Actus reus usually depends on proof of a voluntary act or an omission. Mens rea is also

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Actus reus usually depends on proof of a voluntary act or an omission. Mens rea is also required for criminal liability.

Scenario 1:Alphonso believed that Francine, a work colleague had stolen his wallet. Alphonso saw Francine at the local supermarket, approached her and said, 'lying thief'. Alphonso aims a punch at her head, but Francine dodges out of the way and Alphonso hits Vidal who was standing behind Francine. Vidal's injury is not serious, but he needs stitches. On his way home Vidal trips up a kerb opening his wounds further, making the bleeding worse. Susan Vidal's neighbour sees Vidal on the floor in pain but rushes past as she is late for work. Vidal is later discovered there by his wife Norma who calls the ambulance. Vidal refuses to give consent to being given an emergency blood transfusion because of his religious beliefs and dies.

Refer to the Scenario 1 when answering the following questions:

In respect of Alphonso, define the rules on causation and the egg shell skull rule. Discuss whether Alphonso is criminally liable for Vidal's death. (AC 1.1)(AC 2.1)
In respect of Susan, identify the rules on omissions and if there could be criminal liability for an omission(AC1.1)

Cite examples and legal authority in support of your explanations

I. Introduction:

Briefly describe the scenario
- In the presented scenario, Alphonso suspected Francine, his coworker, of stealing his wallet. Francine was standing behind Vidal when he approached her in the supermarket and punched her in the head. However, Vidal was struck instead. Even though Vidal's wound was minor, he required stitches. On his way home, Vidal tripped over a curb, causing his wounds to swell and his bleeding to worsen. As a result of his wounds, Vidal passed away.
Define the following terms:
- transmitted malice
- mens rea
Describe how the query will be answered.
- The question will be answered by analyzing Alphonso's actions in the scenario in light of the legal concepts of mens rea and transferred malice. The scenario describes Alphonso's belief that Francine, a coworker, had stolen his wallet and his subsequent attempts to punch her, which resulted in him striking and injuring Vidal instead.
- The answer to the mens rea question will be determined by analyzing Alphonso's mental state and intent at the time of the incident. The fact that Alphonso believed Francine had stolen his wallet indicates that he intended to cause harm to Francine, and thus his actions can be viewed as an example of mens rea.
- Regarding transferred malice, the question will be answered by analyzing how Alphonso's intent to harm Francine was transferred to Vidal. The principle of transferred malice states that if a person intends to cause harm to one person and accidentally causes harm to another person, they are still liable for that harm. In this scenario, Alphonso's intent to harm Francine was transferred to the harm he inflicted on Vidal; as a result, his actions are an example of transferred malice.
- In this case, the legal authority cited will be R v. Latimer, which established the principle of transferred malice in English law.

II. The Body

Describe how Alphonso's actions represent a case of transferred animosity.
Cite legal support for the idea of transferred malice (R v Latimer)
Describe how Alphonso's actions can be used to demonstrate mens rea.
Think about any possible Alphonso defenses (mistake of fact)
Stress the complexities of criminal law.

III. Conclusion

Summarize the key ideas and conclusions
Make reference to the introduction and demonstrate how the question was resolved.
Indicate what should be kept in mind going forward.