People Vs. Shaughnessy: Case Study
People v. Shaughnessy
319 N.Y. S. 2d 626
District Court, Nassau County, Third District
March 16, 1971
Procedural History: At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant chose to move to dismiss on the grounds that the statute is unconstitutional, however, the courts found it unnecessary to pass due to constitutionality of the Ordinance because there is another reason it should be dismissed. The legal elements required to determine criminal accountability must be examined to determine if this case was handled correctly. Facts: In October of 1970, the defendant, her boyfriend, and two other people drove near the area of St. Ignatius Retreat Home. The defendant was a passenger and to her understanding, they were headed for Christopher Morely
Park which is located across the street from the retreat home. The vehicle drove onto the property of the retreat home where they were stopped by a guard. The defendant is charged with violating Section 1 of the Ordinance prohibiting entry upon private property. The law states that in order for a person to be held criminally liable, they need to have voluntarily committed the act in question. The Actus Reus, or the physical element is always necessary in determining if the person can be held accountable.
Issue: Can the defendant be held accountable for the actions of the driver without having personal knowledge or control over the events that took place.
Ruling and Reasoning: In this case in question, the People failed to find any act committed by the defendant aside from just being a passenger in the vehicle. The courts determined that any action taken by the vehicle was the sole cause of the driver. The court further determined that the first and most essential element in criminal responsibility was missing when it came to judging the defendant. The fact that they were missing an overt voluntary act led them to the ruling of not guilty for the defendant.
The principle which requires a voluntary act or omission to act reads “The minimal requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which he or she is physically capable of performing…” An involuntary act is not considered criminal; the defendant’s position as a passenger with the assumption that the car was headed to a specific location makes the act involuntary.
319 N.Y. S. 2d 626
District Court, Nassau County, Third District
March 16, 1971
Procedural History: At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant chose to move to dismiss on the grounds that the statute is unconstitutional, however, the courts found it unnecessary to pass due to constitutionality of the Ordinance because there is another reason it should be dismissed. The legal elements required to determine criminal accountability must be examined to determine if this case was handled correctly. Facts: In October of 1970, the defendant, her boyfriend, and two other people drove near the area of St. Ignatius Retreat Home. The defendant was a passenger and to her understanding, they were headed for Christopher Morely
Park which is located across the street from the retreat home. The vehicle drove onto the property of the retreat home where they were stopped by a guard. The defendant is charged with violating Section 1 of the Ordinance prohibiting entry upon private property. The law states that in order for a person to be held criminally liable, they need to have voluntarily committed the act in question. The Actus Reus, or the physical element is always necessary in determining if the person can be held accountable.
Issue: Can the defendant be held accountable for the actions of the driver without having personal knowledge or control over the events that took place.
Ruling and Reasoning: In this case in question, the People failed to find any act committed by the defendant aside from just being a passenger in the vehicle. The courts determined that any action taken by the vehicle was the sole cause of the driver. The court further determined that the first and most essential element in criminal responsibility was missing when it came to judging the defendant. The fact that they were missing an overt voluntary act led them to the ruling of not guilty for the defendant.
The principle which requires a voluntary act or omission to act reads “The minimal requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which he or she is physically capable of performing…” An involuntary act is not considered criminal; the defendant’s position as a passenger with the assumption that the car was headed to a specific location makes the act involuntary.