Also known as: mens rea and actus reus · concurrence of mens rea and actus reus · concurrence · elements of a crime
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The principle that criminal liability requires a defendant's culpable mental state to exist at the precise moment the prohibited physical conduct occurs.
Carlos Castillo, a congressional staffer, drafted and introduced a revenue bill in the Senate rather than the House. He acted with knowledge that the origination clause required House initiation but proceeded anyway to advance a political agenda. Prosecutors charged him with a related offense only after establishing that his awareness of the procedural defect coincided exactly with the physical act of filing the bill in the wrong chamber.
Cameron Cruz faced charges after a grand jury returned an indictment with only eleven jurors concurring. The foreperson reported the lack of concurrence in writing to the magistrate. Prosecutors could not establish liability because the required mental state for the underlying offense did not coincide with the physical act of presenting the defective indictment in open court.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cecilia Cabrera placed personal documents in a public trash bin but later claimed a Fourth Amendment violation when police retrieved them. She had formed the intent to keep the papers private at the exact moment she discarded them. The court examined whether that mental state coincided with the physical act of disposal to determine if a reasonable expectation of privacy existed.
Craig Caldwell was convicted of a weapons offense. The judge increased his sentence based on a fact found by a preponderance of the evidence rather than by a jury. Caldwell's mental state regarding the weapon's use coincided with his physical possession, but the court required that any fact raising the maximum penalty be treated as an element proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
Colin Chambers refused to answer questions during a state investigation. He asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege at the moment state compulsion arose. The court analyzed whether his mental state of fearing self-incrimination coincided with the physical act of remaining silent to determine if the privilege applied against the state.
Catherine Carter killed her husband during an argument. She claimed heat of passion reduced the offense to manslaughter. Prosecutors had to prove that any malice aforethought coincided exactly with the physical act of the killing rather than arising afterward, shifting the burden improperly under due process.
The prosecution must show that the defendant's culpable mental state existed at the exact moment the prohibited physical act occurred. This concurrence requirement ensures the act and intent form a single criminal event rather than separate occurrences.
The defendant's intent to commit the underlying unlawful act must coincide with the physical conduct that causes death. This ensures the mental state and act form one criminal event.
No. The mental state need only exist at the instant the physical act begins or occurs. Subsequent changes in mental state do not negate liability if the required concurrence was present at the critical moment.
…unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. I write separately, however, to express my concurrence in the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton , 410 U.S. 179 (1973), and my dissent in Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Concurring — Douglas, J. While I join the opinion of the Court, I…