Legal Case Study - Research Paper Example

The prosecution stated regarding one year statute of limitation and requirement of affirmative proof argument of the defense that sec.939.74 shall apply for criminal proceedings and that enough corroborative evidence was established by the testimony of the defrauded women. The argument that the brief failed to allege the elements of the crime and that the trial court did not have subject matter was also refuted by the prosecution on the basis of the argument that failure to provide information about the crime does not make the information void as per Schleiss v. State. As regards the restriction on cross examination, the prosecution proved that the exclusion of the witness from being cross-examined was absolutely correct.

As regards to sufficiency of evidence the prosecution stated in its answer to the argument of the defense that Lambert’s promises could not have been fraudulent as the women to whom he promised to marry were already married that the question in a criminal fraud action is whether the victim relied on the offender, which in this case the victim did and as such Lambert is liable. 3. What is the element of crime? The element of the crime in the present case is theft by fraud contrary to sec. 943.20 (1)(d),(3)(b), and (3)(c), Stats.

1 by the plaintiff on record of the present case. The offence of theft by fraud arises from a relationship of Lambert and a different woman, during which Lambert obtained money from each woman on the basis of a promise to marry her. The same offence was committed with six different women and an additional woman serially during the period of August 1971 to May 1974. What is the issue inference, actus reus, mens rea, presumptuous? The issue inference was whether the action was barred by ch.248, whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction, whether proper offences were properly joined, whether restricting cross-examination of complaining witnesses was an abuse of the trial court, whether evidence was sufficient to support the verdict guilty and whether the sentencing of 24 was an abuse of power (Lambert v. State). The mens rea or wrongful intention in the present case was to have a wrongful gain through a promise to marry.

The actus reus or the wrongful act itself in the present case was to take the money by creating deception, which amounted to fraud, and never giving it back to the women he took it from. 4. What is the previous law? The previous law on the same issue was that if there was breach of contract through refusal to marry, a cause of action to file a suit for the same arises. But the same was abolished by secs. 248.01, 248.02, Stats. 3. 5. What is the current law? The present law on the same issue is that civil suits for the recovery of the property which is taken on the strength of a fraudulent promise to marry can be initiated under sec. 248.06,4.

The relief in the form of suit for damages for emotional harm caused by the breach of promise to marry isn’t available. But this doesn’t take away the remedy to file a suit for criminal fraud or civil fraud, when property was taken away from the victim. 6. What is your opinion? The Supreme Court of Wisconsin was correct in its decision. Lambert did commit the crime of theft by fraud, when he promised to marry them and used this promise to have unlawful gain in terms of money from the innocent women.

This makes him liable to be punished according to law. Moreover, he committed the same crime consequently