Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
To commit a criminal offence of ordinary liability (as opposed to strict liability) the prosecution must show both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). A person cannot be guilty of an offence for his actions alone; there must also be the requisite intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence at the relevant time.
To constitute a crime, there must be an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence). Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious, and recklessness being of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence. The distinction between recklessness and criminal ...
In criminal law, culpability, or being culpable, is a measure of the degree to which an agent, such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible for action and inaction. It has been noted that the word, culpability, "ordinarily has normative force, for in nonlegal English, a person is culpable only if he is justly to blame for his ...
In criminal law, mens rea (/ ˈ m ɛ n z ˈ r eɪ ə /; Law Latin for "guilty mind" [1]) is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus ("guilty act") before the defendant can be found guilty.
For 16 years, a suburban New York prosecutor’s office insisted it had the right man in a notorious 1996 double killing. The office tried him five times, through a series of hung juries and ...
A jury of 12 New Yorkers ended their first day deliberating the legal fate of Daniel Penny, a former US Marine accused of putting a homeless man in a fatal chokehold, without a verdict.
The man accused of killing a woman sleeping on a New York City subway car by setting her on fire pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and arson at a court hearing on Tuesday. A grand jury has ...
Ordinarily, there is a criminal act, which is what makes the term actus reus generally acceptable. But there are crimes without an act, and therefore without an actus reus in the obvious meaning of that term. The expression 'conduct' is more satisfactory, because wider; it covers not only an act but an omission, and (by a stretch) a bodily ...