In this case Lois Wager although she had good intentions she voluntarily agreed to transport Blood Plasma into Cameroon. Under (NY Pl 15.05) she is Culpable (actus reus) on Blameworthiness because she had the (mens reus) as in knowing that what she was asked to do was wrong, also where as she acted in the respect to commit the crime of illegally transporting the plasma. She could also be charged with conspiracy to commit an unlawful act and Criminal negligence If we use United States v. Jewell Browning, J. was convicted of transporting marijuana into the United States from Mexico as in this case it is undisputed that Lois Wager transported Illegal plasma in Cameroon, and although this later replaced with $200,000 counterfeit Cameroonian dollars, valued it $800,000 in U.S. Dollars she could testify that she did not know that the counterfeit money was present.
As in United States v. Jewell Browning, J. The appellant knew of the plasma she deliberately avoided positive knowledge of the counterfeit dollars after she verified her first shipment. Model Penal Code, Section 2.02(7) states that when knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless they believe that it does not exist.
The Courts could charge Lois Wager with money laundering in the first degree, as defined in (NY PL 470.20). Laundering Of Monetary Instruments (§1956. Laundering of monetary instruments) If a person knowingly engages in a financial transaction which is illegal in nature, or conducts or attempts to conduct this illegal activity could face a fine not more then $500,000 or at least two times the property value, or imprisonment up to twenty five years. The Second money laundering statute §1957 is broader then §1956, which only requires transaction of 10,000 where §1956 has no minimum dollar amount
They would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt that she had the intent to profit through illegal means, it would not matter that she knew that she carrying counterfeit money instead of plasma since both acts are illegal. This could be done by using United States v. Camplell, 977 F.2d 854 (4th Cir 1992) where the courts proved willful blindness.
Charles W. Golden Jurisprudence of Criminal Law Professor John Snyder Exam 2.
In the case of the Fraternity on the Balbany campus their actions fall under Strict Liability for the actions of everyone at their party. As in State v. Guminga the owner was charged with violating section 340.73 pursuant to §340.73 (1984) which places criminal liability on the owner of the restaurant for the actions of the waitress. Under (NY 15.10)
The conduct of the fraternity by spiking the punch was to get everyone drunk, it was their responsibility to ensure the safety of everyone at their party. Although they can prove that they placed individuals in charge to ensure that no minors attended the party, they did not ensure that these individuals performed their duties under (NY 15.15), this act constitutes recklessness or criminal negligence.
Although David is almost 16 years of age, Mary’s parents can have him arrested for Statutory Rape under (NY 130.05) Sex offence which demonstrates that an individual is incapable of consent when he or she is less then seventeen years old. The college it’s self can be charged with criminal liability based on the actions of the fraternity
Professor Shirley Suregood, is well aware of her condition being a recovering alcoholic. And although she may have not known that there was alcohol in the punch, the fact that she woke up with Norman Naïve the 16 year old, and it was evident that they had had sex Professor Suregood can be charged with (NY 130.05) Sex offence which demonstrates that an individual is incapable of consent when he or she is less then seventeen years old. Do to the fact that alcohol was consumed by both parties she could also be charged with rape in the third degree. Both these carges are class E felony which carry a still be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which adds to her problem is that she cannot
Martin Myopic could be held culpable for the charge of Driving under the influence. Based on the case of State v. Miller, 309 Or. 362, 788 p.2d 974, the Oregon Supreme Court held up a driving while intoxicated conviction. Because the defendant was not allowed to present evidence that unknown to him, someone had laced his drink with alcohol It was declared that this statute created strict liability since alcohol was present in his system