Criminal Law and Its Processes
Question :
Rob Nogoodson ("Rob") is competing for the starting quarterback position with
Doug Flukie (Doug") on the Buffalo Nils.
Question #2
Joliet Jake has just escaped from prison. He did so by hiding himself in one of the
amplifiers for his "Jailhouse Rock" show special, which was mandated by the court
as a part of his punishment.
Part II
Answer one (1) of the following three questions and support your answer with case and
statutory material discussing the purposes and function of law as well as the reasoning
for punishment.
I - Conspiracy
II - Felony Murder
III - Exculpation
Part III
Answer :
Part I
Answer I
Rob – From the circumstances of the case and from the conversation between Rob and Wayne, it came out that the real intention of Rob was not to kill Doug. He merely wanted to get rid Doug “out of the picture”. Since he never used the words “to kill” Doug, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that Rob wanted to murder Doug. In Mulcahy v. The Queen (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 306, it was held that planning of the offence should be there to constitute Conspiracy. Rob can take the defence that he had no intention of killing Doug.
Vinny – Vinny was called by Rob to get rid of Doug. Though he had a history of committing murder, that doesn’t mean Rob wanted to get Doug killed through Vinny. Even Vinny wrote it down to inform police. So Vinny had no mens rea or guilty mind. In case of Poulterers Case (1611) 9 Co. Rep. 55b, it was held that attempt should be considered as criminal conspiracy. Here Vinny can take defence that he made no planning or attempt of murder of Doug.
Wayne – Wayne got to know about the plan ‘indirectly’ as Rob called Vinny. Wayne thought Rob’s intention was to get Doug killed. In Barlow v. the United States, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 404 (1833), it was held that mistake of fact can be an excuse but mistake of law cannot be an excuse. Since Wayne had committed a felony, he cannot take the defence of mistake of fact. Though Wayne was highly voluntarily intoxicated when he planned with Snake Eyes over the phone to get Doug assassinated with Snake Eyes, he cannot avoid conviction. He carried a high powered rifle gun with him to get Doug killed. Though he killed Doug fifteen seconds after the death, he had attempted the murder. After killing Doug he escaped which proved he had guilty mind. Even he ran over a pedestrian while driving to Rob's house to collect his payment. So he had a criminal intention and motive to get Doug killed.
Bartender - Bartender can avoid conviction on the ground that he was asked by Wayne whether he knew someone “who do dirty works” and he was not aware of the real intention of Wayne to murder Doug.
Snake Eyes – Snake Eyes planned the execution of Doug’s assassination. He changed the cortisone injection with insulin which was actually the reason for Doug’s death. Further, he had a motive for death as he would have got $100 from Wayne for murder of Doug. He went to Wayne’s house for claiming his money. So Snake Eyes can’t avoid conviction for murder. He would be charged for conspiracy for the felony under Article 105.20 of New York State Law as he had planned and committed murder of Doug.
Trainer – Trainer made negligence which caused the death of Doug. He can be charged for negligence as there was breach of duty from his side which caused the death of Doug. If he had looked at the needle of the injection he could have understood that it was not cortisone but insulin. Trainer can take the defence that he had act in good faith and had no mala fide intention of getting Doug killed.
Part II
Answer I - Conspiracy
The law of conspiracy is clear on the point that without attempt there cannot be conspiracy. In Poulterers Case (1611) 9 Co. Rep. 55b it was held that attempt should be included to prove criminal conspiracy. But the point of dispute is on ‘overtly act’. In Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 334 (1957) and under Article 105.20 of New York State Law, it was held there should be an overtly act to constitute criminal conspiracy. The overtly act should be considered on circumstances and fact of the case. The overtly act should mean that the execution of planning directly associated with the offence. Though New York State Law has addressed the issue of conspiracy in details, the application of laws should be used very conscientiously.
Part III
From the course materials, it can be said that objects of punishment are as follows – to deter probable offenders from committing offences, to provide justice to the victim and to reform the offender from committing further offences. Our system of law is quite effective in achieving all these aspects of punishment. Since our system has achieved these objects of the punishment, it has strengthened my belief in the system and concept of punishment.
