Additional Elements of Crime - Criminal Law - Lecture Notes, Study notes of Criminal Law

Download Additional Elements of Crime - Criminal Law - Lecture Notes and more Study notes Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity! Additional Elements of Crime Transferred Malice If an accused, with the mens rea of a particular crime, does an act, which causes the actus reus of the same crime, the accused is guilty even if the result was unintended. For example, if A, with the intent to kill B, shoots and kills C, thinking that C is B, then A has murdered C, even though A had no intention to kill C. Or, if A, intending to commit burglary, breaks into the wrong house, thinking it belongs to B, A is still guilty of burglary even though the house does not really belong to B. The requirement is that the actus reus and the mens rea must be of the same crime. For example, if A is annoyed by crows in the garden and blasts at them with a shotgun, it would not be murder if A's neighbour happened to be in the garden at the time and was killed. A could be convicted of manslaughter, however, since this crime requires a different intention. Motive Intent is often thought to mean the same thing as motive, but they are very distinct from each other. If the accused commits the actus reus and has the mens rea of a crime, it is entirely irrelevant whether the accused had a good or a bad motive. Assume that A kills an elderly relative B. A would he just as guilty of killing B, whether the motive was to spare B suffering from a painful illness or to inherit B's money. This does not mean that motive is not "evidence." Motive is a question of fact, which a jury may consider. Proved absence of motive is an important fact in favour of the accused and worthy of note in a charge to a jury. Conversely, proved presence of motive may be an important part of the Crown's case and the jury may hear it, notably on the issues of identity and intention. Lewis v. The Queen Supreme Court of Canada, 1979 The appellants Lewis and Santa Singh Tatlay were jointly charged with the murder of P. Sidhu, Tatlay's daughter, and her husband. The instrument, which caused the deaths, was an electric kettle rigged with dynamite in such a manner as to explode when plugged into an electric outlet. The kettle was sent to the couple by mail. It exploded with fatal results. The accused were found guilty and Lewis' appeal eventually reached the Supreme Court of Canada. It was based upon the sole question of whether the trial judge erred in failing to define "motive" and failing to direct the jury as to the concept of motive. The case was totally devoid of evidence of motive. The Supreme Court held that motive was not proven as part of the Crown's case but neither was absence of motive proven by the defence. There was no clear obligation in law to charge the jury on motive. Lewis admitted mailing the package but denied making the bomb. He had never met the deceased and had no reason to get involved in a family dispute. Lewis was a miner with the skill and experience with dynamite needed to make the bomb. He could not explain why he drove to another community to mail the package. He also commented to another man to listen to the radio news for "something interesting." The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the conviction of the two accused men. Those Incapable of Crime Some persons are held to be doli incapax-incapable of committing a crime. Examples of such persons include children, the insane, spouses in some instances, and the Crown. Insanity as a Docsity.com defence is discussed in more detail later in this unit. With regard to children, the Criminal Code states: 12. No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of seven * years. 13. No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was seven years of age or more, but under the age of fourteen years, unless he was competent to know the nature and consequences of his conduct and to appreciate that it was wrong. The law rejects completely any suggestion that children under the age of seven years, have the ability' to appreciate the nature of their actions so as to be criminally responsible. The law further expresses grave doubts that a person under the age of fourteen years could have such a criminal intent. The Crown may, however, introduce evidence to prove that a person under the age of fourteen was capable of knowing the nature and consequences of conduct engaged in, and knew that the conduct Was wrong. There is considerable disagreement among jurists as to whether "wrong" means "legally wrong" or "morally wrong." Children of tender years might know the difference between right and wrong in a moral sense; but it seems unlikely that children would think in terms of "contrary to law" since they probably would have no idea of what the law was. Husband and wife cannot be convicted of certain offences because of the special position of married persons. A husband and wife cannot conspire together. A married person cannot be an accessory for assisting his or her spouse to escape. Spouses cannot be charged with theft from each other while living together. Recklessness (All About the Law, Gibson, p.110-115) Recklessness is the careless disregard for the possible results of an action. When people commit acts with recklessness, they may not intend to hurt anyone. However, they understand the risks of their actions and proceed to act anyway. Driving over the speed limit and cutting people off in traffic could result in criminal charges if injury occurs as a result of these actions. Mens rea would exist if such recklessness were proven. Offences without a Mens Rea Some offences are less serious than those found in the Criminal Code. To prove that these offences occurred, it is not necessary to prove mens rea. These offences are usually violations of federal or provincial regulations passed to protect the public. Speeding, "short-weighting" a package of food, and polluting the environment are all examples of regulatory offences. Regulatory offences also carry lesser penalties. As a result, they do not carry the stigma associated with a criminal conviction. R. v. Wilson [2001] B.C.W.L.D. 561 British Columbia Court of Appeal Marven Wilson was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and received a sentence of four years. The same judge also acquitted him of impaired driving causing death. Wilson decided to appeal his sentence. In 1996, Wilson had tried to overtake a pickup truck driven by his friend Todd McComber. Both had been drinking alcohol. Wilson hit McComber's truck, which caused it to roll over several times. Rocky Cameron, a passenger, was thrown from the truck and died of his injuries. Neither man was wearing a seat belt. Police arrested Wilson for being intoxicated in a public place, but did not take breath samples. Wilson had several previous convictions for drinking and driving, not wearing a Docsity.com Bernier's trial judge ruled that he had intent to aid others to commit an offence. Bernier claimed that he did not know that a gun would be used during the home invasion. He felt that he should be found not guilty of the weapons offences. On appeal, the three judges could find no evidence that Bernier knew of a weapon or ought to have known that it would be used at the scene of the crime. They substituted the more serious weapons charges with the less serious charges of robbery and assault. Questions 17. What is a "home invasion"? What crimes are associated with it? 18. Why do you think "robbery while using a firearm" and "assault while using a weapon" are more serious than "robbery" and "assault"? 19. Why do you think the appeal court substituted the less serious charges of robbery and assault? Parties to an Offence A person who commits an offence, aids a person to commit an offence, or abets a person in committing an offence is defined as a party to a crime under section 21 of the Criminal Code. Aiding or Abetting Aiding means to help someone commit a crime. Abetting means to encourage someone to commit a crime. Two things must be proven before an accused can be convicted of aiding or abetting. First, the accused had knowledge that the other person intended to commit the offence. Second, the accused actually helped or encouraged the person to commit the offence. Mere presence at the scene of the crime does not provide conclusive evidence of aiding or abetting. Under section 21(2) of the Criminal Code, a person who plans an offence is just as guilty as a person who actually commits it. To counsel (suggest) or incite (urge) someone to commit a crime is also an offence. If Ron urges a mend to take an unlocked car with the keys in it for a joy ride, he is inciting another to commit an offence. Even if the offence is not carried out, the person who incites the offence-Ron-can receive the same penalty as the person who attempts it. Accessory after the Fact An accessory after the fact is someone who helps a criminal escape detention or capture. Helping someone escape capture includes providing food, clothing, or shelter to the offender. One exception to this law is the favoured relationship between a legally married couple. A man or a woman cannot be held responsible for assisting in the escape of a spouse and someone escaping with the spouse. Questions 20. According to section 21 of the Criminal Code, who may be a part offence? 21. Distinguish between "aid" and "abet." 22. What is the significance of section 21(2) of the Criminal Code? 23. Identify who may be considered an accessory after the fact? R. v. Goodine (1993) 1.41. N.B.R. (2d) 99 New Brunswick Court of Appeal One summer afternoon in 1992, Todd Johnston went for a ride with his girlfriend and two friends, Jason Boyd and Cory Goodine. After driving on some country roads near Arthurette, New Brunswick, Johnston stopped the truck. Without warning, he shot Boyd in the head with a revolver. He then removed Boyd's body from the truck and dragged it a short distance. Still holding the revolver, Johnston ordered Goodine to "get off the truck and help me because you're in on this, too." Goodine obeyed Johnston’s orders to drag the body into the woods. When the victim moaned, Docsity.com Johnston shot Boyd again in the back of the head. Medical evidence at trial indicated that either shot would have caused Boyd's death. A few days later, Goodine told two of his friends about the murder and led them to Boyd's body. The next day, the friends reported the incident to the police, who arrested Goodine and charged him with being an accessory after the fact to murder. The accused was acquitted following a trial by jury. The Crown appealed to the Court of Appeal, but the appeal was dismissed. Questions 24. Why did the Crown appeal the accused’s acquittal? 25. What is the actus reus of accessory after the fact? 26. Why was Goodine not charged with aiding and abetting? 27. What defence would be open to Goodline to explain his actions? 28. On what basis do you think the jury acquitted Goodine? Explain. Docsity.com