Major Issues in Criminal Scenarios - Essay Example

Criminal Scenario: Part Clark’s Liability Clark’s liability for the criminal homicide of Andrew and Blake can be determined from the fact that he did not intend to kill the two although his action led to their death. Mens rea is the legal term that is used to describe criminal intent or attitude in the commission of a crime (Samaha 124). Mens rea refers to the intention of the person behind committing the crime. A person can only be held to be liable for committing a crime if there is an explicitly stated or inferred criminal intent to commit the crime. Mens rea is an essential element of homicide and has to be present for liability to be determined. In the present case, Clark’s intention was to hunt deer and he mistook Andrew and Blake for a pair of deer due to his lack of experience as a hunter. This is despite the fact that Andrew and Blake had taken all reasonable precautions to avoid being mistaken for animals by wearing orange jackets. However, his action, or actus reus, led to the death of both brothers. Apart from that, there were no preliminary inchoate crimes that can lead one to believe that Clark intended to shoot and kill Andrew and Blake. There is no scope for Clark to claim a justification defence that could prove that while he committed the crime of homicide it was justified under the circumstances. Clark can be held liable under the felony murder rule. According to this rule, a death that is caused unintentionally during the course of committing a felony is a first-degree murder. If the felony murder rule is applied to the situation of Clark, it needs to be determined whether Clark was committing a felony at the time when he shot Andrew and Blake. From the information given in the case, it is apparent that Clark was committing a felony because he was hunting with a shotgun that he possessed illegally. He had been convicted of burglary two years ago and his possession of the shotgun amounted to unlawful possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. If the criminal conduct has been proved under the felony murder rule, Clark could plead an excuse under the right-wrong test which could show that at the time of the shooting, Clark was not did not know that he was going to shoot people and not deer. He would have some difficulty in proving this since he could see their orange jackets and could hear their laughter. He can also claim that he was not willing to shoot or kill the brothers. Dean’s Liability According to the case, Andrew had been shot by Clark in the back and was seen by Dean lying face down and breathing. This shows that Dean could have known that Andrew had been shot and was still alive. However, instead of helping to save his life, Dean chose not to get involved in the case and left the spot. The medical reports showed that Dean could have saved Andrew’s life by calling for medical help as soon as he had seen Andrew in the injured state. These case facts show that Dean was not actively involved in the killing of Andrew. However, he can be charged with actus reus on the ground of omitting to fulfil a duty owed to Andrew as a fellow citizen. Samaha explains that a according to the principle of omission as criminal act (p. 106), a person can be determined to be liable for an act if his conduct involves the omission to perform an act that he is capable of performing physically. According to the facts of the case, Dean failed to call an ambulance or help to move Andrew to a safer place. As a result of this omission, Andrew could not survive the wound and died. Since there is medical evidence for the fact that Andrew’s death was caused by Dean’s omission to act reasonably, the court could determine the liability of Dean for criminal homicide on the basis of the omission principle. The court could even hold Dean liable for involuntary manslaughter of Andrew since the actus reus is present as inferred from the omission principle while the mens rea of unintentional killing are both present (Samaha 298). It could be argued that Dean did not intend for Andrew to die; however, this could be challenged by the prosecution by arguing that Dean’s desire to not get involved in the case indicates that he believed that Andrew could lose his life if he was left there in that condition. Blake’s Liability The case explains that Blake was aware of the danger to his life after the incident. He may also have known that his brother Andrew had been shot and was alive due to the fact that he was still breathing. Blake might be able to escape liability for the murder of Andrew if it can be proven that had he made the effort to help Andrew get to a safe place and accompany him out of the woods, it would have put his own life in greater danger. Blake did not have a criminal intent in causing the death of either his brother Andrew or of the girls he killed unintentionally after passing out in the car. The law of omission does not require a person to put his own life at risk to save another person from harm (Samaha 235). On this basis, Blake would not be likely to be held liable for the omission. Blake also caused the death of Emily and Faith while they were coming out of a rock concert. He passed out while attempting to drive himself to a hospital in order to save his life. While Blake was aware that he might pass out while driving, he could be held liable on grounds of the felony murder rule. The act of stealing the car from the driveway of a nearby house would amount to felony. Although Blake did not intend to cause the death of Emily and Faith, their unintentional killing while driving a stolen car would amount to an act of murder while committing felony. However, Blake can invoke the defense of necessity (Samaha 183) by stating that but he stole the car in order to save his life and by proving that he had no other reasonable alternative to stealing the car. While it is likely that Blake would be charged under the felony murder rule for the murders of Emily and Faith and the omission principle for contributing to the killing of Andrew, the Court may decide to employ the principle of diminished responsibility in view of the defence of necessity. Criminal Scenario: Part 2 Andy lived in the impoverished neighborhood of Downville where crime gangs were active and held a lot of influence. Rival gangs competed for a bigger share in various illegal activities including car theft and drug peddling. People like Andy who could not afford to move to a better neighborhood simply kept out of the gangs’ way as far as possible. Violence in Downville was so high that even the police would avoid patrolling the area at night. After graduating from high school, Andy decided to move to the state of Hopeton in search of a good job and a respectable life. A day before Andy was about to leave for Hopeton, a member of one of the gangs named Tony came to his house. Tony handed him a packet of marijuana asking him to take it with him to Hopeton where a friend of Tony’s named Charlie would take it from him. Marijuana was illegal in Hopeton despite a strong demand for it among the elite classes. Consequently, the police were alert on it being smuggled from neighboring states. Andy knew this and told Tony that he would not risk committing a crime. Tony became aggressive upon Andy’s refusal and stuffed the packet into Andy’s suitcase that was lying open on a table nearby. He then threatened Andy by reminding him that his family would continue to live in Downville even if he did not. He also said that Andy should be concerned about their safety and wellbeing more than anything else. He further said that if the marijuana did not reach Charlie it would result in an unpleasant situation for his family. Andy had witnessed Tony and his gang members frequently harass and intimidate residents in Downville in order to extort money from them and get them to do their bidding. The residents avoided reporting these incidents to the police for fear of reprisal. Andy was aware of the consequences of not complying with Tony’s instructions and took his words as a credible threat to the safety of his family in his absence. He finally consented to take the packet of marijuana with him in his suitcase to Hopeton the next morning. The next morning, Andy was stopped at a check post outside the limits of Hopeton and a policeman asked to check his luggage. The packet of marijuana was eventually discovered and Andy was arrested for attempting to smuggle banned narcotics into Hopeton. A few weeks later, Andy was presented before the judge at the Hopeton circuit court for a trial. At the trial, evidence was presented to show that the marijuana had been retrieved from inside Andy’s suitcase and that Andy had admitted to have been carrying it knowingly into Hopeton. He also stated that he knew about the laws that banned marijuana from being grown in Hopeton or to be brought into it from outside. However, according to the forensics reports, Andy’s fingerprints had not been found on the packet of marijuana. It had also been proven that Andy had indeed been caught while attempting to smuggle marijuana into the state. Once the criminal liability was established, Andy’s lawyer presented a defence of duress. He explained that Andy had only agreed to carry the marijuana to protect his family against retaliation from Tony and his gang members. He pleaded that the court should admit this defense as valid. What defense is Andy presenting and is it a valid defense? Answer: Andy’s lawyer is presenting a defense of duress to the court. The defense of duress is one of the defenses that can be made after the criminal liability has been established and the defendant faces the burden of proving a defense. Basically, in a defense for duress, the defendant claims that he was forced to commit the criminal act by another person. Samaha explains that proving the validity of a defense of duress is challenging because scholars and judges hold differing opinions about whether such a defense should be admissible (216). In order for Andy’s defense of duress to be valid, his lawyer will need to prove the existence of four elements of the defense of duress. First, he needs to determine the nature of the threat (Samaha 216). It should involve serious bodily injury to qualify as a valid threat. Andy should prove that Tony’s threat was intended as a threat to bodily harm to Andy’s family members. He should also specify whether he believed it to be a threat to life, serious bodily injury, or a less serious kind of harm. Second, the harm should be immediate (Samaha 216). The lawyer should prove that Tony threatened Andy of consequences for his family if the marijuana was not delivered to Charlie the very next day. Third, it should be determined whether the defense of duress is applicable to marijuana smuggling in Hopeton. Finally, it is important for the defendant to believe the threat to be real and genuine (Samaha 216). In this case, Andy should prove that he had witnessed Tony’s gang rough up and assault residents and he had reason to believe his family members could be assaulted in a similar way. It appears that Andy’s defense of duress is valid since the threat of retaliation from the gang was credible and it was necessary for Andy to carry the marijuana in order to prevent harm to his family. Bibliography Samaha, Joel. Criminal Law, 11th ed. Cengage Learning. 2013. Print. Read More