Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
Key Takeaways
- The reasonable person standard is a foundational concept in criminal law guiding how we assess behavior.
- It contrasts with bright-line rules to require a balancing of circumstances, prioritizing fairness.
- Examples of its application include assessing negligence, criminal intent and self-defense.
- It looks through the defendant’s perspective at the time of the event avoiding hindsight bias.
- It is a benchmark for comparing reasonable behavior to specific circumstances.
What is a reasonable person? And in Minnesota criminal law, what is the “reasonable person standard?” The concept of the reasonable person is a foundation of Minnesota criminal law. Of course, historically the term was the reasonable man. But we can use the gender-neutral term now.
Bright-line vs. reasonable in circumstances
We can define things, by delineating what they are not. What are some opposites of this legal standard?
A bright-line rule in criminal law is a clear rule that we cannot cross without exposure to a legal remedy. And that is the opposite of the reasonable person standard. An example of a bright-line rule could be: “wearing a blue shirt on a Tuesday is a crime punishable by up to 90 days in jail.”
Balancing test: In contrast, a reasonableness test invites balancing the “entirety of the circumstances.” Looking to the individual circumstances means there cannot be a bright line separating what is, and what is not prohibited conduct. Did the person act like a person within the range of what is “reasonable” would have acted, in the circumstances at the time? The circumstances at the time provide the context which defines what is reasonable (in the eyes of the accused, of the jury, or the judge).
Examples: reasonable person standard
1. Simple negligence
Simple “negligence” is a common basis for civil liability under civil “tort law,” though not criminal liability in criminal law. The legal elements of simple negligence include: duty, breach of that duty, damages caused by that breach, and a proximate cause connection between the breach of duty and the damage.
The reasonable person standard is part of the “duty” element. Could a hypothetical “reasonable person” act in the way this person acted in this case? We have a duty to act reasonably when it comes to the safety of others. And if we “breach” or break that duty, we might be civilly liable for money damages.
2. Gross negligence
Criminal law principles require “criminal intent” as one of the “elements of a crime.” This means a person must intentionally do a prohibited act, before there can be a crime. And we generally consider the lowest or weakest level of “criminal” intent to be “gross negligence.”
The word “gross” means “big.” So while simple negligence could be “an honest mistake, but completely unintentional;” gross negligence would include an intentional disregard for the safety of others. We must be aware of the risk, and the risk must be high, however.
3. Criminal intent, generally
In criminal law, “criminal intent” ranges from gross negligence on the low end to “specific intent” (e.g., premeditated first degree murder) on the high end. But a fundamental problem is how to know a person’s intent. Should the law hinge upon a person’s subjective intent? We cannot read minds, in the present or in the past tenses. But even if we could, what about an unreasonable or delusional belief, sincerely held?
The solution is that we try to determine the person’s intent “objectively,” e.g. using evidence of circumstances to make reasonable inferences about the person’s intent. However, we do so using the “reasonable person” standard.
4. Affirmative defenses
When a jury considers evidence in a self-defense case (an example of an “affirmative defense”), they determine the reasonableness of defendant’s use of force under the circumstances, using the “reasonable person standard.” In other words, compare what the defendant did under the circumstances, with what the “reasonable person” would do in those same circumstances. See our article: Point-of-View and Self-Defense
Reasonable under circumstances
What is reasonable under the circumstances, is the opposite of an easy to administer, bright-line standard. After all, what is reasonable depends upon the circumstances – all of the circumstances. A bright-line standard can be arbitrary and unfair, but is easier to apply.
Fairness: A reasonableness standard may be difficult to apply, but can be more fair by accounting for all circumstances.
Point of view
And the reasonable person standard requires us to look through the eyes of the defendant, and at the circumstances as the person on trial would have reasonably perceived them at the time.
Perspective: Criminal law does not seek to punish people for unintentional acts. So, in every criminal case, the evidence of intent must be viewed from the point of view of the person on trial. Other points of view – those of an injured party, a police officer, a witness – don’t matter for this purpose.
At the time
“Hindsight bias” is a human, cognitive bias where our minds trick us into believing that what we now know happened, should have been apparent or predictable before happening. Psychologists have studied, proven and mapped this cognitive bias.
But long before that, the ancient law developed the “reasonable person standard,” requiring us to look through the eyes of the defendant, at the circumstances apparent to him or her, at the time, before the outcome was known.
Objective
Quasi-objective: The reasonable person standard is “objective,” in the sense that we attempt to determine what we think would be reasonable to do under the circumstances that person could perceive at the time. In other words, what pretty much any average person would do. So the standard is not individually subjective. (Though not philosophically or purely objective, the reasonable person standard is quasi-objective, in that it is meant to be socially defined by individual and social standards of what would be “reasonable” in various circumstances.)
Though evidence of the person’s subjective perception would be relevant, if that subjective view was “unreasonable” the jury could disregard.
Substituted judgment: And we could say that the reasonable person standard invites a substitution of judgment. We are asked to look to the circumstances apparent to the defendant at the time (point-of-view), and then insert our own judgement about what would have been reasonable at the time. So in a sense, this is a substituted judgment standard. When we do this with other people and form a consensus, we might call this standard quasi-objective (though more accurately, a socially defined norm of what is “reasonable”). And this is at least “objective” in the sense that it is not the defendant’s subjective perception.
A standard
The reasonable person standard is a “standard” because we use it as a point of comparison. We use it as a benchmark to compare to what people actually did.
“Are you a reasonable person?”
Most would say, “yes, I am.” But we also know that even a “below average” person can still be within the “reasonable person” range.
Reasonable is not the same as perfection.
Caselaw & statutes
This standard comes mainly from judges’ case opinions. These judicial writings use the term (or the equivalent, “reasonable man”) going back at least hundreds of years. And as a result the term frequently appears in jury instructions. The term now also appears in some Minnesota Statutes, for example in, Minn. Stat Sec. 609.746 Interference with Privacy.
More: reasonable person standard
Criminal Vehicular Operation or Criminal Vehicular Homicide
Disparity of Force & Self-Defense
Self-Defense Laws in Minnesota
Duress Defense | Complete or Partial
Mental Illness Defenses
Unlawful Arrest and Illegal Evidence
Obstruction & Resisting Arrest