Twas the night before Crim Law, and all through the house, not a creature was stirring. So there’s clearly no actus reus, because that would require a voluntary act (i.e. stirring). Though, one could interpret the lack of stirring as an omission from a mouse, if the mouse is physically capable of stirring and had a responsibility to stir (statute, relationship, contractual, creation of risk, or undergoing voluntary assistance).

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care in hopes that St. Nicholas would soon be there, and since they were hung with care they negated any reckless or negligent claims that would establish mens rea in a specific intent crime. The mentioning of a prior arrangement with a “St. Nicholas” character might indicate some sort of conspiracy, or at least a party as an accomplice to any action that might occur later.

The children were nestled all snug in their beds, while visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads. Obviously, infancy would be an adequate defense, but if the kids were snug in their beds because they were hiding, it could be an indication that they are knowledgeable of their wrong actions. Furthermore, one could possibly apply an insanity defense based upon the sugar-plum hallucinations. Though it might not pass the M’Naghten test,  Durham’s product rule might be applicable.

Ummm. Sorry bout that. My Crim Law exam is at 9am tomorrow morning and I’m trying to bore myself to sleep.