Criminal Justice Elements of a Crime, Essay Example

First Degree Murder

We must first determine if the defendant acted with ‘intent to kill’ or intent to cause ‘serious bodily injury’. Did the defendant act with awareness of high risk that death or serious bodily injury would be caused? Was death caused in the commission of a felony sufficient to invoke the felony murder rule? If it can be found the defendant had any of these states of mind at the time of the victim’s death, the killing might well be murder. Is there anything to suggest the murder was premeditated? If so the killing will be first degree murder. Was there sufficient provocation and did the provocation in fact stimulate the defendant’s killing of the victim? If there was a cooling off period between the provocation and the killing the most likely charge will be voluntary manslaughter. If the defendant acted without malice but with criminal negligence the most likely charge will be involuntary manslaughter. Was the felony murder rule not brought into play during the commission of the crime? If not then involuntary manslaughter looks like a good charge for the crime instead of premeditated first degree murder. Was there any superseding factor to consider to break the chain of causation between the defendants conduct and the death of the victim? Did the defendant’s acts cause the victim to die and when did the victim actually die? The ‘but for test’ is used to determine if the factual causation was the leading cause of death. We ask, “But for the actions of the defendant would the act have happened at the same time and place?” If the answer to the question is yes then there has been no break in the chain of causation. There does not need to be an ultimate causation only a proximate and legal causation. With specific interest to the mens rea, there must be an intent or guilty mind to convict someone of a crime. This is referred to the mental element of the two necessary to convict a person of a crime. The actus reus is the actual physical element of the crime necessary to convict a person of a crime. Both must be present along with causation.

Elements of Robbery/Burglary

Robbery is another specific intent crime. Commission of the crime cannot be inferred from the actus reus therefore the mens rea must be proven as distinguished in Sullateskee v State (1967). The state of mind must be ‘willfully’, deliberately or feloniously. There must be a trespass and a breaking and entering. The breaking has to occur immediately before entering the dwelling of the victim. Entering occurs when there is physical entry into the dwelling of the victim. An entry can be constructive, that is if a burglar uses an item or a child/another to enter for them. All of the elements of the crime must be present for there to be a conviction.

Elements of Rape is considered a strict liability offense because it directly violates the rights of another person, it is part of a “broad regulatory scheme, it imposes a relatively light penalty upon conviction and requiring proof of mens rea would impede the implementation of the legislative purpose.” (Dix, 2002). It is the legislative intent that mens rea not be proven in each individual case as distinguished in Morisette v United States (1952). Courts consider and impose strict liability for the best of the public welfare as seen in Staples v United States, supra. A sexual act was committed against the victims wishes. The force requirement could only be met by threats of physical violence by the attacker. We must prove that the victim resisted.  There is a relative disproportion with age and strength between man and women as distinguished in Brown v State (1906). The victims test was used to the utmost. The victim is required to fight her assailant even if it is to put her life in danger. It was not until the 1950’s that the courts began to relax this standard and not require the victim to fight when it could mean life or death to the victim with cases of rape. Reasonable resistance would serve enough as distinguished in State v Lima (1952).The reason the victim test was changed is because the victim’s life was put in danger more than helping out the victim.  There must be presence of all of the elements of the crime for there to be a conviction upheld. With a lack of any of the three elements to the crime the conviction will not be upheld in a court of law. This is to protect the accused of a frivolous charge being upheld against him.