My question relates to a couple of different (but related) situations, with the attending actus reus "physical or external elements" and mens rea "fault elements or mental elements".
Must a Court prove the existence of an actus reus (or Criminal Act) first? What if the actus reus is not placed anywhere in the stream of time with certainty? In other words, the actus reus is separated from, and stands alone from, any precise context indicating a mens rea (mental element)
Can such an allegation, if cut loose and drifting on its own, truthfully hold any weight in a Court of Law? If it is not an overt physical act, and not distinguishable from an act that could occur at any time due to misfortune or accident, how does the Court prove that the act is or was a Crime?
Secondly, what if the actus reus (or "denouement") of an allegation described by a Witness is repeatedly referred to by the same Witness as impossible to have been carried out? In other words, they claim they saw you attempt the act but repeatedly protest that it was not possible - effectively rendering it "inchoate". Could such "evidence" reasonably be used peripherally as tendency evidence to support the first proposition above?
If it would not stand on its own a Charge on its own for the purposes of Prosecution, is it fit to be used for the other purpose? How would the probative value of it measure up in relation to the prejudicial effect? (I would think its probative value should be nil?)
At what point does the balance swing between actus reus and mens rea? Could the suggestion of motive potentially overpower the evidence for the act itself, such that the act although unproven seems more concrete in the minds of a Judge or Jury? Do things sometimes go that way?
Must a Court prove the existence of an actus reus (or Criminal Act) first? What if the actus reus is not placed anywhere in the stream of time with certainty? In other words, the actus reus is separated from, and stands alone from, any precise context indicating a mens rea (mental element)
Can such an allegation, if cut loose and drifting on its own, truthfully hold any weight in a Court of Law? If it is not an overt physical act, and not distinguishable from an act that could occur at any time due to misfortune or accident, how does the Court prove that the act is or was a Crime?
Secondly, what if the actus reus (or "denouement") of an allegation described by a Witness is repeatedly referred to by the same Witness as impossible to have been carried out? In other words, they claim they saw you attempt the act but repeatedly protest that it was not possible - effectively rendering it "inchoate". Could such "evidence" reasonably be used peripherally as tendency evidence to support the first proposition above?
If it would not stand on its own a Charge on its own for the purposes of Prosecution, is it fit to be used for the other purpose? How would the probative value of it measure up in relation to the prejudicial effect? (I would think its probative value should be nil?)
At what point does the balance swing between actus reus and mens rea? Could the suggestion of motive potentially overpower the evidence for the act itself, such that the act although unproven seems more concrete in the minds of a Judge or Jury? Do things sometimes go that way?