Case Analysis : Proctor V. State

850 Words Aug 31st, 2015 4 Pages
Within certain circumstances, liability is based on the accused 's action, which is also known as an act of omission or negative act. Regardless of the defendant 's motive, the failure to act supports a finding of criminal liability only when the s/he is under a binding legal duty, has the necessary knowledge to behave aptly and carrying out his or her responsibility is possible. Even so, there are instances when the issue of guilt results from a lack thereof. Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and decided as a matter of law by the court. With regard to any crime, all criminal elements are distinguishable and identifiable for the careful analysis of each issue. Take for example the difference between points of dispute in Proctor v. State (1918) and People v. Newton (1973) when reading Criminal Law: Cases and Methods.

Let us start by examining a not-so-innocent question of fact from the Prohibition Era, where the accused in Proctor sought review of the Oklahoma County District Court judgment, which convicted him of owning a place with intent or the purpose of unlawfully selling, bartering, and giving away intoxicating liquors. Indeed, Proctor mentioned his intention to friends. Yet, the issue asks, may the state criminalize an unlawful intent unrelated to an open act of possessing property for a liable correlation (Quimbee)? Based on the aforementioned Oklahoma statute that criminalized alcoholic intent, the defendant petitioned the Court of Appeals in…

More about Case Analysis : Proctor V. State

Open Document