 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
 |
| Criminal law |
|---|
| Elements |
| Scope of criminalliability |
| Severity of offense |
|
| Inchoate offenses |
| Offense against the person |
|
| Sexual offenses |
| Crimes against property |
| Crimes against justice |
| Crimes against the public |
| Crimes against animals |
| Crimes against the state |
| Defenses to liability |
| Other common-law areas |
| Portals |
Inlaw,attendant circumstances (sometimesexternal circumstances) are thefacts surrounding an event.
Incriminal law in theUnited States, the definition of a given offense generally includes up to three kinds of "elements": theactus reus, or guilty conduct; themens rea, or guilty mental state; and the attendant (sometimes "external") circumstances. The reason is given inPowell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 533 (1968):
...criminal penalties may be inflicted only if the accused has committed some act, has engaged in some behavior, which society has an interest in preventing.
Theburden of proof is on theprosecution to prove each "element of the offense" in order for adefendant to be foundguilty. TheModel Penal Code §1.13(9) offers the following definition of the phrase "elements of an offense":
(i) such conduct or (ii) such attendant circumstances or (iii) such a result of conduct as
- (a) is included in the description of the forbidden conduct in the definition of the offense; or
- (b) establishes the required kind of culpability; or
- (c) negatives an excuse or justification for such conduct; or
- (d) negatives a defense under the statute of limitations; or
- (e) establishes jurisdiction or venue;
InUnited States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 131 (1980),[1]Justice Rehnquist states, in his opinion for the Court, the general rule that:
For these purposes, the term "actus reus" does not have a single definition, but it represents the general principle that before an individual may be convicted of an offense, it must be shown that there was anovert act in pursuance of any intention. Otherwise, a person might be held liable for his or her thoughts alone. Model Penal Code §2.01(1):
But there are exceptions. For example, according toUnited States v. Dozal, 173 F.3d 787, 797 (10th Cir. 1999) aconspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846 consists of four elements:
But, according toUnited States v. Johnson, 42 F.3d 1312, 1319 (10th Cir. 1994) (citingUnited States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994)) drug conspiracies under 21 U.S.C. §846 are unique because the prosecution need not prove an overt act. Instead, the government must "prove that the defendant knew at least the essential objectives of the conspiracy and knowingly and voluntarily became a part of it." Consequently, withdrawal before an overt act has been committed cannot relieve a defendant of criminal responsibility. When analysing an offense, the normal rules of interpretation require the identification of the policies that informed the creation of the offense, an assessment of the factual context within which the offense must be committed and the consequences prohibited by the law. Thus, as the MPC §1.13(9) definition indicates, the attendant circumstances will be the evidence that must be adduced to prove all the elements required to constitute the offense and, under §1.13(9)(c) to disprove anyexcuse or justification. So, as inState of North Carolina v Vernon Jay Raley 155 NC App 222 (01-1004),[2] if a citizen intentionally utters a profanity at thepolice, the charges would be preferred under N.C.G.S. §14-288.4 which defines "disorderly conduct" as:
Under N.C.G.S. §14-288.4 (2001), the componential element of "public disturbance" is defined in G.S. §14-288.1(8) as follows:
In order for a person to be found guilty of this crime, the evidence must prove that the defendant uttered a profanity (the act) in a public place (the contextual attendant circumstance) with the intention of provoking a violent reaction (the mental element demonstrating the right type of culpability) and thereby causes a breach of the peace (the result prohibited by law). There are no attendant circumstances that might invoke an excuse or other general defence. Indeed, the victim in this instance being a police officer would probably be considered anaggravating circumstance and increase thepenalty for the crime. (When verification of an attendant circumstance decreases the penalty, it is known as amitigating orextenuating circumstance.)
The elements of a crime may also require proof of attendant circumstances that bring the conduct within time for the purposes of anystatute of limitation or before an appropriate venue. Such circumstances are completely independent from theactus reus ormens rea elements. In the federal system, for example, a crime may require proof ofjurisdictional facts, which are not defined in the statute creating the offense. See generally LaFave & Scott at 273.3. Thus, theSixth Amendment calls for trial "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Within the federal court system, Rule 18 of theFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure specifies which federal court may hear a particular criminal case:
InUnited States v. Cabrales, 118 S. Ct. 1772 (1998)[3] a jurisdiction issue on venue was invoked by the attendant circumstance that the relevant acts of money laundering occurred in Florida where the case was to be tried, but the funds were derived from the unlawful distribution of cocaine in Missouri. The offense is defined as:
The attendant circumstance of a transborder exercise is not referred to in the definition, but is a critical factual circumstance which will determine whether the accused can be tried as charged. The case was held more properly within the Missouri jurisdiction. This jurisdictional problem would not arise in relation to conspiracy charges.
