Criminak dEfences Flashcards

(20 cards)

1
Q

What must the crown prove in a criminal case?

A

The crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the actus reus and mens rea to commit a crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the basic legal right of the accused in response to the crown’s case?

A

The accused has a basic legal right to prevent a defence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are the three main arguments an accused may use in their defence?

A
  • Deny committing the act; disputing the actus reus
  • Argue they lacked the intent; disputing the mens rea
  • Attempt to justify why they committed the act
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Define alibi defence.

A

Arguing that the accused was not at the scene of the crime when it took place and therefore could not have committed the crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What components must an alibi include?

A
  • Statement by the accused claiming they were not present at the crime scene
  • An explanation of where they were
  • Names of any witnesses who can confirm the alibi
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What makes an alibi strong?

A

All three components must exist for an alibi to be considered strong.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are the weaknesses of an alibi?

A
  • Weak without witnesses to verify claims
  • Missing one or more of the three basic components raises doubts about credibility
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Define automatism.

A

An involuntary action by a person who cannot control his or her actions and who is in a state of impaired consciousness.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are the two types of automatism?

A
  • Insane automatism
  • Non-insane automatism
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What factors can influence automatistic behavior?

A
  • Sleepwalking
  • Consumption of drugs and alcohol
  • Disease of the mind
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is insane automatism?

A

Linked to a disease of the mind; if proven, the accused may be declared not criminally responsible.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What does not criminally responsible (NCR) mean?

A

The NCR defence may be raised by either the crown or defence, and whoever raises it must prove it in court.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is assessed in a fitness hearing?

A
  • Does the accused understand the nature of the proceedings?
  • Does the accused understand the possible consequences of a trial?
  • Is the accused able to communicate with his or her lawyer?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What happens if an accused is deemed unfit to stand trial?

A

He or she may be sent back to prison or a psychiatric facility until deemed fit for trial.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What happens if an accused is declared NCR for a crime?

A

A provincial review board decides on the sentence; if no longer a threat, the accused may be discharged.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is non-insane automatism?

A

Often referred to as temporary insanity; the accused argues they committed a crime while in a temporary state of impaired consciousness.

17
Q

What can cause non-insane automatism?

A
  • Physical blow
  • Sleepwalking
  • Consuming drugs
  • Stroke
  • Severe psychological trauma
  • Other physical ailments
18
Q

Define intoxication as a defence.

A

The accused demonstrates they did not have a guilty mind at the time of the crime due to intoxication.

19
Q

How may intoxication be used in legal defence?

A

It may be used as a partial defence and can lower a conviction or reduce a criminal sentence.

20
Q

What is the Carter defence?

A

More formally known as evidence to the contrary, this defence aims to dispute the evidence put forth by the crown in drinking and driving cases.