Final Exam 2019, questions and answers PDF

Preview

Summary

For Simon Thomson's class...

Description

Crim 230 Final Exam Review What does the Crown have to prove? - Mens rea (mental element of crime) What are the elements of Mens Rea? 1. The accused made a choice to do something wrong 2. The choice was freely made 3. The accused knew or should have known that what they were doing was wrong Subjective Mens Rea: - What was in the accused’s mind - Crown must show that the accused deliberately chose to do something wrong - Most morally blameworthy state of mind - Intent, knowledge, recklessness Objective Mens Rea: - What should have been in the accused’s mind - Reasonable person test - Carelessness, negligence Offences with special levels of mens rea: - Intention - Knowledge - Recklessness - Negligence What is the difference between intention and motive? - Intention o Freely made the choice of conduct o Accused deliberately wants the consequences to occur - Motive o The reason for wanting to achieve the desired objective

Special rules for intention: - Transferred intent o Criminal intent can be transferred to another victim - Specific intent o Crown has to prove that the accused intended to commit the prohibited act o For some offences, Crown must also prove that the accused has an additional intention to produce some further consequences beyond the actus rues - General intent o Crown must prove that the accused meant to do an act prohibited by law What is the difference between Recklessness and Willful Blindness? - Recklessness o Accused knows there is a danger or risk and persists in their conduct anyways - Willful blindness o Accused becomes aware of the need for some inquiry and declines to make that inquiry because they do not want to know the answer Objective Mens Rea Offences: - Driving offences (dangerous driving) - Unlawful act manslaughter - Criminal 3 Major Elements of Dangerous Driving: 1. Marked departure from a reasonable standard of care 2. Court will look at the exact facts faced by the accused and determine what a reasonable person, knowing those facts, would have done 3. Accused must be capable of understanding or appreciating the situation and the required standard of care Elements of Unlawful Act Manslaughter: - The unlawful act caused the victim’s death - Accused had the necessary mens rea for the unlawful act

-

The unlawful act is inherently dangerous The unlawful act is one where a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would have foreseen the danger and done something to avoid it

Three Categories of Offences: 1. True crimes o Crown must prove actus reus and mens rea 2. Strict liability o Crown must prove actus rues, but not mens rea o Accused may avoid liability by showing 3. Absolute liability o Crown must prove actus rues, but not mens rea o No defence of due diligence True Crimes: - Violate fundamental values - Moral blameworthiness - Crown must prove actus reus and mens rea Modes of participation in crime (how do you become a party to an offence?): - Actually commit crime - Aids - Abets - Counsels - Common intention What is aiding and abetting in a crime? - Aiding o Assisting and helping in the crime - Abetting o Instigating, promoting, procuring, and encouraging the crime To be an aider or abetter, you have to know about the crime: - Can prevent someone from stopping the crime - Assist and facilitate the crime

Common Intention: - Where 2 or more people form a common intention to carry out an unlawful purpose and anyone of them commits an offence that the other knew about, then they all are parties to the offence Withdrawal from Common Intention: - Defence of abandonment - The withdrawal must be timely and unequivocal Counseling in a crime: - Doesn’t require the crime to happen - Likely that efforts could persuade someone to commit the crime - Reasonably foreseeable - Counsellor can be charged with being a party to the offence even if the principle person isn’t Elements of Accessory After the Fact: - Knowledge that a crime has been committed - Desire or intent to help the criminal escape - A positive act or omission to aid the escape o Receives, comforts, or assists Elements of attempted crime: 1. Non-commission of the offence 2. Accused actually intended to commit the offence 3. Overt act beyond mere preparation -

There must be an actus reus for an attempt (does not have to be complete offence) You can attempt to commit any crime except conspiracy o Common intention o Agreement to commit an unlawful act between 2 or more people

NCRMD (section 16): - Every person is presumed sane - No person is criminally responsible for an act or omission committed while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature of the act and knowing that it was wrong - Burden of proof to show that a person is NCRMD is on the party who raised that issue ------------------------------ NCRMD could be a partial or full defence in law - Section 16 is the only section that presented a defence in law - NCRMD is looking at the accused t NCRMD as a Partial Defence in Murder Cases: Mental disorder can affect the accused’s conviction in 3 ways; 1. If it renders the accused incapable of appreciating the nature & quality of the act or that it was wrong 2. If it results in a reasonable doubt that the accused could not form a specific intent 3. If accused had specific intent but the mental disorder results in a reasonable doubt about the accused’s ability to plan and deliberate about the murder Fitness to Stand Trial: Accused is unfit to stand trial if because of mental disorder they are; - Unable to understand the nature of the proceedings - Unable to understand the possible consequences of the trial - Unable to communicate with counsel Options for the Review Board: - Absolute discharge - Conditional discharge - Detained in a hospital

Substantive Defences: - Mistake of fact o Mistake must relate to an essential element of the crime o Mistake must be honest o Mistake does not have to be reasonable, but there must be an “air of reality” - Mistake of law o There is no defence to mistake of law with 2 limited exceptions  Officially induced error – an official gives you advice which you rely on  Colour of right – honest belief in ownership or valid legal claim to property Air of reality test: - Accused cannot say that they were mistaken as to a particular material fact - There is an evidentiary burden on accused to show some evidence to support their claim - Evidence must be reasonable capable of supporting the claim that the accused was mistaken about the particular fact Elements of Necessity Defence: - Proportionality - No other legal alternatives available - No more harm was done than necessary - Must be an urgent situation - Defence is not available if the accused places themselves in the situation voluntarily Elements of Provocation Defence: - Wrongful act or insult - Reasonable person test - Accused had to act suddenly before they have time to cool down

3 Conditions to Self-Defence: - Reasonable belief that force or threat of force is being used against them or another person - The act committed must be for the purpose of defending themselves from use or threat of force - The act committed is reasonable in the circumstance Excessive Force that Leads to Death: Three possible scenarios; 1. If accused did not intend to cause death and force used was not excessive – acquittal 2. If accused intended to cause death and force used was excessive – murder 3. If accused did not intend to cause death but force used was excessive – manslaughter Consent: - For consent to be valid it has to be voluntary and informed What act can adults not consult to in Canada? - Bodily harm...