Case BriefCrim law, the actus reus requirement1/26/15Identity of CaseMartin v. State, 17 So.2d 427 (1944)Page 156 of the casebookSummary of Facts/Procedural HistoryPolice were somehow called to Martin’s home, where they found him drunk. They carried him bodily outonto the street, and then arrested him for public intox. Overturned on appeal. Statement of the IssueDoes an action forced by the gov’t fulfill the requirement for actus reus? HoldingAn act must be voluntary, i.e. taken under the actor’s own volition and not someone else in order for it to support a conviction of a crime. ReasoningAlthough Martin was intentionally drunk, and probably being belligerent as a result of his intentional intoxication, he would not have been on the street (and therefore in the public) if it were not for state actors. Just not fair. Beyond entrapment.
View Full Document
Unlocking...