Criminal Law Spring 06

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Requirement of a Voluntary Act and Status As an Act (Due by 7:00 on Monday Night 2/6/06)

In this blog we will be working with information from chapter 3 in the text.

If your last name begins in A-L, answer questions 1,2 and 3 on page 60.

If your last name begins in M-Z, answer questions 1,2,4 and 5 on page 66 & 67.

23 Comments:

At 11:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1.According to the courts Actus reus is a general criminal liability and a constitutional requirments actus reus meaning "guilty act" is one of the external elements to a crime you have to commit the guilty act to be held liable or else it will be unconstitutional

2. Leroy powell was arrested because he was drunk, intoxicated in a public place in violation of vernon's ann Texas penal code

3. They were trying to prove his alcoholism a condition but there is yet proof to back that up. he was a chronic drinker

5. It was a voluntairy act because before he got drunk he had the ability to choose whether he wanted to drink in public or not.

 
At 1:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the case of King v. Cogdon Pat's death was a result from the act of Mrs. Cogdon's mental state.Mrs.Cogdon went to sleep dreaming of a war, due to the war she wound up attacking her daughter pat with a axe.Mrs. Cogdon left her bed,grabbed an axe and went into pats room where she struck pat with two forceful blows on the head.The evidence that supports that Mrs.Cogdon's act was involuntary was the evidence from her physician, phychiatrist, and psychologist.There was a possibility of psychiatric treatment for Mrs. Cogdon due to previous situations about her dreams.I believe Mrs.Cogdon could have prevented Pat's death if she would have gotten treatment as suggested by her doctor.

 
At 5:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Before Pat's death Mrs. Cogdon had a dream that her house was full of spiders and they were crawling all over Pat. In her sleep Mrs. Cogdon left her bed and went to her daughters room and found herself violently brushing her daugthers face. The morning after the dream Mrs. Cogdon went to see her doctor and told him what happened the night before. He then prescribed her sedatives. That same night her and Pat had a conversation about the war in Korea and before Pat put her lights out she told her mom "Mum, dont be so silly worrying there about the war, it's not on our front door step yet." Mrs. Cogdon went to bed and had a dream that the war was all around the house and that there were soldiers in Pat's room and one of them was attaking her. When Mrs. Cogdon woke she was running out of pats room out the house to her sisters house next door, Mrs. Cogdon fell into her sisters arms crying "I think I've hurt Pattie."

2. The evidence used to decide whether Mrs. Cogdon's acts were involuntary where evidence from her physician, psychiatrist and a psychologist.

3. Mrs. Cogdon could've asked for help. She could've ask her doctor for his input on the situation and what was his opinion.

 
At 3:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1.Yes, Actus reus is the only principle of criminal liability that's also a constitutional requirement. The criminal act is ont of the elements of criminal liability the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Actus reus can be proved without references to mens rea, the intent of the actor.

2.Leroy was found quilty for being intoxicated in public places on a certain occasion in Texas, which was illegal to get drunk or intoxicated in public area or someone else's house besides your own, which may create substantial health and safety hazard to himself and to the public.

4.Yes, he was a cronic alcoholic.

5.Yes, it was a "voluntary exercise of his will" when he took the first drink.

 
At 12:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. No actus reus is not a constitutional requirement, in Powell v. Texas 392 U.S. 514 (1968). the court ruled that the reasons people commit some acts are constantly changing and adjusting, therefore the process of adjustment has always been left to the States. Making a constitutional rule "would reduce if not eliminate...fruitful experimentation and freeze the dialouge between law and psychiatry". Some actions are not yet clear to either doctors or lawyers to include into the Constitution.

2. Leroy Powell violated Penal Code, Art. 477 (1952), which reads "Whoever shall get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in any public place, or at any private house except his own, shall be fined not exceeding $100.

4. At the time of Powell's arrest and trial and appeal, alcoholism was not considered a condition

5. It was not so.

 
At 1:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

resubmit for question one.
my first answer is wrong I misunderstood the question.The revised answer is.
1. Actus reus is the only principle of criminal liability that's also a constitutional requirement

 
At 12:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. The courts decision on actus reus,it's cruel and unusual punishment to sentence someone to "even a day"for an illness.Why? Addiciton isn't an act: it's invoulntary condition.The courts say ,we can't blame them, then it's not fair to punish them. Actus reus consists of two requirements: bodily movements and free will. the reasoning goes like this:
1.Criminal law punishes people.
2.We can only punish people we can blame.
3.We can only resopnsilble for their voluntary actions.
4.People are only responsilbe for their voluntary actions.
A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct that includes a voulntary act. The omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable.This is why i beleive that according to the courts only voulntary acts are considered menus reus.

2.Leroy Powell was arrested because he was found drunk. Which is a violation of the Texas Penal code.Which states: "Whosoever hsall get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in any public place , or at any private house except his own, shal be fined not exceeding onehundred dollars. powell had been found guilty numerous times.

4.Aloholism is not his condition he chose to be a chronic drinker and did not care about the consequnces.He kept drinking in public places therefore it led to his arrest.

5. Yes, it is s a voluntary act he drank of his own free will which is a crime in Texas. It took place as soon as he stepped into the public area.

 
At 8:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1.) Mrs. Cogdon's acts resulting in Pat's death: Mrs. Cogdon's act was somnambulism (sleepwalking). During this unconscious state Mrs. Cogdon "left her bed, fetched an axe from the woodheap, entered Pat's room, and struck her daughter with two accurate forceful blows on the head with the blade of the axe, thus killing her" (60).

2.) Mrs. Cogdon's defense was supported by her physician, a psychiatrist, and a psychologist. Mrs.Cogdon was sleepwalking and does not recall killing her daughter and the only conscious memory she remembers having is running to her sister's house who lived next door. Also, Mrs. Cogdon had a close relationship with her daughter Pat and only wanted to protect her daughter from harm.

3.) I do not think there was much else Mrs. Cogdon could have done in order to prevent herself from killing her daughter Pat. Mrs. Cogdon told her doctor about her spider dream, she then took a sedative and also spoke to her doctor about receiving psychiatric treatment. Maybe Mrs. Cogdon could have locked her bedroom door and window in order to prevent herself from escaping her bedroom in the middle of the night.

 
At 8:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Yes, Because the Constitution requires a criminal act (Actus Reus) to prove criminal liability.

2. He appeared drunk in public which under Penal Code Art. 477 which reads "Whoever shall get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in any public place, or at any private house except his own, shall be fined not exceeding one hundred dollars."

4. No. It was considered a disease of alcholism.

 
At 9:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1.) All of Mrs.Cogdon's acts resulting in Pat's death were:
Mrs.Cogdon was dreaming that the Korean war was all around the house and that there was a soldier on Pat's bed attacking her. Mrs.Cogdon then fetched an axe from the woodheap, entered Pat's beadroom, and struck her two accurate forceful blows on the head with the blade of the axe, thus killing her. (pg. 60)

2.) Mrs.Cogdon was supported by the evidence of her physician, a psychiatrist, and a pshychologist. The jury concluded with the medical and psychological evidence, that Mrs. Cogdon didnt intend the natural consequences of her acts. Also, the doctor had prescribed her a sedative and discussed psychiatric treatment.

3.) I don' think that there was much Mrs.Cogdon could have done to prevent Pat's death. Taking the sedative deepened Mrs. Cogdons sleep therefore she was more incohearant than usual. She could have slept somewhere else or had Pat sleep next door at her sisters house. Also, she could have somehow locked herself in the room. She also could have went to psychiatric tratments right away and stood overnight until they got her problem under control.

 
At 10:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) More information would have to be given for instance was the defendent on medication? was he taking it per schedule?Has he had problems with this befor?Thia should not be considered a "guilty act" or for that matter neglegent.So i would say given the info i have been given ( or lack there of)that this was involuntary.

2)Yes. I do think this was voluntary , although the doctor stated Mr. Fulcher had a brain injury that caused him to attack he did go to a bar, get drunk, get into a fight, passed out then taken to jail were he subsequently attack another man. So whether he was aware of what he was doing or not his actions prior to passing out( getting drunk, fighting) caused this to accur.

4)Involuntary.the defendent had know knowledge of what he was doing nor did he have any control over what he was doing so the decision of the courts was correct.

 
At 11:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Actus reus is a genera principle of criminal liabilities and a constitutional requierments for the fact that its you're own bodly actions and you're free will that make you choose or definds you're act.

2. Mr. Leory Powell was found quilty of being intoxicated; in Texas the law for being intoxicated is you can be intoxicated but it has to be in the privacy of you're own house and for this act he was first fined $20 dollars.

4. In my opinion yes it is an addiction, I have an uncle who never stops drinking. Ever since i was born he was in that same state of being, we all have asked him if he can stop for a week atleast he admitted the he can't.

5. It's a voluntary act, for the fact that he knows he provocked the addiction and it was his foult for being intoxicated in December 1966, specially in Texas.

 
At 12:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. The acts of Mrs. Cogdon leading to Pat's death was an Involuntary Act. Mrs. Cogdon believed in her dream that Pat was getting hurt by a soilder from the Korean War so while she was in her "somnambulistic state, left her bed, fetched an axe from the woodleap, entered Pat's room, and struck her two accurate forceful blows on the head with the blade of the axe, thus killing her". Another thing in fact that I believed led to Pat's death is the fact that Mrs. Cogdon had a deep attachment with Pat on a "conscious level", which in my point of veiw meant that Mrs. Cogdon unconsciously hated Pat which could be considered as an act resulting in Pat's death.
2. Her story was supported by her physican, a psychiatrist, and a psycologist. The fact that Mrs. Cogdon is naturally going to suffer the consequences of murdering her only child is evident enough that it was not an voluntary act but in fact an involuntary act.
3. Yes and No. Yes because she could of seeked help after the first incident. No. because I feel as though she unconsciously hated Pat and tried to kill Pat several times and If Pat would of survived Mrs. Cogdon would of still killed in the near future

 
At 1:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1.yes. you must have actus reus to prove mens rea,reserves the harsh sanction, and protect the privacy of individuals without actus reus you cannot prove thses three which would be unconstitutional.
2. He was intoxicated in a public place, which violates Texas penal Code, Art 477.
4.yes Dr. David Wade determined that powell is a chronic alcoholic.
5.yes. That he drinks and is unable to control is actions. Austin Texas.

 
At 1:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mrs. Cogdons acts that resulted in Pat's death were her psychiatric state as well as an underlying problem that she may have had with her child. The case states that she had a few disturbing dreams which all resulted in her harming Pat in one way or another. The fist dream was of spiders attacking Pat and Mrs. Cogdon thought she was saving her by violently brushing her face. The next dream was of ghosts talking to her and telling her that they had come for Pattie. The final dream was when Mrs. Cogdon and Pat had a discussion about the war in Korea and retired to bed and sometime after going to sleep Mrs. Cogdon had a dream that the war was all around there house and that a soldier was attacking Pat. When she woke up she realized that she had done something bad and was telling her sister who lived next door that she had harmed Pat. Struck with an axe in the head two times. She was excused because it was believed to have taken place while she was sleepwalking .

2) The evidence that was relevent to deciding that Mrs. Cogdon's acts were involuntary were the fact that she was sleepwalking, she had evidence from her psychiatrist as well as a psychologist.
3) Mrs. Cogdon could have prevented Pat's death. Pat's death could have been prevented if Mrs. Cogdon would have realized that her relationship with her daughter was not as good as it seemed and if she would have gone to a doctor sooner in order to receive the proper treatment.

 
At 2:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) Yes. Actus Reus is a general principle of ciminal liability and a constitutional requirement. To be liable for a crime one thing you have to have is the actual guilty act, which is actus reus. However there must be proof beyond a resonable doubt that a crime was committed.

2) Leroy Powell landed himself in criminal court because he was found in a stated of intoxication in a public place. This act violated the vernon's ann Texas penal code.

4) Although he could not use this as a defense in court, his alcoholism was found to be a condition. This condition is known as chronic alcoholism, which is a disease that destroys the afflicted person's will power to resist the constant, excessive consumption of alcohol.

5) Yes this resulted from a voluntary act because while sober he knew the difference between right and wrong. The act was drinking and public and took place when he took his first drink.

 
At 3:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1.) Mrs. Cogdon's acts for killing her daughter simply started from the dreams she experienced. She suffered from a condition known as somnambulism, otherwise considered sleepwalking, which is a form of automatism, which includes acts committed when you're unconscious. The first dream mentioned in the passage included Mrs. Cogdon violently brushing spiders off from Pat's face. Upon awakening her, Mrs. Cogdon implied that she was just tucking her in. The next dream mentioned, which Mrs. Cogdon had previously experienced, had to deal with ghosts sitting on the end of her bed. She said to them "Well, you have come to take Pattie." No bodily harm was inflicted towards Pattie in this dream. The third and final dream
that Mrs. Cogdon experienced had to deal with the war in Korea, which she and her daughter discussed prior to her [Mrs Cogdon] falling asleep. Pat stated "Mum, don't be so silly worrying there about the war, it's not on our front doorstep yet." In her dream, Mrs. Cogdon experienced the war around her house and also noticed soldiers were in Pat's bedroom, one of them attacking her. Mrs. Cogdon went with her initial instinct and grabbed an axe, striking two blows to Pat's head, which killed her.

2.)The evidence relevant to deciding whether Mrs. Cogdon's acts were involuntary are: first the fact that Mrs. Cogdon consulted with her doctor on the matter and seeked some treatment.

Another piece of evidence you consider is the consitency of what she stated she dreamt as to the actual real life situation. For example, when she said that she dreamt of spiders attacking her daughter, it was also known that her neighbors bred spiders as a hobby.

In addition, her husband's testimony should also be considered as evidence that her acts were involuntary.

3.) I think that there are some things that Mrs. Cogdon could've done to have prevented this tragedy. One thing she could've done was sleep over at her sister's house, who lived right next door. Another step she could've taken to have prevented this was to seek more intense psychiatric and psychological care to help rectify her problem.

 
At 4:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Yes, Actus Reus is a general principle of criminal liability. This is one of the elements that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

2.Mr. Powell was arrested for being intoxicated in a public place.He violated Penal Code, Art 477(1952), whoever shall get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in amy public place, or at any private house except his own, shall be fined not exceeding $100.00.
4. Yes this was definitely a condition. Mr. Powell had no control over his behavior once he was intoxicated.
5. No. Addiction is considered an act. It is an involuntary condition.

 
At 4:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mrs. Codgen began having dreams a day before Pat's muder in which in a "somnambulistic state" Mrs. Codgen began reacting to these dreams in real time consequently becoming physically violent with Pat. In the incident that occured a day before post mordem Mrs. Codgen believed that spiders were attacking the house house and Pat. In her "somnambulistic state" she began to violently brush the spiders she invisioned in her dream waking Pat. she shared this incident with her psychiatrist, at which point he gave her a sedative and suggested treatment. Later that night before settling in for bed Mrs codgen and Pat had a discussion about the Korean War. As a result mrs Codgen had a dream about the Korean war in which soldiers were attacking the house. In another attempt to save her daughter she grabbed an axe and proceed to Pat's bedroom were she struck Pat twice in the head with the blade part of the axe.

2. The evidence that Mrs. Codgen confided in her psychiatrist the day before was profe at least that her condition was pre existing and she was seeking help.It can be assumed that during these "somnambulistic states" one cannot not be held resposible for actions considered voulantary.

3.No. She sought help the day before and she had no way of knowing that her actions would be deadly.

 
At 5:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. The act of constantly worrying about Pat's neurotic condition. The constant dreaming about someone hurting her only child. Sleepwalking to help her daughter, because she was fearful and believe that someone was trying to hurt her daughter. Sedatives could have caused a deeper sleep. Conversaion with daughter regarding the war and hearing her daughter voice ("Mum, don't be silly worrying ther about the war, it's not on our front doorstep yet.") last before going to sleep.

2. When Mrs. Cogdon first experienced the dreams she expressed it to her doctor. Her husband testified explaining his wife and daughters relationship. Also the supported evidence of her physician, pschiatrist and a psychologist.

3. Yes. The fact that she explained the dream to her doctor and was well aware of previous problems. She could have done more than discuss the possibilities about seeking psychiatric treatment. There could of been a discussion with her daughters psychiatrist, to see if there were any similarities in what she experienced. Maybe she could have moved her daughter to her aunts house or even get her own place, Pat was 19yrs old. Mrs. Cogdon should have never asked to be alone with Pat by herself.

 
At 5:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Mrs. Cogdon acts resulting in Pat's death included
Mrs. Codgen admitted that one day before Pat's murder, she had a "somnambulistic state" dreams. She began reacting to these dreams, which led to her physically abusing Pat. Her first dream included spiders crawling all over Pat. While sub-unconscious she began to violently brush the spiders she thought see saw in her dream thus awaking Pat. She would reveal this to her psychiatrist and was advised to start treatment for this. During the evening of Pat’s death, Mrs. Codgen and her daughter shared their views and opinions on the Korean War. After tucking Pat to bed, Mrs. Codgen went to sleep. She would go on to dream about the Korean War actually taking place around her home. In her dream she envisioned soldiers in Pat’s room attacking Pat. While in her dream (sleepwalking) she attempted to save her daughter by obtaining an axe and going to Pat's bedroom were she struck Pat with two “accurate forceful blows” on the head with the blade of the axe which killed Pat.

2. The following is evidence that suggests that Mrs. Cogdon's actions were involuntary.

She was not in her right state of mind at the time of the killing, she sought medical attention via a psychiatrist after the dream with the spiders to explain the dreams and behaviors resulting from the dreams, she doesn't remember killing her daughter but does remember running to her sister's home and telling her that she THINKS she hurt Pat, and finally the medical and psychiatric evidence backed up the jury's findings that she did not intend the natural consequences of her act.

3. The only think Mrs. Cogdon could have done to prevent this from happening would have been to stay away from her home by committing herself to a psychatric ward until she was evaluated further. The dream regarding the Korean war was not the first dream in which she could not seperate from reality. Earlier she dreamed ghosts were at the foot of her bed and she said "Well you have to take Pattie".

 
At 5:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Mrs. Cogdon's act was due to her mental condition, known as somnambulism. Her sleep walking and dreams had lead her to strike Pat twice on the head with an axe, killing her.
2. Evidence from Mrs. Cogdon's phychiatrist, psychologist, and physician proved that her act was involuntary. "The unamimous support given to it by the medical and pysycholigical evidence, completely rebutted the presumption that Mrs. Cogdon intended the natural consequences of her acts."
3. Mrs. Cogdon could have isolated herself from Pat, knowing that she has had dreams and interactions with Pat while she was sleeping in the past.

 
At 5:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Emil Decina's act was not voluntary.
2. Robert Fulcher's act during the fight was also not voluntary.
3.Bruce's act of robbing and kidnapping were voluntary because there was an intent.An unconscious person would not just pick on somebody to rob, kill or kidnap.His defence of unconsciousness is a defence of excuse.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home