Robinson v. California

II. General principles of criminal liability

 

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty

 

A. Definition of felony – Art 3, Chapter I (Felonies)

Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).

Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

• Felonies are acts & omissions punishable by the RPC.

B. Elements of Criminal Liability

1. Physical element (Actus reum – wrongful deed)

– unless something has happened (or failed to happen) no criminal liability follows.

a. Act

– any bodiliy movement tending to produce some effect in the external world; the possiblity of its production is sufficient

– must be defined in RPC as constituting a felony; or at least, an overt act of that felony

* overt act – an action which might be innocent itself but if part of the preparation and active furtherance of a crime, can be introduced as evidence of a defendant’s participation in a crime (http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/overt-act/)

– only external act is punished because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law; criminal thoughts/mere intention not a felony

 

ROBINSON v. CALIFORNIA, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)

Facts:

• A California statute makes it a criminal offense for a person to “be addicted to the use of narcotics.”
• Robinson was apprehended by a police officer who saw what appears to be needle marksand discoloration on the skin of his arm. The needle marks and discoloration was examined by another officer the day after and concluded that “these marks and the discoloration were the result of the injection of hypodermic needles into the tissue into the vein that was not sterile.” He also stated that the appellant was neither under the influence of narcotics nor suffering withdrawal symptoms at the time he saw him. This witness also testified that the appellant had admitted using narcotics in the past.
• Appellant denied the allegations and explained that the marks were because of an allergic condition.
• Robinson was convicted by the trial court through a jury verdict:
• – The trial judge instructed the jury that the statute made it a misdemeanor for a person “either to use narcotics, or to be addicted to the use of narcotics.
• – The judge further instructed the jury that the appellant could be convicted under a general verdict if the jury agreed either that he was of the “status” or had committed the “act” denounced by the statute.

Issue: W/N the california statute is constitutional on the grounds that it makes a person criminally liable because of the status of being ‘addicted to the use of narcotics’.

 

Held: NO.

 

Ratio decidendi:

• Although there was evidence in the present case that the appellant had used narcotics in Los Angeles, the jury were instructed that they could convict him even if they disbelieved that evidence. The appellant could be convicted, they were told, if they found simply that the appellant’s “status” or “chronic condition” was that of being “addicted to the use of narcotics.
• This statute, therefore, is not one which punishes a person for the use of narcotics, for their purchase, sale or possession, or for antisocial or disorderly behavior resulting from their administration. It is not a law which even purports to provide or require medical treatment. Rather, we deal with a statute which makes the “status” of narcotic addiction a criminal offense, for which the offender may be prosecuted “at any time before he reforms.” California has said that a person can be continuously guilty of this offense, whether or not he has ever used or possessed any narcotics within the State, and whether or not he has been guilty of any antisocial behavior there.
• We hold that a state law which imprisons a person thus afflicted as a criminal, even though he has never touched any narcotic drug within the State or been guilty of any irregular behavior there, inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• * It is the status, not the act that they punish. So if you were from some other state, was addicted to the use of narcotics, you come to California and you will be held criminally liable even if you didn’t use or possess narcotics within the state.

– KVGS