Skip to Content
Law Office of Daniel Horowitz Law Office of Daniel Horowitz
Call Us Today! 925-291-5388
Top

What is Concurrence of Act and Intent?

Daniel Horowitz Logo
|

Concurrence of Act and Intent: The Foundation of Criminal Liability

In criminal law, simply committing an act isn't enough to be found guilty. There must also be a "guilty mind." This crucial principle, known as the concurrence of act and intent (or the union of act and intent), mandates that both a wrongful physical act (actus reus) and a criminal mental state (mens rea) must exist simultaneously for someone to be held criminally responsible.

The Legal Basis: Actus Reus and Mens Rea Combined

The Latin maxim "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" perfectly encapsulates this principle, meaning "an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is guilty." This highlights the essential connection between the physical act and the mental intent.

  • California Penal Code § 20: Reinforces this principle, stating, "In every crime or public offense there must exist a union, or joint operation of act and intent, or criminal negligence." This means the prohibited act and the required criminal intent must occur together.

Illustrative Case Law:

  • People v. Cleaves: This case emphasized that the concurrence between intent and conduct is a fundamental requirement for criminal culpability. For example, in second-degree murder, the act must be "deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life," demonstrating the need for the mental state to align with the action. (People v. Cleaves, 229 Cal.App.3d 367 (1991))
  • People v. Canales: Further clarifies that a crime requires both a "evil act and an evil intent," ensuring that morally innocent actions are not unfairly criminalized. (People v. Canales, 106 Cal.App.5th 1230 (2024))
  • People v. Rogers: Stressed the importance of accurate jury instructions regarding the concurrence of act and specific intent, underscoring that the required intent must be clearly defined for each crime. (People v. Rogers, 39 Cal.4th 826 (2006))

Why Concurrence Matters:

The concurrence of act and intent is vital for:

  • Preventing unjust convictions: Ensuring that individuals are only held liable when both their actions and intentions are criminal.
  • Maintaining moral culpability: Upholding the principle that criminal liability should reflect moral blameworthiness.
  • Clear legal standards: Providing a framework for courts to determine criminal responsibility.

Key Takeaway:

The concurrence of act and intent is a cornerstone of criminal law, ensuring that criminal liability is only established when both the physical act and the mental state align.

Legal References:

  • (People v. Canales, 106 Cal.App.5th 1230 (2024))
  • (West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 20)
  • (People v. Cleaves, 229 Cal.App.3d 367 (1991))
  • (People v. Rogers, 39 Cal.4th 826 (2006))