Assignment 4 - Fully define the \"mere presence\" rule. PDF

Preview

Summary

Fully define the "mere presence" rule. Where appropriate, and where you can, please cite to the textbook with page numbers. Provide an example to illustrate when the "mere presence" rule would prevent the prosecution of someone AND state why the rule does OR does not make sense. Your response shou...

Description

Assignment Name: Week 4 HW

Name: Renora Rene Date Due:

QUESTION Fully define the "mere presence" rule. Where appropriate, and where you can, please cite to the textbook with page numbers. Provide an example to illustrate when the "mere presence" rule would prevent the prosecution of someone AND state why the rule does OR does not make sense. Your response should be a minimum of 1 page

In Bailey v. U.S. (1969), the defendant, Bailey and another male individual were shooting craps one afternoon. The other individual saw a man passing by and proceeded to rob the man of his cash at gunpoint. Both Bailey and the other male fled the scene however, only Bailey was apprehended (Samaha, 2017, p. 246). According to Samaha, the mere presence rule states that proof an individual fleeing a crime scene or that individual’s simple presence at a crime scene is inadequate to impose the liability of accomplice actus reus on that individual (Samaha, 2017, p.246). Therefore, the court decided in Bailey’s favor, ruling that flight from a scene may be accounted for but is not substantial enough to determine the presence of actus reus in such action of the defendant (Samaha, 2017, p.246). For example, Sarah a 24-year-old and Stacy, 25 are roommates at an apartment. Onenight Sarah, Stacy and Sarah’s boyfriend Mark decide to throw a mini get-together. Mark invited three male friends over. As the night went by the group indulged in alcoholic beverages and some ecstasy. However, Stacy refrained from taking ecstasy and only had two drinks. Stacy went to her room whilst Sarah remained with the boys in the living room. A bit later one of Mark’s friends, Tom, barged into Stacy’s room and attempted to seduce her. She resisted profusely. However, the two other friends came in and held her down. Tom then proceeded to rape Stacy and she screamed for help whilst trying to fight them off. They each struck her several times. The second friend then raped Stacy as well. Whilst the third friend was raping her Sarah and Mark barged into the room and instead of helping they just stood there looking. Sarah yelled at them to stop but they did not budge. A neighbor who overheard the commotion called the police. By the time the police got there everyone had fled the scene. Stacy was rushed to the hospital. A few hours later Sarah and Mark were apprehended by an officer who stopped them. Tom and the other two boys were never caught though Mark sold them out.

In such a situation the mere presence rule would protect Mark and Sarah from being held liable as actus reus cannot be proven. Their fear of being blamed for the crime or being associated with the crime could be used as the basis for their flight from the scene. There mere presence at the time of the assault is not sufficient to prove that they aided. The mere presence rule therefore does make sense in a case like this. However, it is my firm belief that this rule should only be applied where there is sufficient evidence to prove that the said defendant knew nothing about or did not actually participate in the said crime. For example, if newly collected evidence shows that Mark dropped of his friends to the Mexico border or to a train station and purchased tickets for them to get away then he could be held liable for aiding and abetting as he assisted the actual criminals in getting away. According to Samaha, participation after a crime can sometimes prove involvement before or during the time at which the crime was committed (Samaha, 2017, p. 247). But that was not the case. However, in a case such as State v. Walden (1982) where Walden had a legal duty to stop brutal abuse from being inflicted on his one-year old son Lamont, the mere presence rule cannot be applied. Walden would be held liable on grounds of omission as he had the legal duty to prevent the child from being abused (Samaha, 2017, p. 247). Conclusively, where omission is present the mere presence rule should not validate as an exemption from prosecution or liability. However, in cases where the said defendant was merely present at the time of the crime, or where the flight from said crime associated them with the crime, sufficient evidence should be garnered to prove actus reus. Otherwise, liability can be waived based on the mere presence rule. (Samaha, 2017, p. 246) According to the court’s decision in Bailey v. U.S. (1969) a person may flee a crime scene out of fear of being convicted for a crime that he did not commit simply because of the guilt imposed upon him for his mere

presence. This guilt however should not be mistaken for a submission of guilt to aiding in the commission of the said crime.

References

Samaha, J. (2017). Criminal law (12th ed.). Cengage Learning. Kindle Edition. Retrieved January 11, 2019, from https://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Law-JoelSamaha/dp/1305577388...