Actus reus-The criminal act, or “bad act.”

Mens rea- Criminal intent, or “evil mind.”

Concomitant circumstance- The element added to a normally legal act that makes it illegal. It is legal to drive, but not with the attendant circumstance of being intoxicated.

To convict criminally, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed a criminal act (actus reus), and did so with criminal intent (mens rea). If criminal intent is not present, there must be a concomitant circumstance. For example, a drunk man may not have bad intentions when he drives his car; he just wants to get home. He is criminally responsible without the mens rea, because he committed the actus reus (driving) of a crime, with a concomitant circumstance (while intoxicated).

Of course, it is impossible for the court or jury to determine exactly what the defendant’s state of mind was at the time of the crime, so the court uses facts and circumstantial evidence to better infer the defendant’s intent. Sufficient circumstantial evidence can add up to criminal intent.

the court uses assumption to promote order. Some assumptions are not ruled out. It is presumed that a child under the age of 7 cannot form criminal intent (mens rea), and cannot be criminally responsible for any action. This presumption is not rebuttable. The prosecution can present evidence that a 6-year-old boy who stabbed one of his playmates is a genius, ready to be admitted to Harvard, and the court will not change the presumption that he failed to form criminal intent. . Other presumptions are dismissable. The court presumes all defendants innocent, but if the prosecution presents sufficient evidence to reject the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant will be found guilty.

Because the human mind is complex, the law allows for different levels of mens area, with decreasing levels of responsibility:

          on purpose, intentionally, knowingly– the most guilty level of mens rea. The defendant acted with malice and with full knowledge that he was committing a crime that would have a bad outcome. “Knowingly” is generally used to describe a crime with an attendant circumstance.

          dazedly– The average level of guilt. The defendant was aware that his behavior posed a risk and did so anyway. For example; two drivers decide to do a drag race, reaching speeds of nearly 100 MPH on a city street. Along the way, a pedestrian is struck and killed. One or both of the drivers would likely be held recklessly responsible for the pedestrian’s death because any reasonable person would know that driving down a city street at 100 MPH carried a risk. The risk must be of such a nature that a reasonable person would refrain from performing the act.

          Negligence– The lowest level of responsibility. The defendant was not aware that his behavior was risky, but it should have been. The line between recklessness and negligence can be blurred, and courts consider the circumstances in determining fault. A professional child care worker who ignores a dangerous situation that leads to the death of a child would hold a higher standard than an inexperienced babysitter. If the defendant I was Aware of the risk, he acted recklessly. If he was No aware of the risk, is negligent. The standard the court uses is what a reasonable person would have perceived in the same situation.

          strict liability-This may not seem fair, but sometimes, no one really did anything wrong (a well-maintained cable suddenly breaks causing death or injury), but one person is responsible because someone needs to fix it. This was produced during the industrial revolution to protect the public and is punishable by fines, rather than jail time.

A common thread throughout the judicial system is the idea of ​​a “reasonable person” and what he or she would do, infer, perceive, or fail to do.

The crime of possession:

royal possession– The offender has a prohibited item on his person.

constructive possession -Prohibited items are in a place or thing that is under the offender’s control, but not on the offender’s person.

Knowing the Possession -The offender knows that he possesses the prohibited object. A person does not have to know that the item is prohibited or illegal; he just needs to know that he owns it. Most states require possession to be known for it to be criminal.

mother’s possession A person does not know that he possesses a prohibited item. Maybe he accidentally grabbed the wrong jacket that had drugs in the pocket (or, anyway, that’s his defense). In North Dakota and Washington, mere possession is enough for a criminal charge.

Tea causality principle– the law holds a person responsible for the results of their conduct to varying degrees.

          cause of fact– The clause “if it were not for”. If the defendant did not commit East Act, that it would not have happened. Consider the drag racing scenario. Had Defendant not been driving down a busy street at 100 MPH, the pedestrian’s death would not have occurred. The death was a direct result of drag racing.

          proximate cause– Is it fair to blame the defendant for the crime? His actions may have caused East, but how closely is it related? Let’s say the two men are racing down the street at 100 MPH when suddenly a tire flies off one of the cars and smashes through a huge window, prompting a barber to start shaving a customer’s neck with a straight blade razor. When the barber regains his composure and looks down, he realizes that he has just ripped the poor client’s head off. Are drag racers responsible for the death? A reasonable person might have remotely foreseen that the tire would go flying, but would he have also foreseen that the barber would start while he was holding the razor? If the damage is accidental or remote enough, there is no immediate cause and the defendant cannot be found guilty.

By the way, the hairdresser could not be found guilty either, because he had no criminal intent. Even if the barber just found out that this particular customer was sleeping with his wife, and the police find a diary detailing how the barber planned to go to the victim’s house and shoot him in the head, the barber could not be considered responsible for accidental killing. the man when the tire flew out the window. Although mens rea was there because the barber intended to kill the victim, the barber did not commit the actus reus (although, technically, he did commit the actus reus of slitting the guy’s throat, he did not do it with malicious intent), and he did not You can be held responsible for what you thought or expected.

          intervening cause– something that interrupts the chain of events, or contributes to the results. Using the last drag racing example, the intervening causes would be: the flying tire, the glass window breaking, and the barber with the razor. However, this does not always eliminate liability. If I have a party where I serve alcohol to a group of teenagers, who then get into a car, speed down a winding road, and hit a tree, I am still responsible for their deaths, even though there is an intermediate cause of speeding. and the winding road

          ignorance of the law– This is not a defense. It doesn’t matter if you knew you were committing a crime or not. The court does not allow one person’s interpretation or moral judgment to trump those of the community. The law is the law for everyone, even if the defendant did not know that his actions were criminal.

          mistake of fact– This is a defense. Let’s say she’s been sneaking her boyfriend/her girlfriend into her room at night, and he/she goes to the bathroom just as her mom is having a midnight snack in the kitchen. Your mother hears noises upstairs and brings a knife to investigate. When your lover opens the bathroom door, your mother stabs him in the chest. Your friend has been the victim of a factual error. The fact was that he had permission to be in the house, and your mother was wrong in assuming that she was killing a burglar. Therefore, although her friend’s parents will likely want her son’s murderer punished, the court cannot hold her mother criminally responsible for the death.

          scraps:

          motivates– A possible reason for an accused person to have committed the crime. Although the prosecution’s case may be stronger if it can show that the defendant had strong motive for committing the crime, the state does not have to prove motive to obtain a conviction. Sometimes the motive is clear, such as when one person can earn an outrageous amount of money for the convenient death of another. Sufficient circumstantial evidence can be added to motivate. For example; a wife is murdered, and her husband doesn’t benefit from a big insurance policy, but she was having an affair and the wife had talked to a lawyer about the divorce. These pieces of circumstantial evidence can be used to infer motive.

          Premeditation– The anticipation of committing the crime. Most people assume that for a crime to be premeditated, the offender had to have planned it for at least a period of time, but in reality, premeditation can only last for a fraction of a second. Take this scenario; my boyfriend and I are sitting in our living room watching a movie. I am in a very good mood, I snuggle in his arms and everything is fine. Suddenly, the lights go on next door, and there’s my slutty neighbor parading naked, like always, for the whole neighborhood to see. I walk over to the side table drawer next to the couch, grab the gun I keep there for protection, and shoot him between the eyes. I hadn’t planned on killing her before, but the two seconds it took me to open the drawer, draw the gun, aim, and pull the trigger was two seconds of premeditation, and I’m in a lot of trouble.

          Misdemeanor included- Sometimes the state cannot prove all aspects of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but the jury simply knows that the defendant was up to no good. You can decide to hold the defendant liable for an included misdemeanor.

          transferred intent– When I went to shoot my slutty neighbor, my aim was so bad that I accidentally shot through the window next door and hit her grandmother, who is innocently knitting in her rocking chair. I’m not free because I didn’t have the area menu to shoot grandma. I had the mens rea to shoot someone at that time, so the law will transfer my intention from the neighbor to the grandmother.