n Your Court: Criminal Liability and Sentencing Gavin, a fifteen-year-old studen
ID: 3171388 • Letter: N
Question
n Your Court: Criminal Liability and Sentencing
Gavin, a fifteen-year-old student, was eating lunch on the grounds of a school. He threw a half-eaten apple toward the outside wall of a classroom some distance away. The apple sailed through a slowly closing door and struck a teacher who was in the room. The teacher was knocked to the floor and lost consciousness for a few minutes. Gavin was charged with assault by “any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.” Gavin stated that he did not intend to hit the teacher but only intended to see the apple splatter against the outside wall. Assume that you are one of the judges on the appellate court panel reviewing this case and answer the following questions.
1. What are the two elements of criminal liability? Are both elements present in this case? (See page 160.)
2. The trial court convicted Gavin, among other things, to send a message to his classmates that his actions were wrong. Is this a sufficient reason, in itself, to convict a defendant such as Gavin? Why or why not?
Explanation / Answer
1)
The two elments of criminal liabilty are Mens rea and actus reus. The mens rea is the state of mind. Under the Model Penal Code, guilt can be attributed to an individual who acts “purposely,” “knowingly,” “recklessly,” or “negligently.” Statutes give additional definition to these concepts and set forth which mental state applies to a particular crime.
When someone acts to consciously cause a particular result, he acts “purposely”. An act is done “knowingly” when the actor is aware that his conduct has a high probability of a specific result. When an individual disregards risk an action is done “recklessly”. If someone has grossly deviated from the standard of care of a reasonable person he has acted “negligently”.
The actus reus is the actual doing of an act prohibited by law.
Both the elements don't are met here, because the mens rea element is missing. The act wasn't arguably done purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently.
2)
No, it's not a sufficient reason. Judges must convict based on the law, and not on their own feelings or beliefs. To be convicted of assault, you must first have intent. If intent cannot be proven, then the defendant is innocent.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.