The Abandonment Defense in Criminal Law Cases

By  | 

Although abandonment defenses are rarely raised in criminal proceedings, Mass Tsang’s highly experienced Toronto area lawyers take all factors into consideration when developing their cases’ defence strategies. Recently, New Jersey Supreme Court decisions provided some valuable guidelines for recognising abandonment as an acceptable defence strategy.

Punishing attempts deters completion of crimes and prevents moral luck from shielding attempted offenders from full liability. However, to be effective as an argumentative strategy the defense requires that any voluntary renunciation be truly voluntary.

Reasons for Abandonment

Abandonment is an integral concept in law, from property law and family law to criminal law. Essentially, abandonment refers to the voluntary act of relinquishing your rights, claims or interests in something specific and relinquishing them for whatever reason – usually voluntary in nature but requires conscious and intentional decision-making for it to work effectively.

Abandonment can be used as a defense in various circumstances to escape criminal liability, depending on the specifics of each case. For instance, in cases of theft it could serve as a valid argument against criminal liability if the accused abandons plans to commit an offense prior to initiating criminal behavior; such an approach must demonstrate genuine repudiation rather than mere lame excuses for their crime sprees.

Property law offers abandonment as an effective defense to conversion of real estate or personal property, when its original owner no longer intends on returning to it and no longer uses it as intended. This strategy can be particularly helpful against property theft or burglary.

Abandonment can also be used in family law cases as an argument against child abandonment. This occurs when either the parents, guardians or anyone responsible for caring for a child abandons it – an action which can have grave repercussions for legal matters like custody and support determinations.

Mens Rea

Mens Rea is Latin for “guilty mind.” To be found guilty of certain crimes, individuals must possess certain mental states – or guilty minds – in order to be considered guilty. Specific requirements vary between crimes; most require some type of intent on the part of those charged with them. A strong criminal defence attorney is therefore invaluable; one who understands both law and case law thoroughly. According to the Supreme Court ruling on mens Rea violations that lead to imprisonment as guaranteed under Charter Rights and Freedoms guarantees minimum mens Rea requirements; various types including intention, knowledge recklessness willful blindness or negligence as per legal definitions set by it’s definitions set by Supreme Court ruling.

In most cases, to successfully prosecute someone of a crime requires both mens rea and actus reus. Actus reus is Latin for physical component of crimes while mens rea refers to their mental state at the time of an offense.

Assuming, for instance, that a pedestrian crosses in front of a reckless car driving recklessly and dies as a result, Driver 1 would likely be held liable. Because their actions could reasonably foreseeably have resulted in serious bodily harm, their actions constituted mens rea (intention to kill). Ignorance of law will rarely serve as an acceptable defense against charges of murder or similar crimes where strict liability exists.

Actus Reus

Actus Reus is the physical elements necessary for criminal liability to be established, along with mens rea, or the guilty mind, that play an integral part in proving who committed an act. For instance, burglary’s actus Reus is defined as entering or remaining within any building, house trailer, watercraft, aircraft, railroad car or motor vehicle without permission with intent to commit a crime or steal therein; but also includes acts such as not feeding an infant or failing to report a crime as acts of omission that make an accused person responsible.

But this cannot apply in cases where involuntary acts result from someone’s condition or infirmity, for instance when Fred sleepwalks and takes his gun with him, going to Barney’s house during a dream, shooting him in the chest – as Fred’s actions were involuntary, they do not meet the actus reus of murder.

Crown can only formally convict an accused when there is sufficient proof that their mind was present at the time of an offense; without this mens rea, an act cannot occur; however, section 33.1 circumvents this requirement and thus violates Charter’s section 7.

Air of Reality

Katz’s argument is persuasive, yet an in-depth explanation for why law fears proprietary voids is necessary. What motivates this fearful reaction by the legal system isn’t liability but the risk that one’s possessions might harm or endanger others – and furthermore the legal system already contains mechanisms to address those risks.

At first glance, it can be puzzling as to why the common law would impose such restrictive ownership regulations for items which do not pose a danger or threat. Perhaps this stems from ownership’s monistic concept and the associated feelings of responsibility associated with being an owner even when their things are not used directly by them.

Notably, when іt comes tо presenting a defence before a jury, the standard оf review іs not solely factual but legal; specifically based оn “air оf reality.” In other words, whether evidence presented іn any particular case meets this standard sо that a reasonable jury properly instructed and acting reasonably could acquit. Defining all components оf air оf reality legally may prove challenging but delimiting when its components haven’t met іt can often be easier than defining every part legally. A criminal defence lawyer must be adept at navigating this nuanced standard.