Looking at Actus Reus and Mens Rea in Case Law

¶ … criminal case brief; the case under study is the Sullateskee vs. Oklahoma State case. An analysis will follow to ascertain if the key issue, in regard to the verdict, was Mens Rea or Actus Reus.

Actus Reus and Mens Rea

The Latin term Actus Reus means "the guilty act." In simple terms, it implies the physical deed of perpetrating a criminal offense. On the other hand, the Latin term Mens Rea denotes "the guilty mind." Criminal Code terminologies "knowing," "with knowledge," and "with intent" are frequently utilized for Mens Rea (THE CRIMINAL EQUATION: actus reus + mensrea = CRIME). Two contrasts exist with other criminal liability factors, enabling judicial authorities to determine Actus Reus's nature, of which one is with Mens Rea. The literal translation of Mens Rea is, as mentioned earlier, guilty mind. This term's technical legal usage indicates that criminal liability precondition dealing with the suspect's frame of mind while perpetrating the criminal act (Actus Reus - Actus Reus vs. Mens Rea - Morality, Moral, Guilty, and Murder). Thus, general intent is one Mens Rea that suffices for murder: this precondition is normally specified as prohibition on "intentional murder of another individual." 'Intentional' indicates the frame of mind of the suspect, necessary to prove him/her guilty of homicide (i.e., either a belief or intention). "Murder of another individual" implies two things: (1) what deed must be carried out for making an individual guilty of homicide (Actus Reus); and (2) what object the belief/intent of the suspect should assume for making him/her guilty of homicide (Mens Rea). The accused individual has to really kill another person, as well as believe he is committing a murder, or mean to kill somebody, for him to be held guilty of murder.

Case Brief

The case under study is of defendant, Gladys Juanita Sullateskee, who was accused, in Tulsa, Oklahoma's Municipal Criminal Court, of possessing 556 tax-paid whiskey bottles and intending to sell them without a legal license from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board of the State (SULLATESKEE v. STATE:: 1967). The defendant waived a jury trial; the case was instead taken up by the Hon. Luther P. Lane, Tulsa Municipal Criminal Court Judge. The accused was found guilty and fined 25 dollars as punishment. The accused appealed to the court, claiming that no evidence was presented by the State for proving that the whiskey bottles were in her possession and that she meant to sell them. Only one witness was presented, a Tulsa City police officer, who testified in the witness box that he possessed a search warrant for raiding the Rainbow Bar in Tulsa.