People v. Shaughnessy N.Y. District Court 1971 by qwc99136

VIEWS: 184 PAGES: 11

									People v. Shaughnessy
   N.Y. District Court 1971
We have learned from
Civil Procedure:
To win a civil suit the Plaintiff
 has the “burden of proof” to
 produce evidence superior
 (preponderance) to that
 presented by the Defendant.
For Criminal Prosecution, that
“burden of proof” is much greater:
 To win a criminal prosecution, the
 Plaintiff (always the government)
 must produce evidence “beyond a
 reasonable doubt” that the
 Defendant committed the crime,
 committed it voluntarily, and (in
 some cases) with “criminal intent.”
Define Actus Reus in terms of criminal
                    Essentially “the
                     wrongful act.” The
                     burden of proof in any
                     criminal prosecution is
                     on the state to
                     demonstrate by the
                     evidence that there is
                     no other reasonable
                     explanation but that the
                     defendant (usually)
                     voluntarily committed
                     the crime.
Define Mens Rea in terms of criminal
                    The burden of
                    proof in a criminal
                    prosecution is to
                    prove that the
                    defendant knew
                    what they were
                    doing and knew
                    (or should have
                    known) that it was
What is mala per se crime?

                Mala per se
                 means bad in and
                 of itself. A crime
                 which is
                 morally evil.
                 Homicide or rape
                 are good
What is a mala prohibitum crime?

                  Mala prohibitium
                  crimes are not
                  intrinsically evil acts,
                  but just regulations
                  sanctioned with
                  criminal penalties.
                  Driving with an
                  invalid license is an
Argue for the State Prosecution
 Explain why Ms.
 should be
 convicted of
 Argue for the Defense
 Make the case as
 Ms. Saughnessy’s
 Defense Attorney
 that charge of
 trespassing should
 be dropped.
Why did the Defendant claim that the
charges against her should be dropped?

                     The Defendant claimed
                      that the Trespassing
                      Ordinance was
                      unconstitutional as it did
                      not require proof of
                      actus reus or mens rea.
Explain why the defendant in this case
was found not guilty?

                     Most mala prohibita
                      crimes do not require
                      proof of mens rea, but
                      there must be proof of
                      actus reus (committed
                     Trespassing is a mala
                      prohibita crime and
                      proof of voluntary
                      commission is required.
                     Defendant’s entry was
                      not voluntary.

To top