Interpretation and Application to Facts of Extracts from Three Essay

Interpretation and Application to Facts of Extracts from Three Statutes - Essay typefaceHe intends to do this by exposing the dog to a chemical-impregnated rag. Just as is usually the case, there ar several acts that make up for Alecs Actus Reus. Although the main malefactor act done by Alec is an move harm of a sniffer dog, yet Alec has also trespassed Claires property, which is her cottage. It is heavy to none that by destroying the sniffer dogs olfactory organs, Alec was committing the crime of destroying someones property. Despite the destruction of property often being legally referred to as vandalism, Alecs destruction of property can be fittingly called as such, notwithstanding that it borders on mutilation, since the property in this case is a living being, a dog. The part of the dog that is being mangle is its olfactory organ, whether this mutilation is permanent, r temporary, that notwithstanding (Biles, et al., 2011, 177). Conversely, Alec is also acting in collus ion with drug dealers, which is another felonious criminal offense. While freedom of association may be cited by the defendant as an explanation to Alecs tete-a-tete with drug barons, his very act of mutilating Bruno amounts to a (willful) obstruction of justice. Alecs act is not only classifiable as an anticipatory obstruction of justice, but it also exclusively proscribed and described. ... Conversely, it is also important to note that Alecs action makes him complicit to a crime. Guam v. Dela Rosa, 644 F.2d 1257, 1260-61 (1981) sheds light on the fact that Alec has knowledge of an anticipated criminal act (drug dealing and destruction of police property) and continues to strengthen their cause (by attempting to disable a police dog). This totally and explicitly renders Alec an attendant to crime. Even the mere fact that Alec knew about the drug dealers and maintained contact with them, let off serves as exculpating evidence against him. This is because, both points of legal r eferences describe an accomplice as one who is party to an offence by the virtue of having encouraged the principal offender with acts or/ and words, and thereby facilitating the crime. This accomplice needs not participate in the main crime he merely enables it. Alec by all means is an accomplice since he verbally agreed in a binding agreement and also actively time-tested to incapacitate a police dog, with the chief aid of abetting and enabling the transpiration of narcotics. By also entering Claires cottage without permission, Alec became guilty of the crime of trespass. Another salient component that gives the case a strong terra firma is Mens Rea (the state of a guilty mind, a criminal intent and a wrongful purpose). Alec, having formed a liaison with drug dealers, had planned to destroy Brunos sense of smell. He seized Bruno by the collar, drag him towards his van, so as to expose his nose to the chemical-impregnated rag. The conclusion to the foregoing is that there is no r oom whatsoever for both lawful excuse that may be extended in favor of Alec. Besides this, it is most equiprobable that Alec has a case to answer and that he is likely to be found of