime that often leads to conviction. a. Defense on murder charge The death through electrocution of Johnny’s neighbor was never intentional. In no circumstance did Johnny demonstrate intent, deliberation or any motivation to inflict harm or death to the neighbor. In fact, Johnny was even grateful for borrowing the ladder. In fact, Johnny Juneau himself could have been killed by the unfortunate incident because he was still using the ladder on his way down when it touched an uninsulated part of the gas store’s sign that made it electrified. There was no way Johnny could have known that would happen.  Yet, he is still charged with murder on the ground that his behavior led to the electrocution of his neighbor that falls on the ground of omission of actus reus. But charging Johnny on the culpability of the death of his neighbor on the ground of omission fell short of satisfying the criteria of omission to constitute Johnny’s act or inaction as a crime. The touching of the ladder to the uninsulated part of the gas store’s sign and became electrified is NOT expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense. Nowhere in the penal code can be found that the accidental electrification of a ladder constitutes an omission that would constitute actus reus. Nor was it deliberate, because Johnny himself could have been killed by the same because the ladder touched the uninsulated part of the gas store while he was still on it when he descended from the ladder. It was not also a breach of a duty to perform to avoid the electrification of a ladder. The law does not prescribe that when using a ladder, it should not touch an uninsulated part of a gas store sign. Common sense dictates that had it been deliberate it would have also electrocuted Johnny Juneau. It was just an unfortunate and tragic accident that Johnny was not aware of nor intended to do and as such, Johnny Juneau must be declared innocent of the murder charge. b. Defense on theft charge To demonstrate that the allegation of theft against Johnny Juneau is preposterous, it would be necessary to invoke the principle of mistake of fact to prove that Johnny did not steal anything from the gas owner. As what can be gleaned from the defendant’s background, Johnny was under the impression that there was mistake on the price of the gallon of gas because he thought the price of gas was only $1.42 per gallon with a 2 cents increase from the previously known price of $1.40 to the defendant. He made the perceived correction under broad day light, for all to see, to demonstrate that there was no intention to neither defraud nor steal. Again, the act of Johnny Juneau of which he was charged with theft lacks mens rea or intention to wrong the gas owner. It was in fact done in good faith because he thought the owner made a mistake and wanted to do him a favor by doing the correction himself. This is a clear case of a mistake of fact. To finally demonstrate Johnny’s innocence of the theft charge, the mistake of fact can be reformed or corrected. While the deputy thought that the sale of gas was on sale, the price can easily be rectified by explaining to the deputy that it was Johnny’s mistake of fact that reflected the erroneous price. The price can be readily changed and the deputy, being a law enforcer must know what mistake of fact is to understand the correction. Such, Johnny Juneau should also be cleared on the charge of theft on the following grounds; foremost, there was an absence of mens rea or intention to defraud or steal, the change in price was done in good faith and under broad light for all to see and lastly, there was a mistake of fact that can easily be reformed or changed to reflect the real price of the gallon of gas. c. Defense on possession of nutria To clear Johnny on the charge of illegally possessing nutria, which the government regulated as an endangered species, it would be necessary to establish that his acts were involuntary in addition to the lack of intention to commit a crime or lack of mens rea. Johnny had been bartering nutrias for years and to attest this, he had a set price of his nutria which is $2 per pound based on his historical sale. This demonstrates that such act of bartering nutria was a result of a reflex which resulted from the habitual bodily act to barter through the years. Also, the manner in which Johnny offered the exchange which is barter, was done openly and indiscreet which foretells that he was doing it out of habit and without criminal intent. Selling of nutria might be a strict liability but the manner of which the crime was alleged exempts Johnny from the liability because his act of bartering the nutria was done out of reflex and thus involuntary. II. Weaknesses in the defendant’s positions Given the predicament that Johnny Juneau was in, it was not surprising that he did not made much out of his life. He lacked the most common of common sense that put him in trouble which was illustrated in the case. The consequence, although unintentional, was grave and tragic that to excuse him from any liability can be difficult given the damaged he has done. Under the present law and invoking the technicalities of intent and commission of crime, Johnny may have been defended well but his position has also some weaknesses to wit; a. Defense on murder charge No matter what argument is thrown to shield Johnny from criminal liability, the fact still remains that his negligence caused the termination of a person’s life. True, it was never his intention to kill or harm the neighbor but he borrowed the ladder without the neighbor’s permission or consent. Such, the tragedy was precipitated by Johnny because the neighbor would not have been electrocuted had he borrowed the ladder with consent from the owner because the owner will not have to take it back which resulted in his electrocution and death. Johnny may not be convicted of murder but there is likelihood that he will be convicted of involuntary homicide. b. Defense on theft charge Just like the case of Johnny’s borrowing of the neighbor’s ladder without consent, Johnny did the same of changing the price of the price of gasoline without the gas owner’s permission. Had he asked, the owner would not have been inconvenienced by Johnny’s change of the price which led to the charge of theft. The lack of permission from the owner made the action unilateral and under the principle of mistake by fact, such cannot be invoked if the mistake is done by one party and without the consent of the other party. If the prosecution will bring up the idea that Johnny did not ask for permission from the owner, it would make defending him very difficult. c. Defense on possession of nutria If the prosecution will invoke that “the ignorance of the law excuses no one”, Johnny might be in serious trouble and might be convicted of the possession of nutria. It may not be intentional to sell or barter government regulated specie but the strict liability nature of the crime cannot excuse Johnny from his lack of intent to commit the crime. Read More