Criminal Law

California Federal Criminal Law

admin — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:20:32 +0000

R. v. Gee
It can NEVER be reasonable to kill a person in defense of property; however, this rule does not preclude a person whose house is being broken into from claiming self-defense under CC34 or 37.

R. v. Spencer (1977) BCSC
Can a tenant in a dwelling house be said to be in peaceable possession of the common hallway of the building? No. The landlord did not grant possession of the common hallway to his tenant. Therefore, the hallway was not in the possession or control of the … [visit site to read more]

Sacramento Criminal Defense Law

admin — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:19:13 +0000

PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT REQUIRED

R. v. Reilly (1984) SCC
The SCC affirmed that CC34.2 requires a reasonable apprehension of death or g.b.h. (actual belief) and a reasonable belief that killing or causing g.b.h. (that belief must be reasonable) to one’s adversary was the only way to avoid harm.

1. Defense of a person to prevent an assault.

CC37.1 everyone is justified is using force to defend himself or anyone under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force … [visit site to read more]

North Carolina Criminal Law

admin — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:18:01 +0000

R. v. Paquette (1977) SCC
P participated in a robbery during which a bystander was killed. P contended that he had no intention to participate in the robbery and was threatened with death “if he squealed” and only participated due to the threat. In England, duress is no defense to a charge of murder; however, the SCC did not follow this approach.

R. v. Hibbert (1995) SCC
Duress is assessed on a modified objective standard, which takes the frailties of the accused into account. … [visit site to read more]

Mississippi Criminal Law Attorney

admin — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:17:02 +0000

Excuse concedes the wrongfulness of the action but asserts that the circumstances under which it was done are such that it ought not be attributed to the actor. For example, the perpetrator who acts under a disease of the mind and is incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of is acts, or the person who labours under a mistake of fact, etc. are actors of whose criminal actions we disapprove of but whom, in appropriate circumstances, our law will not punish. There is no … [visit site to read more]

Virginia Criminal Defense Law Firm

admin — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:15:54 +0000

SPECIFIC V. GENERAL INTENT

R. v. Leary (1977) SCC
This case exposed a difference between BC and Ontario regarding rape. In BC rape was a general intent (manslaughter, rape, sexual assault) offence. In Ontario, it was a specific intent (other specific intent crimes include murder, theft, robbery, aiding and abetting a crime and attempted crimes) offence. Therefore, intoxication was a grounds for defense in Ontario but not BC. The SCC found that rape was a crime involving only … [visit site to read more]

Kansas Criminal Law

admin — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:14:42 +0000

R. v. Stone (1999) SCC
Accused attacked and killed his wife then fled to Mexico after she made a series of “psychologically sadistic” remarks about his sexual prowess. The automatic accused does not necessarily have to be acting unconsciously but their unconsciousness must be so impaired that they have no control over their actions. The issue in this case was how to distinguish between insane and non insane automatism when a psychological blow prompts it. To satisfy the evidentiary … [visit site to read more]

Alabama Criminal Law

admin — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:13:35 +0000

DISEASE OF THE MIND

R. v. Cooper (1979) SCC
Defined “disease of the mind” as “any illness, disorder or abnormal condition which impairs the human mind and its functioning, excluding, however, self-induced states caused by alcohol or drugs as well as transitory mental states such as hysteria or concussion.”

Since Daviault, transitory states of extreme intoxication don’t qualify as a disease of the mind but chronic conditions caused by drug abuse may qualify. In Rabey, the … [visit site to read more]

Michigan Criminal Law

admin — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:12:38 +0000

3. RELIANCE ON ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS OF LAW
If an accused made a mistake of law by relying on an innaccurate source of law, the rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse seems to require a conviction even though some exceptions have emerged.

R. v. McLean (1974)
The accused was involved in a car accident while driving a vehicle in the course of his employment at an airport and was charged with driving while disqualified. His defense was that he was relying on advice he had been … [visit site to read more]

Houston Criminal Attorney Criminal Lawyer

admin — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:11:28 +0000

MISTAKE OF LAW

With mistake of fact, notions of fairness intervene to allow for error (flexible approach). With mistake of law, the system is very rigid – since the first CC there has been a provision ignorance of the law is not an excuse. This applies to ignorance, not mistake; however, this distinction has been given little treatment. Holmes says a less rigid approach might encourage ignorance where knowledge is desirable. Public policy sacrifices the individual to the general … [visit site to read more]

California Criminal Law

admin — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:09:31 +0000

Definition of Sexual Assault:
An assault within any one of the definitions of that concept from the CC that is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated.

Test to be Applied:
Objective – viewed in light of all the circumstances, is the sexual or carnal context of the assault visible to a reasonable observer? All circumstances surrounding the conduct are relevant to the issue of whether the conduct was of a sexual nature and … [visit site to read more]