Legal Impossibility In Patrice's Unexpected Murder Case

Evidence found at the crime scene suggests that Amy LaTour was killed last night in her home by her boyfriend Henry Willy. Amy was strangled to death by Henry out of jealousy of her love for her other boyfriend Joe Wonty.

Even if the prosecution believes that a suspect is guilty, they may decide not to prosecute due to a weak case or an erred procedure committed through the police.

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.

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

According to article 15.25 intoxication is not a defense for Stukov's actions. In the case of Liara Chen it would seem obvious to me that she acted in self-defense; this is justified under article 35 of the New York penal code. When James P. Sullivan and Eric Lensherr illegally entered Aurum Fine Jewelry and began to fire their hand guns "wildly" they created a dangerous situation. It was reasonable for Chen to believe she had to take emergency measures to avoid imminent injury because Sullivan and Lensherr had already shot her coworker; this serves as proof that the two men were readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury to her. Moreover, her use of a legally owned firearm was justifiable because it was proportionate to the deadly physical force

Actus reus is the term referring to ‘guilty act’ meaning any voluntary actions of omissions that constitutes to a crime, it is the physical element of an offence Her Actus reus is shown through her act of stabbing him 37 times and killing him. She also chopped off his head and cooked it with vegetables and skinned majority of his body. It is certain to say her act

During a verbal altercation, Mrs. Bennett threw a hammer narrowly missing Mr. Darcy’s head. The issue is whether Mrs. Bennett possessed sufficient intent to establish a aggravated assault case. She claimed that she did not wish to harm Darcy. The author believes there is probably not enough to establish the element of intent to commit aggravated assault without any injury. In Commonwealth v. Matthew, the court held that intent may be inferred from the defendants conduct or words. The author argues that Mrs.Bennett never threatened to harm Darcy and walked away to wait for the cops. In Commonwealth v. Alexander, court that held that circumstantial evidence was not enough to prove intent to inflict serious injury. Mrs. Bennett’s claim that she

Prior to an individual being classified as an ex-offender, they are first classified as an offender; before this classification takes place, the individual is what the criminal justice system calls a defendant; before this particular person is trialed, they must first go through the ladder of the system. Perhaps they started simply as a suspect product of an arrest or an investigation (Samaha, 9). Like with many things in life, numerous people try to find excuses; in sports you always hear a boxer say he lost because he didn’t have a good training camp, or the baseball player saying that his wrist hurts and that is why he was not able to hit the ball. Barely, however, do we hear people tell the actual truth about what really happened; take the examples of the boxer and the baseball player, it is quite strange to hear them say “my opponent just outclassed me”, or “he is a very good pitcher, one which possesses a strong fast ball”. In some cases within the criminal justice system is the same exact way; though some do, many defendants will try to claim a reasonable and legitimate excuse for the crime they have committed and are being trialed for. In his book Criminal Justice seventh edition, Joel Samaha expresses his beliefs on what it means to give an excuse for someone’s imperfections or imperfect acts; nothing but “excuses, excuses, excuses, criminal law doesn’t like them”(Samaha, 116).

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.

Constructive intent was present in this situation. The shooter may not have intended to harm the individual that he believed to be suspicious, but he should have know that approaching someone could create a high risk of harm. The shooter’s culpability was that he approached

There are three situations in which Failure or omission to act is only criminal which are “(1) when there is a statute that creates a legal duty to act, (2) when there is a contract that creates a legal duty to act, or (3) when there is a special relationship between the parties that creates a legal duty to act.” The mens rea is the specific mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime; a guilty mind. There are two types of mens rea that are recognized which are general intent and specific intent. There are four different types of knowing, purposeful, reckless and negligent. The concurrence of an illegal act and a culpable mental state offers the third essential feature of crime, for those crimes that involve mens rea. Concurrence commands that the act and the mental state happen together in order for a crime to take place. Concurrence and culpable mental state should be linked and they should transpire in the appropriate order, mens rea followed by the act. The mens rea is the one that sets the act into motion. The perpetrator should shape the focused to murder, before captivating the action that caused in the death of another individual for there to be purposeful or intentional murder. There must be a connecting association between the

French authorities are doing all in their power to capture the murderer of 13 year-old Amé Moreau (pictured left), who was found lay down nude with bruising around her neck, indicating that she was strangled to death. Our best wishes go out to the family of this young woman.

In module II I learned about common types of criminal defenses. The defenses raised in a criminal case fall into two categories. The categories are, you did not commit the crime, or you committed the crime but should not be held responsible. To claim innocence, proves should be shown. For example, eyewitness testimony, documentary evidence, or a place that you were else at the time of the crime. The evidence that you committed the act are justifications and excuses. Justification admits the act but contends that you were legally reasonable in taking action. Excuse, the defenses normally reflect a lack of legal capacity. Meaning you were not concerned that what you was doing was illegal.

It is difficult to determine whether it is moral to break the law. Two points of view were examined: Martin Luther King Jr. in the “Letter from Birmington City Jail” and Socrates in “Crito”. Martin Luther King says that breaking the law can be excused for good reasons. However, Socrates says that breaking the law is never permissible. They provide detailed arguments for both sides of the argument. Breaking the law is however not allowed because it break the person’s agreement to leave there and causes too much trouble for the person.