Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Law Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus ("guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense (Preterintentionally [1] [2] /ultraintentional [3] /versari in re illicita).
In most common law jurisdictions, an element of a crime is one of a set of facts that must all be proven to convict a defendant of a crime. Before a court finds a defendant guilty of a criminal offense, the prosecution must present evidence that, even when opposed by any evidence the defense may choose, is credible and sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed ...
Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It prescribes conduct perceived as threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety, and welfare of people inclusive of one's self. Most criminal law is established by statute, which is to say that the laws are enacted by a legislature.
State v. Abbott, 36 N.J. 63, 174 A.2d 881 (1961), [1] is a landmark case in the American legal doctrine of retreat.In it, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously adopted a duty to retreat—a legal requirement that a threatened person cannot stand one's ground and apply lethal force in self-defense, but must instead retreat to a place of safety. [2]
According to the theory crime happens when the activity space of a victim or target intersects with the activity space of an offender. A person's activity space consists of locations in everyday life, for example home, work, school, shopping areas, entertainment areas etc. These personal locations are also called nodes. The course or route a ...
Black v. United States, 561 U.S. 465 (2010), is a white-collar criminal law case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with businessman Conrad Black's fraud trial. Along with two companion cases—Skilling v. United States and Weyhrauch v. United States—it dealt with the honest services provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1346.
Hughes Anderson Bagley was indicted on 15 counts of violating federal narcotic and firearm statutes in the Western District of Washington in October 1977. In preparation for trial, to be held in December, Bagley's counsel filed a discovery motion that requested information on the witnesses the prosecution intended to call, their criminal records, and any promises made to them in exchange for ...
But, with the decision in Ewing and the companion case Lockyer v. Andrade, [3] the Court effectively foreclosed criminal defendants from arguing that their non-capital sentences were disproportional to the crime they had committed. Ewing was represented in the Court by Quin Denvir. The Attorney General of California argued for the State of ...