Attempted Murder and Criminal Acts

Mens rea, actus reus, and concurrence are all elements to a crime. These elements must be present to charge a person with a crime. The guilty mind is known as the mens rea being that a person has the intent to commit the crime with the mental capacity. The “actus reus” of an

This happens when there are parties to a crime which includes: Principal in the first degree (The killer), principal in the second degree (The gun supplier), accesory before the fact (Friend that helped plan the killing) and accesory after the fact (Helped drive getaway vehicle).

There are six elements when committing a crime; corpus delicti, actus reus, mens rea, specific intent, general intent, and negligence. The first, Corpus delicti, is defined as "the body of crime” this is the material that substance a crime. The phrase corpus delicti means that before a person can be persecuted there must be concrete evidence that the crime was committed. The corpus delicti also helps to describe the evidence that proves that a crime has been committed.

Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea: An act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty. In the case of R. v. Pickton (2010), the Supreme Court of Canada convicts serial killer Robert Pickton of second degree murder and demonstrates that even if an individual was not the sole perpetrator of a crime, they are still held equally liable for the crime as long as they are an active participant or otherwise abetted the misconduct. The Supreme Courts made the correct decision in dismissing Pickton’s appeal.

When a person takes steps toward the commission of a crime and has a specific intent to commit the crime, but for unforeseen reasons is unable to complete the crime the person has committed the crime of Attempt (Jirard, 2009). In the case of the State of Indiana versus Donald J. Haines, emergency personnel including two police officers [Dennis and Hayworth] along with emergency medical technicians [Garvey and Robinson] responded to Mr. Haines’s apartment for a report of a possible suicide that just occurred. When officers Dennis and Hayworth arrived at Haines’s apartment they discovered him lying face down in a pool of blood. Officer Dennis noticed that both of Haines’s wrists were cut and were bleeding. When Haines heard the paramedics he stood up, and began screaming at Dennis that he has AIDS and that he should be left to die. Dennis advised Haines that he was there to help him, and Haines told Dennis that he wanted to fuck him so that he could give him AIDS. Haines than told Dennis that he was going to utilize his wounds to spray blood on him, and began to jerk back and forth causing his infected blood to get into Dennis’ mouth and eyes. Haines told Dennis that he could not deal with having AIDS, but that he was going to make him deal with it.

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

Recently in Alabama a man by the name of Anthony Ray Hinton was exonerated from death row after already spending thirty years in prison. Hinton was convicted of two separate fatal shootings of fast food restaurant managers in Birmingham, AL. One on February 25, 1985 shooting a John Davidson, and the second occurrence was on July 2, 1985 making Thomas Vason the second deceased. The evidence brought against him was a revolver that somewhat matched the one Hinton had in his home. There was no physical evidence, no fingerprints and no eyewitnesses linking him to the crime. Also, the revolver was questionable at best due to the fact the gun belonged to his mother who he lived with. Ballistics could not accurately tell if the gun Hinton had was even the weapon used in the shootings because they could not tell if his gun had been fired out of recently. They also could not conclusively say that all the bullets used in the two shootings were fired from the same gun. All in all, Hinton was convicted by a possible bullet match to his gun; and an eyewitness’s testimony from a person who was present at a similar, but different crime that Hinton was never accused of. Hinton coming from an underprivileged area only had a $1,000 to hire a ballistics expert to disprove the allegations. Thus leading to a person whose proposed allegations were questionable. Hinton was found guilty and put on Death Row. After sitting in a jail cell for thirty years he was released after firearms experts

Crimes all have two fundamental elements that must be present in order for an act or omission of duty to be classified as a criminal act. This involves the concept of actus reus or ‘guilty act’ in Latin and mens reus or ‘guilty mind’ in Latin. It is the role of the prosecution to prove that these elements are present to charge a person with a criminal act.

The five principles of a crime are the guilty act or actus reus, the guilty intent or mens rea, the relationship between guilty act and guilty intent, the attendant circumstances and the results. The guilty act or actus reus is the inception of a crime, “this criminal liability occurs only after a voluntary act that results in criminal harm” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014). This protects Americans from being punished for bad thoughts. The guilty intent or mens rea establishes and distinguishes between the mental state required in committing a crime. This insures that Americans are not prosecuted for innocently causing harm to another. The relationship and union between the guilty act and the guilty intent further distinguishes an act from being

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Today we have a very serious charge before you. We have Dr Richard Kimball, who is before you on the charges of first-degree murder. However, he is not guilty based on our success to provide reasonable doubt that Kimball planned and deliberately kill his wife or that he was provoked into killing his wife in the heat of passion.

Kuntrell Jackson was also 14-years old in November 1999 when he and two other youths attempted to rob a video store and in the process shot and killed Laurie Troup (De Vogue, 2012). Jackson did not do the shooting but was an accomplice to the act; therefore, he received a sentence of life without parole (2012). As for mens reus and actus reus in Jackson’s case, Arkansas court conceded Jackson did not commit the homicidal act nor did he intend for the death of the store clerk occur; however, the State argued Jackson’s culpability rested with his reckless indifference to the value of human life (Supreme Court Rejects Mandatory Life Sentences Without Possibility of Parole for Juveniles, 2012). Lippman (2010) explains the requirement for actus reus of accomplice liability is satisfied by even a relatively small amount of material or psychological assistance to the perpetrator of the crime. Furthermore, the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability only requires intent to assist in the commission

3. For a crime to be committed, the prosecutor must be able to prove a criminal intent and an overt act to carry out that intent. Jack and Mary agreed to rob a series of banks. Prior to beginning their bank robbery spree, they were arrested and charged with criminal conspiracy. What act did Jack and Mary do that justifies a finding that they committed the crime? Explain.

The Model Penal Code for murder in the state of California would be section 197, where is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with the mental state and aforethought. However, Mr. Zack did not kill Ms. Amber without a mental state of aforethought. In other words, Mr. Zack committed a voluntary manslaughter against her wife, Ms. Amber because as Mr. Zack was coming out work early for the reason, he was ill. However, Mr. Zack saw Ms.Amber Naked and Mr.Dallas Shirtless; Mr. Zack upset that he saw her wife naked and Mr.Dallas shirtless pull out his side gun and shot and kill Ms. Amber. As Result that Ms. Amber died by the gunshot, the Mr.Zack shoot Mr. Zack is responsible for his action. In where Mr. Zack would need to prove her action

When a person is charged with a crime the type of defense that they choose could ultimately determine their fate. There are many different types of defenses that exist in our criminal justice system. In this paper I will be taking a brief look at two different cases that have implored two different types of criminal defenses. I will look at the nature and types of defenses used in the cases and what evidence was used to demonstrate defense. I will describe how justification and excuse played a role in the cases and I will also be describing the outcome of each case.

both the act, or actus rea, and the intent to commit the act, or mens rea.