Posted on

Mens rea, Actus reus, and Attendant Circumstances

Common law defined criminal conduct by first looking at the mens rea or the offender’s “guilty mind.” Second, the common law looked at the actus reus or the offender’s “guilty act.” Finally, the common law weighed in the attendant circumstances. An important skill for a law school student is to be able to locate the mens rea, actus reus, and attendant circumstances in a definition of a crime.

For example, common law battery was defined as:

“The offense of battery occurs when a person actually and intentionally touches or strikes another against his or her will.”

  1. To determine the mens rea look for what describes the offender’s state of mind. Here, it is “intentionally.”
  2. To determine the actus reus look for what describes the offender’s action(s) that makes him guilty. Here, it is “actually…touchers or strikes another.”
  3. To determine the attendant circumstances look for the factors stem from the point of view of someone other than the defendant and that aggravate or mitigate the amount of culpability. Here, it is “against his or her will.”

Here is the common law definition of battery with the mens rea, actus reus, and attendant circumstances highlighted:

“The offense of battery occurs when a person actually and intentionally touches or strikes another against his or her will.”

A quick note on attendant circumstances: When determining what are attendant circumstances, it does not matter if the actor knows or intends to touch against the victim’s will. The actor’s guilty mind is not a factor in determining the attendant circumstances. In fact, attendant circumstances is actually from the point of view of someone other than the defendant (typically the victim). Also, it may be helpful if you think of attendant circumstances as those factors that would be helpful in determining a sentence, factors than can aggravate or mitigate the crime such as the amount of culpability.

Law school students should also know that under common law, the mens rea only modified the actus, not the attendant circumstances. Under our modern view, the mens rea modifies everything in the definition.

Posted on

Battery

The Restatement (Second) of Torts provides that an actor commits a battery if:

  1. He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
  1. A harmful [or offensive] contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results

It is important to realize that the tortfeasor needs to intend to cause a harmful or offensive contact or an imminent apprehension of such contact. However, the tortfeasor does not need to intend the contact to the one who was actually harmed. If he intended the contact to a third person, yet injured a bystander, the tortfeasor may still be liable for battery.

What is harmful contact? Harmful contact causes pain or bodily damage. What is offensive contact? Offensive contact is said to occur when the contact “offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 19. The tortfeasor does not need to be aware that the contact is offensive.

Whenever you are analyzing battery make sure that you examine any defenses the tortfeasor might raise (i.e. consent). Upon proof of battery or assault, the plaintiff is entitled to recover nominal damages plus compensatory damages for bodily pain, humiliation, mental anguish and other injuries that occur as a necessary and natural consequence of the tortious conduct. Further, punitive damages should also be considered.

 

 

Posted on

White v. Muniz – 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000)

Case Name: White v. Muniz
Citation: 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000)

Key Facts: An elderly woman, Everly, who lives in an assisted living facility hits Muniz, a shift supervisor, while she is attempting to change her adult diaper. Everly was diagnosed with progressive dementia, loss of memory, impulse control and judgment, and Alzheimers. Muniz filed a complaint against Everly and White, Everly’s granddaughter, for assault and battery.

Issue: Whether an intentional tort requires some proof that the tortfeasor not only intended to contact another person, but also intended that the contact be harmful or offensive to the other person.

Holding: Colorado requires dual intent so they rejected the arguments of Muniz and affirmed the trial court. It was proper for the trial court to instruct the jury that Everly “must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct”

Posted on

Snyder v. Turk – 627 N.E. 2d 1053 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)

Case Name: Snyder v Turk
Plaintiff/Appellant: Snyder
Defendant/Appellee: Dr. Turk
Citation: 627 N.E. 2d 1053 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)


Issue: Did Dr. Turk intend to commit an offensive contact, and in turn commit battery, when he grabbed the plaintiff’s shoulder, pulled her face toward the surgical opening, and exchanged demeaning words?

Key Facts: Dr. Turk was performing a gall bladder surgery which did not go well.  The defendant was frustrated with the operation itself and the plaintiff, who was a scrub nurse in the operating room. The defendant became exasperated because the plaintiff was making mistakes. The defendant grabbed her shoulder and pulled her face down toward the surgical opening, saying, “Can’t you see where I’m working? I’m working in a hole. I need long instruments.”

Procedural History: The trial court ruled that no battery was committed because there was an absence of evidence that he intended to inflict personal injury. Plaintiff appealed.

Holding: Dr. Turk committed an offensive contact and, in turn, battery.

Reasoning: Using a reasonable-minds test, we can conclude that Dr. Turk intended to commit an offensive contact. Ask: “Did Dr. Turk’s action constitute an offensive contact to a reasonable person?”

Judgment: The first assignment of error was sustained.

Posted on

Mullins v Parkview Hospital, Inc.

Case Name: Mullins v Parkview Hospital, Inc.
Plaintiff: Ruth Mullins
Defendant: Parkview Hospital, LeRea VanHoey, the anesthesiologist
Issue: Did VanHoey commit a battery as she had no reason to suspect that Mullins had insisted on modifying the standard consent form and that she could not rely on her preceptor’s direction and the doctor’s authority?

Key Facts: Ruth Mullins told her gynecologist that she wanted privacy during the surgery (writing contract). Once Mullins was unconscious, the anesthesiologist permitted an EMT student, VanHoey, to practice intubation on the plaintiff. This resulted in the laceration of Mullins’ esophagus.

Procedural History: The lower court granted summary judgment for all defendants on all counts but the Court of Appeals held that Mullins had an actionable battery claim against VanHoey, the gynecologist, the anesthesiologist and both doctors’ practices. VanHoey appealed.

Holding: VanHoey did not commit a battery as her actions did not satisfy all of the elements required to show battery. There is no evidence to show that VanHoey intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff.

Judgment: VanHoey was entitled to summary judgment on the battery claim. The high court affirmed the trial court’s decision and did not agree with the Court of Appeals.

Reasoning: VanHoey may have “touched Mrs. Mullins in a harmful and offensive manner without permission; however, this characterization does not satisfy all the elements required to show battery. The Mullinses must show that VanHoey intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with Mullins.
VanHoey did not intend to cause a contact and also did not know with substantially certainty that her action would cause a harmful contact.

Posted on

Cohen v Smith

Case Name: Cohen v Smith
Plaintiff/Appellant: Cohen
Defendant/Appellee: Smith

Issue:  Whether the defendant committed a battery when he observed and touched the plaintiff’s naked body.

Key Facts: Patricia Cohen was admitted to the hospital to deliver her baby. Cohen was informed that it would be necessary for her to have a cesarean section. Cohen informed her physician, who informed the hospital staff, that due to her religious beliefs, Cohen could not be seen unclothed by a male. Cohen’s doctor assured her husband that their religious convictions would be respected. During the c-section, Smith, a male nurse, allegedly observed and touched Cohen’s naked body.

Procedural History: The trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Holding: The appellate court found that the trial court erred in dismissing both the battery and the intentional infliction of emotional distress counts.

Reasoning: In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must view all well-pleaded facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Taking this into account, the defendant may have committed a battery by committing an offensive contact with the plaintiff. The result of the defendant’s intentional contact resulted in offending a reasonable sense of personal dignity by violating the plaintiff’s religious beliefs.