Criminal Law Paper

In this essay I will be discussing the case of David Bobby, Warden vs. Archie Dixon, I will express my feelings of the case and what caught made me interested in the case I selected. The sources, purposes and jurisdictions of the criminal law related to this case will also me mentioned within this essay, I will define accomplice liability and criminal liability and express how it relates to the case that I will be discussing.

The difference between the various elements of crime, including Mens Rea, Actus Reus and Concurrence will be included in this essay with the relations of the within this case. Case Summary Hence, in this case defendant Archie Dixon is the main suspect in a murder case that he and a friend killed a man just so they can sale his car, they beat the victim and tied him up and buried him alive. Suspect Dixon than took the victim birth and social security information and obtain identification in the victim name, after getting this personal information on the victim suspect Dixon than gained ownership of the car and sold the vehicle for $ 2,800.

Dixon was not someone that never had any run-ins with the law; he was in fact someone that had many run-ins with the criminal justice system. After all many pieces of strong evidence came out during the investigation that is when suspect Dixon confessed to taking the victim information and stated that the victim gave him permission to sell the car. Suspect Dixon stated that he did not know where the victim was at and came up with a story that he may have left to another state.

Suspect Dixon claimed that the police officers disregarded his rights during the interrogation and he feel that he was violated because when he asked for counsel he did not get any and the officers failed to Mirandize him when he was taken in for questioning in the investigation of murder. The Part That Interested Me Thus, the attention-grabbing part of this case was the fact that when suspect Dixon was being questioned on related issues within the case he was read his rights and he then confessed.

He was later sentenced to death and the reason why this case caught my attention was because there are many individuals that claim police officers denied them of their Miranda rights. In many cases this has happened due to the fact that some officer’s make mistakes and forget to Mirandize the suspects before they start their initial interrogation. Another reason why this case caught my attention was because this case hit close to home for me, my brother was falsely arrested for a crime he did not commit and he was not read his Miranda rights.

The only reason why my family and I feel that my brother was cleared of all charges was because once the officer’s said put your hand up, my brother place his phone in his pocket with my sister in law still on the phone. She just happened to record the conversation with her phone, thanks to the new technology that we have. In the whole recording it was not once that any officer’s read my brother his rights, they just stated that he was being charged for robbery and to make thing worse it was mistaking identity, the store manager even cleared him from a line-up.

So this situation where officer’s fail to properly complete their jobs happens more than it should because this is something they should know when will ruin their case (Booby V. Dixon Supreme Court of the United States, 2011). Sources, Purpose & Jurisdictions Moreover, the sources of this case was the fact that at one point within the interrogation about the victim’s car and his identification the officer’s did make a decision to not read the suspect his Miranda rights because they felt that the suspect will then be unwilling to talk with them again.

Later on during the interrogation the officer’s did read suspect Dixon his rights and he continued to talk, so that mean the petition he filed will soon be thrown out because he was read his rights. Under the jurisdiction the Ohio Supreme Court declared suspects Dixon’s convictions, the court later found out that his confession to murder was admissible because that confession was admissible because that confession and his prior, unwarned confession to forgery were both voluntary was admissible because that confession and his prior, unwarned confession to forgery were both voluntary (Booby V. Dixon Supreme Court of the United States, 2011).

Accomplice Liability & Criminal Liability Furthermore, accomplice liability is defines as when a criminal is assist, encourage or counsels other individuals in the commission of a crime, all parties are all considered to be liable for the crime as well as the individual that committed the crime or crimes.

Criminal liability is when an individual is convicted of a crime, the person must have committed a guilty act which is actus Reus and he had a guilty mind-set when he completed the act which is mens rea. This is when the suspect is considered to be liable in the court of law. Both relates to this case because suspect Dixon was criminal liability because he knew what he was doing and he had a guilty mind when he committed the crime, the suspect friend Mr. Hoffner was accomplice liable in my opinion because he was there when the suspect was murdered (Schmalleger, F., Hall, D. E., & Dolatowski, J.J. 2010). Actus Reus & Mens Rea

In addition, actus reus is defined as a guilty (prohibited) act. The commission of a prohibited act is one of the two essential elements required for criminal liability, the other element being the intent to commit a crime. Mens rea is defined as having a mental state, or intent to commit a crime. Wrongful mental state is as necessary as a wrongful act to establish criminal liability, what creates a mental state differs depending on the wrongful action but for murder, the mens rea is the intent to take a life. This applies to this case because the suspect had the intent to take the victim life so he can sale his car, which is mens rea.

Reference Booby V. Dixon Supreme Court of the United States. (2011, November 7). Retrieved from Schmalleger, F., Hall, D. E., & Dolatowski, J.J. (2010). Criminal law today. (4th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

View as multi-pages