Involuntary Manslaughter Case
Module Five
Team Assignment: Criminal Law and Procedure
Group 5
Ohio University
Law and Society
BUSL 255
Facts
1. Kevorkian Pharmaceutical Institute has developed a cancer treatment that is extremely promising and profitable. The treatment involves “salting” cancerous tumors with tiny metallic particles, and then exposing them to high intensity radio waves that cause the metallic pellets to heat up and destroy the tumor without harming the healthy tissue. Although studies have been positive (95% of all cases), researchers have also noted an extremely adverse, and potentially lethal, side effect in 5% of patients tested, and they do not know why.
2. Nevertheless, the Institute has decided to market the cancer treatment. In …show more content…
order to prevent the public and the government from learning of the adverse side effects, the directors of the hospital placed the original documents in a warehouse, falsified the research findings (making all results appear successful), and submitted the altered documents to some very prominent medical journals that published the information.
3. Also, the directors of the hospital then instructed the project managers involved in the studies to keep silent. Each manager was given $1,000.00 in cash for his or her silence.
4. Dr. Gregory House, a project manager and doctor, ignores the director’s threats and refuses the $1,000 bribe. After taking the original documents from the warehouse in which the directors of the hospital stored them, Dr. House releases the information to the press.
5. In response to Dr. House’s revelation, Dr. McCoy, a company director, panics. He obtains gasoline and uses it to start a fire, destroying the remaining contents of the warehouse. In the process, he unintentionally kills an employee who has fallen asleep in the warehouse.
6. In an attempt to impede Dr. McCoy from escaping, Mr. Sulu, an innocent passerby, tries to stop the doctor. Dr. McCoy lashes out and intentionally hits Mr. Sulu in the jaw with his fist. The blow renders Mr. Sulu unconscious.
7. While all of this is happening, the Feds learned about the document alterations that the directors made and obtained a search warrant. In reviewing the Institute’s documentation that they obtained with the search warrant, they discover that Dr. Spock, a project manager, has been siphoning some project money for his own personal benefit.
Crimes Committed
These are the criminal charges that could be brought against each individual in this case:
1. The Directors:
a. Issue: Did the offering of a $1,000.00 cash payment to each project managers in exchange for their silence regarding the treatment’s negative results constitute a charge of Bribery of Public Officials (an officer of a corporation or business)?
Rule: Bribery of Public Officials is criminally defined as influencing any public official to do something that serves your own interest (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 179).
Analysis: In order to influence the project managers to remain silent, the hospital directors intentionally offered money (something of value) in exchange for hiding the true results of the research. Conceiving the idea to pay off the project managers was the requisite mens rea, and paying each of the project managers $1000 in cash for their silences was the requisite actus reus.
Conclusion: According to the facts and analysis, the directors did commit Bribery of Public Officials, and the two essential elements for criminal liability, mens rea (intent) and actus reus (guilty act), have been met.
b. Issue: Did the directors commit forgery when they copied and altered the records of the experiments to show that all of the experiments had been successful?
Rule: Forgery is the fraudulent act of making or altering any writing, such as falsifying public records or altering a legal document, in a way that changes the legal rights and liabilities of another. (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 174).
Analysis: The director’s intentionally falsified the research records to show that no adverse effects had been reported with patient treatment. By altering these records, the directors changed the liabilities with respect to this treatment. Planning to alter the documents was the requisite mens rea, and the actual changing of the documents meant that they had the requisite actus reus.
Conclusion: According to the facts and analysis, the directors did commit forgery and the two essential elements for criminal liability, mens rea (intent) and actus reus (guilty act), have been met. c. Issue: Did the directors commit mail and wire fraud when they altered documents and reports and submitted those documents to prominent medical journals which were eventually published.
Rule: Mail and wire fraud is a crime in which the perpetrator develops a scheme using the mails to defraud another of money or property. This crime specifically requires the intent to defraud, and is a federal offense governed by section 1341 of title 18 of the U.S. Code. (Farlex, Inc., 2010)
Analysis: In order to influence the project managers to remain silent, the hospital directors intentionally offered money (something of value) in exchange for hiding the true results of the research Altering the documents was the requisite mens rea, and allowing the falsified documents to be mailed or causing someone else to mail a writing - something written, printed, or photocopied - for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud was the requisite actus reus.
Conclusion: According to the facts and analysis, the directors did commit mail and wire fraud, and the two essential elements for criminal liability, mens rea (intent) and actus reus (guilty act), have been met.
2. Dr. House:
a. Issue: Did Dr. House commit larceny by removing the records from the warehouse and presenting the document to a third party (i.e. the press) without approval from the board?
Rule: Under common law, larceny occurs when a person takes another person’s personal property intentionally in order to deprive them of their possession indefinitely. More simply put, larceny is stealing or theft, and force is never involved (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 173).
Analysis: Based on the facts, there is no indication that Dr. House unlawfully broke into the warehouse to retrieve the documents. Therefore, a charge of burglary is not applicable. He did, however, take records that were not his own and gave them to a third party (i.e. the press), which deprived the previous owner (i.e. the directors) of their possession indefinitely. Although Dr. House committed a criminal act (i.e. requisite actus reus), he did not do it with criminal intentions or requisite mens rea. His goal was to protect the general public by exposing the director’s scheme.
Conclusion: According to the facts and analysis, Dr. House did commit larceny with intent and completion of the act. He displayed the requisite mens rea and actus reus to support criminal liability.
3. Dr. McCoy:
a. Issue: By Dr. McCoy’s purchase of gasoline and subsequent act of setting the warehouse on fire, was the crime of arson committed?
Rule: Arson is defined as the intentional and hateful act of burning a building owned by another. Some statutes have expanded this to include any real property regardless of ownership and the destruction of property by other means. (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 174)
Analysis: In order to destroy the documents in the warehouse, Dr. McCoy intentionally obtained gasoline to set the warehouse on fire. Also, according to the rule, Dr. McCoy deliberately burned down the warehouse owned by the Institute.
Conclusion: According to the facts and analysis, Dr. McCoy did commit arson. His purchase of the gasoline indicates requisite mens rea, and the burning down of the warehouse he did not own met the requirement of requisite actus reus.
b. Issue: Does the death of the employee asleep in the warehouse - that warehouse that Dr. McCoy intentionally burned down– constitute a charge of involuntary manslaughter?
Rule: Involuntary manslaughter occurs when there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death occurs due to recklessness or criminal negligence.
The individual committing the crime was aware of the risk of injury and willfully disregarded it (Involuntary Manslaughter, 2010).
Analysis: The facts indicate that Dr. McCoy was unaware of the employee’s presence in the warehouse, and therefore Dr. McCoy had no intention to kill him. However, he was aware of the risks associated with arson and disregarded any consequences that may occur.
Conclusion: The death of the employee would meet the criteria for involuntary manslaughter based on the facts and analysis. Dr. McCoy intended to burn down the warehouse (requisite mens rea) and committed the act that killed the employee (requisite actus reus) even though that was not his intention.
c. Issue: Does the fact that Dr. McCoy intentionally struck Mr. Sulu in the jaw show sufficient evidence to constitute a charge of battery?
Rule: Battery, a violent crime, constitutes physically harming another individual intentionally and in an unexcused manner (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. …show more content…
108).
Analysis: As Dr. McCoy was running away from the burning warehouse, Mr. Sulu, an innocent passerby, tried to stop him from escaping. When they met, Dr. McCoy lashed out and intentionally hit Mr. Sulu hard enough in the jaw to render him unconscious.
Conclusion: Based on the facts and analysis, Dr. McCoy committed battery. He would not have hit Mr. Sulu had he not had a requisite actus reus to get rid of the man who was trying to catch him, and the intentional physical contact of hitting Mr. Sulu was Dr. McCoy’s requisite mens rea.
4. Dr. Spock:
a. Issue: Did Dr. Spock commit embezzlement when he siphoned some of the project money into his own bank account?
Rule: Embezzlement is the action of fraudulently taking another person’s property or money (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 175).
Analysis: As a project manager, Dr. Spock had access to the project funds entrusted to him. He intentionally took a portion of these funds without the Institute’s authorization and invested them in his personal bank account and business venture.
Conclusion: According to the facts and analysis, Dr. Spock intentionally took funds that were not his and used them for his personal gain, which would constitute embezzlement. His intention to take some of the project’s money for himself was his requisite mens rea, and actually transferring the funds into his own bank account and investments was his requisite mens rea.
Criminal Defenses
These are the criminal defenses that would be available to each individual in this case:
1. The Directors
a. Issue: Could the directors claim duress from the other directors to commit forgery and bribery of a public official as a criminal defense to avoid liability? Each director could testify that he or she was forced to comply with the other directors, which under normal circumstances the person would not have otherwise done.
Rule: Duress only excuses a crime when a person is unlawfully threatened with serious bodily injury or death if they do not commit the criminal act (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 185). Also, the crime they are forced to commit must be less severe than the ramifications of not committing the crime, and the defendant must have believed that the danger was imminent.
Analysis: The facts of the case do not document that any of the directors were faced with unlawful threats of serious bodily injury or death when they choose to forge research documents and bribe the project managers with $1,000 in cash for their silence. Also, there were no ramifications if they did not commit these crimes.
Conclusion: Duress is not a sufficient defense to avoid liability for the charges of forgery and bribery of a public official. Therefore, there is no legal defense for their actions.
b. Issue: Could the directors claim that they were all ignorant of the law and made a mistake when they forged official documents and bribed public officials? Would this be a valid criminal defense to avoid liability their crimes?
Rule: In order for mistake or ignorance of the law to be a criminal defense, criminal defendants must prove that they either (1) honestly did not know that they were breaking a law or (2) relied on an official statement about the law that was untrue. The instance must be a mistake of fact, in which there was with no criminal intent to break the law (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 184).
Analysis: The case clearly specifies that the directors of the hospital met together and intentionally decided to suppress research findings. Their deception betrays them. It is clear that they had full knowledge of the law; otherwise they would not have felt it necessary to bribe the project managers.
Conclusion: Ignorance of the law and mistake are not a sufficient defense to avoid liability for the charges of forgery and bribery of a public official. Therefore, there is no legal defense for their actions.
2. Dr. House
a. Issue: Could Dr. House plea duress based on the fact that under normal circumstances, he would have not otherwise stolen the documents?
Rule: Duress only excuses a crime when a person is unlawfully threatened with serious bodily injury or death if they do not commit the criminal act (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 185). Also, the crime they are forced to commit must be less severe than the ramifications of not committing the crime, and the defendant must have believed that the danger was imminent.
Analysis: Dr. House was threatened with the loss of his job if he revealed the truth about the research results, but the hospital directors never threatened his defiance with serious bodily injury or death if he did so.
Conclusion: Although the doctor only acted as he did to protect public well-being, duress is not a sufficient defense to avoid liability against the charge of larceny in this case. There were no physical threats of violence or death against Dr. House’s life that would justify the legal definition of duress. His decision to steal the research documents from the warehouse (i.e. larceny) was a more severe crime than the threat of being fired. Therefore, there is no legal defense for his actions.
3. Dr. McCoy
a. Issue: Could Dr. McCoy plead duress as a criminal defense for committing arson?
Rule: Duress only excuses a crime when a person is unlawfully threatened with serious bodily injury or death if they do not commit the criminal act (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 185). Also, the crime they are forced to commit must be less severe than the ramifications of not committing the crime, and the defendant must have believed that the danger was imminent.
Analysis: Dr. House did create a stressful situation for Dr. McCoy and the other directors by leaking the real research documents to the media. However, stress would not constitute duress under law. There are no threats of serious bodily injury or death involved in what Dr. House did.
Conclusion: A criminal defense of duress would not be a sufficient defense to avoid liability for arson in this case. Therefore, there is no legal defense for his actions.
b. Issue: Could Dr. McCoy plead insanity as a criminal defense for committing arson based on his comment, “Beam me up, Scotty – no jail time for me!”?
Rule: Two standards exist to establish insanity. The first is the Model Penal Code, which is used in almost all federal courts and some state courts. If a defendant is going to claim insanity as a defense, he must prove that he has either a mental disease or defect that renders him unable to both decide what is right verses what is wrong and understand the requirements of the law. Another rule is the M’Naghten test, which voids responsibility if, at the time of the offense, the person did not know the nature or quality of the act or that the act was wrong. There is also the irresistible-impulse test, where a person knows that their actions are wrong, but cannot resist doing it. In spite of all of the tests, proving insanity is extremely difficult, and therefore is rarely used as a defense and typically not successful (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 184).
Analysis: Dr. McCoy did appear to be acting insanely as he cried out, “Beam me up, Scotty – no jail time for me!” while he lit the fire. However, Dr. McCoy’s comment also reveals that he knew what he was doing. He sanely concluded that burning the real research documents in the warehouse would clear him from lawful punishment for forgery and fraud.
Conclusion: Dr. McCoy plea of insanity, therefore, would not be sufficient to avoid liability. The case reveals that he did know that his actions were wrong, and that he was not blind to his crime or its consequences. Therefore, there is no legal defense for his actions.
c. Issue: Could Dr. McCoy claim mistake of fact as a criminal defense for the charge of involuntary manslaughter associated with burning down the warehouse?
Rule: Mistake of fact occurs when a person commits a crime, but did not have the mental state necessary to commit that crime (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 184).
Analysis: Dr. McCoy did kill someone when he burned down the warehouse on top of the unconscious employee inside. However, he did not know that the man was inside, and therefore did not mentally intend to kill him.
Conclusion: Dr. McCoy can successfully plead mistake of fact as a criminal defense for the charge of involuntary manslaughter and avoid all criminal liability for the employee’s death.
d. Issue: Is a plea of self-defense a justifiable criminal defense for Dr. McCoy’s charge of battery against Mr. Sulu?
Rule: Self-defense is a justifiable privilege that is recognized under law as long as the use of force is in defense of one’s self or one’s property. The act of defense must also be reasonably necessary (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 185).
Analysis: Dr. McCoy struck Mr. Sulu and knocked him unconscious when Mr. Sulu tried to stop him from escaping the scene of the crime. The case does not indicate that Mr. Sulu was trying to harm either Dr. McCoy or his property.
Conclusion: A criminal defense of self-defense would not be sufficient to avoid liability for battery in this case. Dr. McCoy’s use of force was not needed. Mr. Sulu was not trying to harm the doctor or his property according to the details of the case. Therefore, there is no legal defense for his actions.
e. Issue: Is a plea of duress justifiable defense against Dr. McCoy’s charge of battery against Mr. Sulu?
Rule: Duress only excuses a crime when a person is unlawfully threatened with serious bodily injury or death if they do not commit the criminal act (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 185). Also, the crime they are forced to commit must be less severe than the ramifications of not committing the crime, and the defendant must have believed that the danger was imminent.
Analysis: Dr. McCoy was under no unlawful threat of serious bodily injury or death when he struck Mr. Sulu, rendering him unconscious. The case also does not disclose any facts that make Dr. McCoy appear to be in imminent danger from Mr. Sulu’s action to stop him.
Conclusion: A criminal defense of duress would not be a sufficient defense to avoid liability for the battery of Mr. Sulu in this case. The given information clearly does not have any legal standing according to the lawful definition of duress. Therefore, there is no legal defense for his actions.
4. Dr. Spock
a. Issue: Could Dr. Spock use the criminal defense of mistake of fact to prove that the embezzlement charge was not true – that he did not mean to siphon the Institute’s money into his account and investments?
Rule: Mistake of fact occurs when a person commits a crime, but did not have the mental state necessary to commit that crime (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p.
184).
Analysis: Dr. Spock could have accidentally placed the money in his account, but an intentional mental state would have been necessary to invest the Institute’s money into his investments with a disposable diaper company.
Conclusion: Mistake of fact is not a sufficient defense to avoid liability for embezzlement. It is clear that Dr. Spock intentionally placed the money in the disposable diaper industry.
b. Issue: Is insanity a criminal defense that Dr. Spock could plead to avoid all liability for embezzlement?
Rule: Two standards exist to establish insanity. The first is the Model Penal Code, which is used in almost all federal courts and some state courts. If a defendant is going to claim insanity as a defense, he must prove that he has either a mental disease or defect that renders him unable to both decide what is right verses what is wrong and understand the requirements of the law. Another rule is the M’Naghten test, which voids responsibility if, at the time of the offense, the person did not know the nature or quality of the act or that the act was wrong. There is also the irresistible-impulse test, where a person knows that their actions are wrong, but cannot resist doing it. In spite of all of the tests, proving insanity is extremely difficult, and
therefore is rarely used as a defense and typically not successful (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 184).
Analysis: It is hard to validate the fact that Dr. Spock did not know what he was doing or that he could not have resisted the act of embezzlement when he intentionally invested the money in his own investments – a disposable diaper company. The action proves intent that he did not resist. He also did not make public the fact that he had been siphoning money, so it appears from the case that he knew the action was wrong. Lastly, Dr. Spock could prove that he had a mental illness at the time of the embezzlement, but this is a hard claim to support when you are a high ranking project manager.
Conclusion: Dr. Spock’s plea of insanity, therefore, would not be sufficient to avoid liability when judged by lawful facts. The case reveals that he did know that his actions were wrong, and therefore there is no legal defense for his actions.
References
Farlex, Inc. (2010). Involuntary Manslaughter Retrieved September 28, 2010, from The Free Dictionary: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/involuntary+manslaughter
Farlex, Inc. (2010). Mail Fraud. Retrieved October 6, 2010, from The Free Dictionary: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mail+Fraud
Miller, R. and Jentz, G. (2010). Business Law Today, Comprehensive Edition. (8 th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Team Assignment: Criminal Law and Procedure
Group 5
Ohio University
Law and Society
BUSL 255
Facts
1. Kevorkian Pharmaceutical Institute has developed a cancer treatment that is extremely promising and profitable. The treatment involves “salting” cancerous tumors with tiny metallic particles, and then exposing them to high intensity radio waves that cause the metallic pellets to heat up and destroy the tumor without harming the healthy tissue. Although studies have been positive (95% of all cases), researchers have also noted an extremely adverse, and potentially lethal, side effect in 5% of patients tested, and they do not know why.
2. Nevertheless, the Institute has decided to market the cancer treatment. In …show more content…
order to prevent the public and the government from learning of the adverse side effects, the directors of the hospital placed the original documents in a warehouse, falsified the research findings (making all results appear successful), and submitted the altered documents to some very prominent medical journals that published the information.
3. Also, the directors of the hospital then instructed the project managers involved in the studies to keep silent. Each manager was given $1,000.00 in cash for his or her silence.
4. Dr. Gregory House, a project manager and doctor, ignores the director’s threats and refuses the $1,000 bribe. After taking the original documents from the warehouse in which the directors of the hospital stored them, Dr. House releases the information to the press.
5. In response to Dr. House’s revelation, Dr. McCoy, a company director, panics. He obtains gasoline and uses it to start a fire, destroying the remaining contents of the warehouse. In the process, he unintentionally kills an employee who has fallen asleep in the warehouse.
6. In an attempt to impede Dr. McCoy from escaping, Mr. Sulu, an innocent passerby, tries to stop the doctor. Dr. McCoy lashes out and intentionally hits Mr. Sulu in the jaw with his fist. The blow renders Mr. Sulu unconscious.
7. While all of this is happening, the Feds learned about the document alterations that the directors made and obtained a search warrant. In reviewing the Institute’s documentation that they obtained with the search warrant, they discover that Dr. Spock, a project manager, has been siphoning some project money for his own personal benefit.
Crimes Committed
These are the criminal charges that could be brought against each individual in this case:
1. The Directors:
a. Issue: Did the offering of a $1,000.00 cash payment to each project managers in exchange for their silence regarding the treatment’s negative results constitute a charge of Bribery of Public Officials (an officer of a corporation or business)?
Rule: Bribery of Public Officials is criminally defined as influencing any public official to do something that serves your own interest (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 179).
Analysis: In order to influence the project managers to remain silent, the hospital directors intentionally offered money (something of value) in exchange for hiding the true results of the research. Conceiving the idea to pay off the project managers was the requisite mens rea, and paying each of the project managers $1000 in cash for their silences was the requisite actus reus.
Conclusion: According to the facts and analysis, the directors did commit Bribery of Public Officials, and the two essential elements for criminal liability, mens rea (intent) and actus reus (guilty act), have been met.
b. Issue: Did the directors commit forgery when they copied and altered the records of the experiments to show that all of the experiments had been successful?
Rule: Forgery is the fraudulent act of making or altering any writing, such as falsifying public records or altering a legal document, in a way that changes the legal rights and liabilities of another. (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 174).
Analysis: The director’s intentionally falsified the research records to show that no adverse effects had been reported with patient treatment. By altering these records, the directors changed the liabilities with respect to this treatment. Planning to alter the documents was the requisite mens rea, and the actual changing of the documents meant that they had the requisite actus reus.
Conclusion: According to the facts and analysis, the directors did commit forgery and the two essential elements for criminal liability, mens rea (intent) and actus reus (guilty act), have been met. c. Issue: Did the directors commit mail and wire fraud when they altered documents and reports and submitted those documents to prominent medical journals which were eventually published.
Rule: Mail and wire fraud is a crime in which the perpetrator develops a scheme using the mails to defraud another of money or property. This crime specifically requires the intent to defraud, and is a federal offense governed by section 1341 of title 18 of the U.S. Code. (Farlex, Inc., 2010)
Analysis: In order to influence the project managers to remain silent, the hospital directors intentionally offered money (something of value) in exchange for hiding the true results of the research Altering the documents was the requisite mens rea, and allowing the falsified documents to be mailed or causing someone else to mail a writing - something written, printed, or photocopied - for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud was the requisite actus reus.
Conclusion: According to the facts and analysis, the directors did commit mail and wire fraud, and the two essential elements for criminal liability, mens rea (intent) and actus reus (guilty act), have been met.
2. Dr. House:
a. Issue: Did Dr. House commit larceny by removing the records from the warehouse and presenting the document to a third party (i.e. the press) without approval from the board?
Rule: Under common law, larceny occurs when a person takes another person’s personal property intentionally in order to deprive them of their possession indefinitely. More simply put, larceny is stealing or theft, and force is never involved (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 173).
Analysis: Based on the facts, there is no indication that Dr. House unlawfully broke into the warehouse to retrieve the documents. Therefore, a charge of burglary is not applicable. He did, however, take records that were not his own and gave them to a third party (i.e. the press), which deprived the previous owner (i.e. the directors) of their possession indefinitely. Although Dr. House committed a criminal act (i.e. requisite actus reus), he did not do it with criminal intentions or requisite mens rea. His goal was to protect the general public by exposing the director’s scheme.
Conclusion: According to the facts and analysis, Dr. House did commit larceny with intent and completion of the act. He displayed the requisite mens rea and actus reus to support criminal liability.
3. Dr. McCoy:
a. Issue: By Dr. McCoy’s purchase of gasoline and subsequent act of setting the warehouse on fire, was the crime of arson committed?
Rule: Arson is defined as the intentional and hateful act of burning a building owned by another. Some statutes have expanded this to include any real property regardless of ownership and the destruction of property by other means. (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 174)
Analysis: In order to destroy the documents in the warehouse, Dr. McCoy intentionally obtained gasoline to set the warehouse on fire. Also, according to the rule, Dr. McCoy deliberately burned down the warehouse owned by the Institute.
Conclusion: According to the facts and analysis, Dr. McCoy did commit arson. His purchase of the gasoline indicates requisite mens rea, and the burning down of the warehouse he did not own met the requirement of requisite actus reus.
b. Issue: Does the death of the employee asleep in the warehouse - that warehouse that Dr. McCoy intentionally burned down– constitute a charge of involuntary manslaughter?
Rule: Involuntary manslaughter occurs when there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death occurs due to recklessness or criminal negligence.
The individual committing the crime was aware of the risk of injury and willfully disregarded it (Involuntary Manslaughter, 2010).
Analysis: The facts indicate that Dr. McCoy was unaware of the employee’s presence in the warehouse, and therefore Dr. McCoy had no intention to kill him. However, he was aware of the risks associated with arson and disregarded any consequences that may occur.
Conclusion: The death of the employee would meet the criteria for involuntary manslaughter based on the facts and analysis. Dr. McCoy intended to burn down the warehouse (requisite mens rea) and committed the act that killed the employee (requisite actus reus) even though that was not his intention.
c. Issue: Does the fact that Dr. McCoy intentionally struck Mr. Sulu in the jaw show sufficient evidence to constitute a charge of battery?
Rule: Battery, a violent crime, constitutes physically harming another individual intentionally and in an unexcused manner (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. …show more content…
108).
Analysis: As Dr. McCoy was running away from the burning warehouse, Mr. Sulu, an innocent passerby, tried to stop him from escaping. When they met, Dr. McCoy lashed out and intentionally hit Mr. Sulu hard enough in the jaw to render him unconscious.
Conclusion: Based on the facts and analysis, Dr. McCoy committed battery. He would not have hit Mr. Sulu had he not had a requisite actus reus to get rid of the man who was trying to catch him, and the intentional physical contact of hitting Mr. Sulu was Dr. McCoy’s requisite mens rea.
4. Dr. Spock:
a. Issue: Did Dr. Spock commit embezzlement when he siphoned some of the project money into his own bank account?
Rule: Embezzlement is the action of fraudulently taking another person’s property or money (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 175).
Analysis: As a project manager, Dr. Spock had access to the project funds entrusted to him. He intentionally took a portion of these funds without the Institute’s authorization and invested them in his personal bank account and business venture.
Conclusion: According to the facts and analysis, Dr. Spock intentionally took funds that were not his and used them for his personal gain, which would constitute embezzlement. His intention to take some of the project’s money for himself was his requisite mens rea, and actually transferring the funds into his own bank account and investments was his requisite mens rea.
Criminal Defenses
These are the criminal defenses that would be available to each individual in this case:
1. The Directors
a. Issue: Could the directors claim duress from the other directors to commit forgery and bribery of a public official as a criminal defense to avoid liability? Each director could testify that he or she was forced to comply with the other directors, which under normal circumstances the person would not have otherwise done.
Rule: Duress only excuses a crime when a person is unlawfully threatened with serious bodily injury or death if they do not commit the criminal act (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 185). Also, the crime they are forced to commit must be less severe than the ramifications of not committing the crime, and the defendant must have believed that the danger was imminent.
Analysis: The facts of the case do not document that any of the directors were faced with unlawful threats of serious bodily injury or death when they choose to forge research documents and bribe the project managers with $1,000 in cash for their silence. Also, there were no ramifications if they did not commit these crimes.
Conclusion: Duress is not a sufficient defense to avoid liability for the charges of forgery and bribery of a public official. Therefore, there is no legal defense for their actions.
b. Issue: Could the directors claim that they were all ignorant of the law and made a mistake when they forged official documents and bribed public officials? Would this be a valid criminal defense to avoid liability their crimes?
Rule: In order for mistake or ignorance of the law to be a criminal defense, criminal defendants must prove that they either (1) honestly did not know that they were breaking a law or (2) relied on an official statement about the law that was untrue. The instance must be a mistake of fact, in which there was with no criminal intent to break the law (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 184).
Analysis: The case clearly specifies that the directors of the hospital met together and intentionally decided to suppress research findings. Their deception betrays them. It is clear that they had full knowledge of the law; otherwise they would not have felt it necessary to bribe the project managers.
Conclusion: Ignorance of the law and mistake are not a sufficient defense to avoid liability for the charges of forgery and bribery of a public official. Therefore, there is no legal defense for their actions.
2. Dr. House
a. Issue: Could Dr. House plea duress based on the fact that under normal circumstances, he would have not otherwise stolen the documents?
Rule: Duress only excuses a crime when a person is unlawfully threatened with serious bodily injury or death if they do not commit the criminal act (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 185). Also, the crime they are forced to commit must be less severe than the ramifications of not committing the crime, and the defendant must have believed that the danger was imminent.
Analysis: Dr. House was threatened with the loss of his job if he revealed the truth about the research results, but the hospital directors never threatened his defiance with serious bodily injury or death if he did so.
Conclusion: Although the doctor only acted as he did to protect public well-being, duress is not a sufficient defense to avoid liability against the charge of larceny in this case. There were no physical threats of violence or death against Dr. House’s life that would justify the legal definition of duress. His decision to steal the research documents from the warehouse (i.e. larceny) was a more severe crime than the threat of being fired. Therefore, there is no legal defense for his actions.
3. Dr. McCoy
a. Issue: Could Dr. McCoy plead duress as a criminal defense for committing arson?
Rule: Duress only excuses a crime when a person is unlawfully threatened with serious bodily injury or death if they do not commit the criminal act (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 185). Also, the crime they are forced to commit must be less severe than the ramifications of not committing the crime, and the defendant must have believed that the danger was imminent.
Analysis: Dr. House did create a stressful situation for Dr. McCoy and the other directors by leaking the real research documents to the media. However, stress would not constitute duress under law. There are no threats of serious bodily injury or death involved in what Dr. House did.
Conclusion: A criminal defense of duress would not be a sufficient defense to avoid liability for arson in this case. Therefore, there is no legal defense for his actions.
b. Issue: Could Dr. McCoy plead insanity as a criminal defense for committing arson based on his comment, “Beam me up, Scotty – no jail time for me!”?
Rule: Two standards exist to establish insanity. The first is the Model Penal Code, which is used in almost all federal courts and some state courts. If a defendant is going to claim insanity as a defense, he must prove that he has either a mental disease or defect that renders him unable to both decide what is right verses what is wrong and understand the requirements of the law. Another rule is the M’Naghten test, which voids responsibility if, at the time of the offense, the person did not know the nature or quality of the act or that the act was wrong. There is also the irresistible-impulse test, where a person knows that their actions are wrong, but cannot resist doing it. In spite of all of the tests, proving insanity is extremely difficult, and therefore is rarely used as a defense and typically not successful (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 184).
Analysis: Dr. McCoy did appear to be acting insanely as he cried out, “Beam me up, Scotty – no jail time for me!” while he lit the fire. However, Dr. McCoy’s comment also reveals that he knew what he was doing. He sanely concluded that burning the real research documents in the warehouse would clear him from lawful punishment for forgery and fraud.
Conclusion: Dr. McCoy plea of insanity, therefore, would not be sufficient to avoid liability. The case reveals that he did know that his actions were wrong, and that he was not blind to his crime or its consequences. Therefore, there is no legal defense for his actions.
c. Issue: Could Dr. McCoy claim mistake of fact as a criminal defense for the charge of involuntary manslaughter associated with burning down the warehouse?
Rule: Mistake of fact occurs when a person commits a crime, but did not have the mental state necessary to commit that crime (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 184).
Analysis: Dr. McCoy did kill someone when he burned down the warehouse on top of the unconscious employee inside. However, he did not know that the man was inside, and therefore did not mentally intend to kill him.
Conclusion: Dr. McCoy can successfully plead mistake of fact as a criminal defense for the charge of involuntary manslaughter and avoid all criminal liability for the employee’s death.
d. Issue: Is a plea of self-defense a justifiable criminal defense for Dr. McCoy’s charge of battery against Mr. Sulu?
Rule: Self-defense is a justifiable privilege that is recognized under law as long as the use of force is in defense of one’s self or one’s property. The act of defense must also be reasonably necessary (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 185).
Analysis: Dr. McCoy struck Mr. Sulu and knocked him unconscious when Mr. Sulu tried to stop him from escaping the scene of the crime. The case does not indicate that Mr. Sulu was trying to harm either Dr. McCoy or his property.
Conclusion: A criminal defense of self-defense would not be sufficient to avoid liability for battery in this case. Dr. McCoy’s use of force was not needed. Mr. Sulu was not trying to harm the doctor or his property according to the details of the case. Therefore, there is no legal defense for his actions.
e. Issue: Is a plea of duress justifiable defense against Dr. McCoy’s charge of battery against Mr. Sulu?
Rule: Duress only excuses a crime when a person is unlawfully threatened with serious bodily injury or death if they do not commit the criminal act (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 185). Also, the crime they are forced to commit must be less severe than the ramifications of not committing the crime, and the defendant must have believed that the danger was imminent.
Analysis: Dr. McCoy was under no unlawful threat of serious bodily injury or death when he struck Mr. Sulu, rendering him unconscious. The case also does not disclose any facts that make Dr. McCoy appear to be in imminent danger from Mr. Sulu’s action to stop him.
Conclusion: A criminal defense of duress would not be a sufficient defense to avoid liability for the battery of Mr. Sulu in this case. The given information clearly does not have any legal standing according to the lawful definition of duress. Therefore, there is no legal defense for his actions.
4. Dr. Spock
a. Issue: Could Dr. Spock use the criminal defense of mistake of fact to prove that the embezzlement charge was not true – that he did not mean to siphon the Institute’s money into his account and investments?
Rule: Mistake of fact occurs when a person commits a crime, but did not have the mental state necessary to commit that crime (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p.
184).
Analysis: Dr. Spock could have accidentally placed the money in his account, but an intentional mental state would have been necessary to invest the Institute’s money into his investments with a disposable diaper company.
Conclusion: Mistake of fact is not a sufficient defense to avoid liability for embezzlement. It is clear that Dr. Spock intentionally placed the money in the disposable diaper industry.
b. Issue: Is insanity a criminal defense that Dr. Spock could plead to avoid all liability for embezzlement?
Rule: Two standards exist to establish insanity. The first is the Model Penal Code, which is used in almost all federal courts and some state courts. If a defendant is going to claim insanity as a defense, he must prove that he has either a mental disease or defect that renders him unable to both decide what is right verses what is wrong and understand the requirements of the law. Another rule is the M’Naghten test, which voids responsibility if, at the time of the offense, the person did not know the nature or quality of the act or that the act was wrong. There is also the irresistible-impulse test, where a person knows that their actions are wrong, but cannot resist doing it. In spite of all of the tests, proving insanity is extremely difficult, and
therefore is rarely used as a defense and typically not successful (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 184).
Analysis: It is hard to validate the fact that Dr. Spock did not know what he was doing or that he could not have resisted the act of embezzlement when he intentionally invested the money in his own investments – a disposable diaper company. The action proves intent that he did not resist. He also did not make public the fact that he had been siphoning money, so it appears from the case that he knew the action was wrong. Lastly, Dr. Spock could prove that he had a mental illness at the time of the embezzlement, but this is a hard claim to support when you are a high ranking project manager.
Conclusion: Dr. Spock’s plea of insanity, therefore, would not be sufficient to avoid liability when judged by lawful facts. The case reveals that he did know that his actions were wrong, and therefore there is no legal defense for his actions.
References
Farlex, Inc. (2010). Involuntary Manslaughter Retrieved September 28, 2010, from The Free Dictionary: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/involuntary+manslaughter
Farlex, Inc. (2010). Mail Fraud. Retrieved October 6, 2010, from The Free Dictionary: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mail+Fraud
Miller, R. and Jentz, G. (2010). Business Law Today, Comprehensive Edition. (8 th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.