Police v Will and Amena
Issue: Can Amena and Will be charged with Actus Rea and Mens Rea
Rule: Actus Rea: An act that is voluntary or there is an omission
Mens Rea: A person is not guilty of an offensive unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently.
Analysis:
Mens Rea
Issue: Did Will and Amena act purposely?
Rule: Purposely: a person acts purposely when they have a conscious object to engage in a conduct. Analysis: The state will argue, Will and Amena making plans to rob will purpose to commit a burglary because they have plotted a plan to rob Paul. Will and Amena made a conscious decision to commit a crime. Will and Amena were aware that Paul was rich, so they purposely committed the robbed will because they …show more content…
Rule: Actus Rea: A voluntary act.
Then state will argue, Zynal breaking the lock was a voluntary because Zynal was conscious of what he was doing. Zynal broke the door on his own accord.
Zynal will argue, that he was walking towards him, so he didn’t voluntarily break Mayra’s door because he thought he was going into his door. Although Zynal didn’t intend to break Mayra’s door, the door was still broken by Zynal voluntarily, so there was actus rea.
Mens Rea
Issue Was there mens rea?
Mens Rea: A person is not guilty of an offensive unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently.
Due to the fact Zynal was walking towards him and thought he was going into his house; there is no mens rea because Zynal had no intent to break in to Mayra’s home. No facts in this case show Ryan had any involvement in this case.
The state cannot charge Zynal and Ryan because the state can’t prove Actus rea and Mens rea.
State v Jason and Arooj
Issue: Can the state char Jason and Arooj with burglary?
Rule: Actus Rea: An act that is voluntary or there is an …show more content…
Analysis:
Mens Rea
Issue: Did Jason and Arooj have mens rea?
Rule; A person is not guilty of an offensive unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently.
The state will argue, picking that picking the lock proves Jason and Arooj quickly panned a way to get inside Jay-z’s place, so they premediated how to go into Jay-z’s home.
Jason and Arooj will argue, they intended to say hi to Jay-z, so they had no intention to commit a crime.
There is no mens rea because Jason and Arroj didn’t specifically plan on breaking into Jay-z home.
Actus Rea Issue: Was there actus rea?
Actus rea: a voluntary act.
The state will argue, picking the lock shows a voluntary act because no external pressure caused the action.
Jason and Arooj can argue, that picking the lock not a voluntary because they were so overwhelmed with emotion, when the saw the lock with the letters JZ on it, they blacked out and had no idea of what they were doing.
The lock was still picked, so an actus rea was committed.
Jason and Arooj can’t be charged with burglary because there was no mens
Issue: Can Amena and Will be charged with Actus Rea and Mens Rea
Rule: Actus Rea: An act that is voluntary or there is an omission
Mens Rea: A person is not guilty of an offensive unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently.
Analysis:
Mens Rea
Issue: Did Will and Amena act purposely?
Rule: Purposely: a person acts purposely when they have a conscious object to engage in a conduct. Analysis: The state will argue, Will and Amena making plans to rob will purpose to commit a burglary because they have plotted a plan to rob Paul. Will and Amena made a conscious decision to commit a crime. Will and Amena were aware that Paul was rich, so they purposely committed the robbed will because they …show more content…
Rule: Actus Rea: A voluntary act.
Then state will argue, Zynal breaking the lock was a voluntary because Zynal was conscious of what he was doing. Zynal broke the door on his own accord.
Zynal will argue, that he was walking towards him, so he didn’t voluntarily break Mayra’s door because he thought he was going into his door. Although Zynal didn’t intend to break Mayra’s door, the door was still broken by Zynal voluntarily, so there was actus rea.
Mens Rea
Issue Was there mens rea?
Mens Rea: A person is not guilty of an offensive unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently.
Due to the fact Zynal was walking towards him and thought he was going into his house; there is no mens rea because Zynal had no intent to break in to Mayra’s home. No facts in this case show Ryan had any involvement in this case.
The state cannot charge Zynal and Ryan because the state can’t prove Actus rea and Mens rea.
State v Jason and Arooj
Issue: Can the state char Jason and Arooj with burglary?
Rule: Actus Rea: An act that is voluntary or there is an …show more content…
Analysis:
Mens Rea
Issue: Did Jason and Arooj have mens rea?
Rule; A person is not guilty of an offensive unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently.
The state will argue, picking that picking the lock proves Jason and Arooj quickly panned a way to get inside Jay-z’s place, so they premediated how to go into Jay-z’s home.
Jason and Arooj will argue, they intended to say hi to Jay-z, so they had no intention to commit a crime.
There is no mens rea because Jason and Arroj didn’t specifically plan on breaking into Jay-z home.
Actus Rea Issue: Was there actus rea?
Actus rea: a voluntary act.
The state will argue, picking the lock shows a voluntary act because no external pressure caused the action.
Jason and Arooj can argue, that picking the lock not a voluntary because they were so overwhelmed with emotion, when the saw the lock with the letters JZ on it, they blacked out and had no idea of what they were doing.
The lock was still picked, so an actus rea was committed.
Jason and Arooj can’t be charged with burglary because there was no mens