William Rutledge

william rutledge legal enviro bus
3/2/2013
1.) Did Hanouesk have the required mental state (mens rea) to be convicted of a crime? why or why not? Why i dont think he has the mental state (mens area) of a crime is becasue it was an accident, he bagged into it on mistake. The Mental state means he has the disire or intent to hit the pipe line and he didnt so thats why i say not.
2.) Which theory discussed in the chapter would enable a court to hold hansouesk criminally liable for violating the statute regardless of whether he participated in, directed, or even knew about the specific violations. would be the “Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine”. This doctrine would hold Hanousek criminally liable because his conduct was negligent. Based on his negligent conduct the spill took place. Hanousek’s job as a road master was to make sure that the pipeline was protected based on him failing to make sure this and based on him being an authorative figure over the operator holds him criminally liable.

3.) Could the backhoe operator who punctured the pipeline also be charged with a crime in this situation? Explain The backhoe operator can not be charged with a crime in this case even though his mistake is what lead to the accident occurring. Because the Hanousek was the supervisor and “could have prevented” the accident from occurring the law lays the responsibility solely on him.

4.) Supposed that at the trial. Hansouesk argued that he should not be convicted because he was not aware of the requirments of the cwa. Would this defense be succesful? why or why not? why his defense would not stand a chance in court because he knows that he is dealing with a dangerous device that would potentially be a danger to the public. He would at a minimum be guilty of “strict liability” which would enable him to be convicted of a violation even if he had no knowledge of the illegality of the action