applications of the defense vary widely and are often
inconsistent. The basis for the defense is that a defen-
dant should not be held responsible for presumptively
criminal actions because of the involuntary nature of
the behaviors, leading to lack of criminal intent and
voluntary criminal action.Excuses and Justifications
In criminal law, there is a general rule that individuals
are to be held legally responsible for their actions. Our
fundamental and longstanding societal values and
moral traditions allow for several exceptions in situa-
tions in which it would not be fair or just to hold per-
sons criminally liable. These exceptions are discussed
under the general heading of defenses, which, in turn,
have been distinguished as justifications and excuses.
Justifications seek to establish that even though the
prosecution may have fulfilled its required burden to
prove the basic facts of the offense, the act committed
by the defendant was not criminal because, for exam-
ple, it was done in defense of self, others, or property.
Excuses essentially concede the wrongfulness of the
act but seek to establish that the defendant is not
criminally responsible because the act took place, for
example,under conditions of duress or compulsion,
immaturity,or insanity.
Automatism is an excuse defense that has been char-
acterized as similar to the excuse of ignorance. That is, an
automatism can be defined as an action taken without any
knowledge of acting or without consciousness of what is
being done. Automatism, however, is not simply a matter
of acting out of ignorance. In the case of ignorance, a
defendant may be acting based on an erroneous belief
(e.g., the defendant believes that he or she is administer-
ing first aid but is, rather, exacerbating a medical condi-
tion of the victim), but in the case of automatism, the
defendant is unaware that he or she is acting at all.Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Except in cases of strict liability, any crime contains
two elements: the actus reus(“guilty act”) and mens
rea(“guilty mind”). The automatism defense seeks to
prove that the defendant made physical actions
(automatisms) that led to a bad outcome but did not
perform a guilty act. As such, the automatism defense
is the only excuse defense that is based on the actus
reus element rather being purely a mens rea excuse
defense (e.g., insanity). In an insanity defense, the
defense acknowledges the guilty act but claims that thedefendant should not be held blameworthy due to the
lack of a guilty mind or intent.
Another way of understanding these two elements
would be to consider if the presumptively criminal act
was intentionalor voluntary.Actions directed toward
a goal are typically considered to be intentional. An
automatism defense, however, claims that the actions
taken are automatic and, therefore, not intentional. In
the case of some automatic movements (e.g., loss of
muscular control during a grand mal seizure), the
absence of intentionality is obvious. In some cases,
however, this judgment can be exceedingly difficult.
For example, intentionality is far less obvious in a
defendant who engaged in goal-directed aggression
during a period of postictal confusion following a
nocturnal partial complex seizure when the defendant
appeared to be sleepwalking. The issue of volitional
control (voluntariness) goes directly to the heart of the
automatism defense. The Model Penal Code of the
American Law Institute states that a defendant is not
criminally liable if he or she does not commit a “vol-
untary act,” which is defined to exclude “reflex or
convulsion” or actions taken during “unconscious-
ness.” There can be no actus reus when the defendant
does not commit a voluntary act. Typically, courts
have required that volitional dyscontrol be total; that
is, the actor (defendant) has no control over his or her
actions.The Automatism Defense:
Case Law
Although its use is relatively rare, the automatism
defense has been established as a criminal defense in
courts in the United States and Britain. Courts vary
widely, however, in definitions and applications of the
defense. In the United States, for example, some
courts have applied the rationale of an insanity
defense, interpreting the involuntary behaviors associ-
ated with automatisms as a defect in reason that pre-
vented the defendant from knowing the nature and
quality of his or her act, therefore making an automa-
tism defense a mens rea defense. Other courts have
stressed the involuntary nature of the defendant’s
actions, focusing on the lack of actus reus. British
courts have made a distinction between sane and
insane automatism. A defense of insane automatism
requires that the defendant meet all three conditions of
the British insanity defense (the M’Naghten stan-
dard), where the automatism would be the “disorder
of reason” caused by a “disease of the mind,” leadingAutomatism——— 35A-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 35