§ 1.4 Basic Principles of Criminal Liability
Library | Criminal Law in Oregon (OSBar) (2022 Ed.) |
§ 1.4 BASIC PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Oregon's Criminal Code adopted the elemental approach of the Model Penal Code; that is, its provisions are to be analyzed for their constituent elements: the acts, results, or circumstances included in the definition of an offense. Ordinarily, the minimum requirements for criminal liability under Oregon's Criminal Code are (1) the performance by a person of proscribed conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform a required act that the person is capable of performing and (2) a "culpable mental state with respect to each material element" in the definition of the offense. ORS 161.095. An element is "material" for that purpose "unless it relates 'solely to the statute of limitations, jurisdiction, venue' or similar matters." State v. Simonov, 358 Or 531, 537, 368 P3d 11 (2016) (quoting State v. Blanton, 284 Or 591, 595, 588 P2d 28 (1978)).
The mental-state requirement is subject to two further exceptions: (1) when the offense constitutes a violation, unless the definition of the offense expressly includes a culpable mental state; and (2) for offenses defined outside of the Criminal Code, when there is a clear indication of legislative intent to dispense with a culpable mental state. ORS 161.105.
§ 1.4-1 Conduct Defined
Conduct means "an act or omission and its accompanying mental state." ORS 161.085(4). A voluntary act is a "bodily movement performed consciously and includes the conscious possession or control of property." ORS 161.085(2). An omission is the "failure to perform an act the performance of which is required by law." ORS 161.085(3).
A person may be charged with a crime for the person's own conduct, and in certain situations, for the conduct of another. See § 1.5 (vicarious liability). In addition, a person may be charged with a crime even if the intended conduct did not yet take place or reach fruition. See § 1.6 (inchoate crimes).
§ 1.4-2 Culpable Mental State Defined
ORS 161.085 defines four culpable mental states: intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and criminal negligence. ORS 161.085(6)-(10). Each culpable mental state is defined to apply to two of three kinds of elements: conduct elements, circumstance elements, and result elements. ORS 161.085(6)-(10); see State v. Simonov, 358 Or 531, 539-40, 537, 368 P3d 11 (2016) (explaining the interplay between the four culpable mental states and the three kinds of material elements).
A person acts intentionally if it is the person's "conscious objective to cause the result or to engage in the conduct so described." ORS 161.085(7).
A person acts knowingly if the "person acts with an awareness that the conduct . . . is of a nature so described or that a circumstance so described exists." ORS 161.085(8).
A person acts recklessly when the "person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk" that the proscribed result will ensue or that a circumstance exists. The risk must represent "a gross deviation from the standard of care" observed by reasonable people in the situation. ORS 161.085(9).
Occasionally, a statute requires proof that the actor was reckless and manifested "extreme indifference to the value of human life." See ORS 163.118(1)(a) (manslaughter in the first degree); ORS 163.175(1)(c) (assault in the second degree). Extreme indifference is not "an additional culpable mental state," but an "increased element" with historical antecedents in the concept of implied malice and "wanton disregard." State v. Boone, 294 Or 630, 634, 638, 661 P2d 917 (1983). It is an element of the crime requiring proof of something more than the defined state of statutory recklessness. Boone, 294 Or at 634; see State v. Belcher, 124 Or App 30, 33, 860 P2d 903 (1993), rev den, 318 or 350 (1994) (extreme indifference represents "heightened degree of blameworthiness").
A person acts "with criminal negligence" if the "person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk" that the proscribed result will ensue or that a circumstance exists, when the failure to be aware represents "a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation." ORS 161.085(10).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial