Indictments must show a physical act; when a charge lacks actus reus, the motion to dismiss should be granted.

Outline

• Hook: A quick distillation of why an indictment must show a real action, not just thoughts.

• Core ideas: what actus reus and mens rea mean in plain terms; why a charge needs a physical act.

• The question in focus: why the motion would be granted when an indictment omits the illegal act.

• Why the other options miss the point.

• Practical takeaways: how to read an indictment, what to look for, and how this plays into real cases.

• Short wrap-up: the core takeaway, with a nod to the tools and resources that help you study this stuff.

Actus reus, moments that matter, and the power of a clear charge

Let me explain something that shows up in many criminal cases: a charge often rests on two pillars. One is the actus reus—the actual physical act, the thing a defendant did or failed to do. The other is the mens rea—the mental state, the intent or knowledge behind that act. Think of actus reus as the footprint you can see on the ground. Mens rea is the motive or understanding that explains why that footprint happened in the first place.

Now, not every glitch in a case means trouble. But when an indictment—yes, the formal charging document—won’t spell out a real act, a prosecutor might have a serious problem. Courts want to see that a defendant engaged in something that the law recognizes as illegal. If the document only hints at thoughts or feelings or a general wrongdoing without tying it to a concrete action, the case loses its footing.

What the question means in plain terms

Here’s the situation the question describes: an indictment that doesn’t accuse the defendant of any illegal action. No act linking the defendant to a crime. In a courtroom, that’s a red flag. A charge has to point to a tangible act. If it doesn’t, the judge can reasonably dismiss the accusation or request a correction before going forward.

That’s why the best answer is: Granted, as crimes require physical acts. It’s not just about “thinking about” doing something wrong; it’s about having done something that the law can say is illegal. The act is the anchor. Without that anchor, the rest—like intent or motive—can’t complete a lawful charge.

The other options don’t quite fit the core idea

• B. Granted, as crimes must show intent. It sounds plausible at first glance because mens rea matters, but here the problem isn’t about missing mental state. It’s about missing an actual act. Even if intent existed, if there’s no act described, the indictment still isn’t charging a crime in the proper sense.

• C. Denied, as crimes can be based on inaction. It’s tempting to think about omissions or inaction, but most crimes require an act plus, or at least alongside, a mental state. An indictment that only relies on inaction would typically fail because the law often requires a specific act. So this answer misreads the basic structure.

• D. Denied, as indictments can arise from unwritten law. Indictments come from written laws and statutes, and they must allege what happened. The suggestion that an unwritten rule could ground an indictment is off the mark. Modern criminal charges hinge on defined acts and clearly stated elements.

What this means for how you read these questions

• Look for the element that ties the charge to a real action. If a question asks whether a motion should be granted when the indictment omits any illegal action, the key factor is whether the actus reus exists. Without it, the charge doesn’t meet the basics of criminal liability in most jurisdictions.

• Remember the two halves. Even if the mental state is cloudy, courts still want to see a concrete act described. The absence of either element can be fatal to the charge, but the act is usually the more visible hurdle in an indictment.

• Distinguish act from omission. Some crimes do involve a failure to act, but even then, the statute often defines a duty and the kind of omission that counts. If the document doesn’t tie the omission to a duty and a resulting illegal outcome, the problem persists.

A practical lens: what students should notice when they skim indictments

• Check the caption: does the document say what the defendant did? Look for verbs that describe an action—taken, did, caused, or failed to act in a specified circumstance.

• Identify the elements: many indictments map to a statute’s elements. If the act element isn’t spelled out, ask whether the law requires a physical act or if an omission could suffice under that statute.

• Note any red flags: vague language like “engaged in conduct” without a concrete act can signal weakness. Specificity matters—law loves specifics.

• Consider the role of intent: while intent is essential in many crimes, the absence of a described act usually signals a problem for the charge itself. In other words, you shouldn’t assume intent can save a charge that can’t point to an act.

A quick detour to keep things real

Indictments aren’t just legal checklists; they’re narratives that set the stage for what comes next in a case. The clarity of an act can shape motions, defenses, and how witnesses are questioned. In a courtroom, the difference between a generic allegation and a clearly described act can influence jurors, judges, and even the tempo of the proceedings. It’s the difference between a vague claim and a story that makes the court sit up and pay attention.

Resources you might find handy (in a real-world study flow)

• Black’s Law Dictionary for crisp definitions of actus reus and mens rea.

• Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute (LII) for accessible overviews of criminal liability and the elements of various offenses.

• Statutes and case law from your jurisdiction. Reading the actual wording of an act and seeing how courts interpret it helps you spot those crucial act elements.

• Practice hypotheticals from reputable legal databases to see how different fact patterns interact with actus reus and mens rea.

Bringing it home: the thread that ties it together

If you’re ever handed an indictment that stays silent about a real act, you’re looking at a document that may not survive a challenge. The core idea is straightforward, even if the law can be intricate: a crime is typically built on a physical act plus the right state of mind. When the act isn’t there, the charge isn’t fully formed.

A few close takeaways, so you don’t lose sight of the point

• The actus reus is the anchor. Without a described act, there’s no solid footing for the charge.

• Mens rea matters, but it doesn’t rescue a missing act. The mental state can amplify or shape liability, but it can’t substitute for a missing act in the indictment.

• Clarity beats vagueness. A well drafted indictment spells out the act and ties it to the statute’s elements.

• Reading indictments is a skill. Look for action verbs, defined duties, and how the facts map onto the legal description.

In the end, the legal landscape prizes structure and precision. A charge that fails to articulate a tangible act is like a map with no road: you can see the destination, but there’s no path to get there. The correct stance—granted, when the indictment omits a physical act—rests on that simple, sturdy truth: crimes require an actual act to anchor liability.

If you’re curious for more context, you can explore how different jurisdictions frame actus reus and how omissions are treated in various statutes. It helps to keep a notebook handy and annotate where the act is spelled out, where it isn’t, and how that affects the next steps in a case. The habit pays off in both understanding and clarity when you’re sorting through real-life scenarios or hypothetical questions alike.