The Regina Knight Case

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

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.

Further, he argued that the third statement was admissible to rebut the Crown’s allegation of recent fabrication. The court accepted the first submission and ordered a new trial. The court ruled that edited portions of those statements bearing upon the appellant’s state of mind were properly admissible as an exception to the rule against the admissibility of prior consistent statements. This court rejected the second argument on the ground that the Crown had not alleged recent fabrication. The appellant submits that the trial judge failed to put the defense position on automatism fairly before the jury telling to be sceptical of the defense, also mischaracterizing the evidence of Dr.kolito and failing to instruct the jury that the absence of motive had a bearing on the defense of

day of the murder. There is a lot of evidence to show that she was guilty. She was

“Many factors go into a sentence and I need to consider them all,” Judge McNamara said. “I need to value the victim impact statement, the need to protect others, the defendant’s character, and other factors.”

Determine whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea. Provide a rationale to support your position.

Michelle knight is a 34 year old Caucasian women who was born April 1981, later on moving to Cleveland Ohio where she was raised (Knight, 2015). Growing up she recalls not having a good relationship with her mother, she remembers “a chaotic childhood marked by neglect and abuse” (Connors, 2014). In school she was bullied and eventually sexually assaulted “By a group of males “resulting in her dropping out of school and later finding out her had become pregnant as a result of the assault (DURANTE, ROBSON & WARREN, 2013). Soon after she gave birth to a baby boy she named joey, when joey was around two years old he was taken to the hospital and treated for a broken leg, Michelle stated that her mother’s boyfriend purposely did it while under the influence of drugs. (Anderson, 2013).Child protective services was called and joey was temporarily taken out of Michelle’s custody until further notice (Anderson, 2013).

Prior to Dick and Perry’s trial, a case study was underway by Dr. Joseph Satten on Murder Without Apparent Motive which emphasized previous cases in which the convicted murder could have been deemed to have Personality Disorganization.

Michelle knight is a 34 year old Caucasian women who was born April 1981, later on moving to Cleveland Ohio where she was raised (Knight, 2015). Growing up she recalls not having a good relationship with her mother, she remembers “a chaotic childhood marked by neglect and abuse” (Connors, 2014). In school she was bullied and eventually sexually assaulted “By a group of males “resulting in her dropping out of school and later finding out her had become pregnant as a result of the assault (DURANTE, ROBSON & WARREN, 2013). Soon after she gave birth to a baby boy she named joey, when joey was around two years old he was taken to the hospital and treated for a broken leg, Michelle stated that her mother’s boyfriend purposely did it while under the influence of drugs. (Anderson, 2013).Child protective services was called and joey was temporarily taken out of Michelle’s custody until further notice (Anderson, 2013).

Aggravating and mitigating factors are circumstances surrounding the case which prompt the Judge to issue a harsher or lighter sentence, respectively. Aggravating factors take into consideration whether the crime involved violence, caused damage or harm or if the offender used weapons whilst committing the offence. They also include the consideration of the victim, such as if they were vulnerable, young or old, or targetted due to race, occupation or gender. Mitigating factors include if the offender shows remorse for their actions, if it was a one-off offence or if the offender is young or was acting in self defence. R v Silva (2015) considered the mitigating factors within her case, reducing her count of murder to manslaughter.

Common law also permitted the prosecution to adduce evidence that was relevant to the accused’s guilt of the offence charged,

Actus reus is the Latin term for “guilty act” and is defined as the physical element of an offense covering all acts which are not psychological, it is one of two integral elements which are needed to make up an offence the other being mens reus, when these two are paired together without any defence the resulting verdict in a court of law would be guilty.

Actus Reus is the Latin term meaning the act of guilt (the outer or objective of a criminal offense). This is an essential element in the determination of a crime. Thus, when no reasonable doubt exists as a result of the demonstration of proof, the act of guilt, shown together with the intention of the individual to commit a crime (mens rea), creates criminal

It is the nature of the case and the crime committed which surface the selection of applicable sentence. However, when the court finds a particular case unusual, the court may depart from the guidelines and resort to a pertinent sentence appropriate for the nature of the case. Thereafter, the appellate court may choose to review and determine its appropriateness and reasonableness (United States Sentencing Commission, 2008). Sentencing is evaluated by the U.S Sentencing Commission.They determine its effects to the criminal justice system and recommends necessary modifications thereof (American International College,

n criminal law, the mens rea refers to the defendant's state of mind at the time of their crime and there are several levels reflecting the need to have a particular mens rea for the offence committed. For example, in murder or a S:18 offence in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the mens rea present must be that of specific intent, which is where the defendant desired that particular outcome of their actions. However, it was held in R v Cunningham 1982, that the intention to cause serious harm was enough to satisfy the mens rea for murder. This shows that, where murder cases are concerned, that it is relatively easy to prove the required mens rea and in doing so the concept of fault is often satisfied. This is once again shown in oblique