CRM 200 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Actus Reus, Reasonable Doubts, Mens Rea
3 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
LECTURE 8 - Going to Trial
Criminal Trial
• Crown leads evidence in case in chief
• Evidence to address elements of offence:
o prohibited act (actus reus) and
o mental element (mens rea)
• In fraud case key elements are dishonesty and deprivation
• Standard of proof at criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable
doubt
• Accused presumed not guilty
• No burden on defendant to demonstrate that not guilty
• Accused entitled to benefit of doubt
• Accused must be found not guilty even if court suspicious of
accused’s conduct, knowledge, or court thinks guilt likely or
proven on civil standard that accused guilty
Considerations for
defendant at criminal
trial:
Raising doubt in prosecution’s evidence so no need to call defence
• What is theory of defence – how would you establish it?
o Don’t have working theory, don’t have a plan, what
questions would you ask a witness, it should have a
purpose of helping your case and decide whether or
not you should call a defense
o THEORY: One central theory that organizes all facts,
reasons, arguments and furnishes the basic position
from which one determines every action in the case.
o A paragraph of one to three sentences which
summarizes the facts, emotions and legal basis for
client’s acquittal or conviction of a lesser crime while
telling the defense story of innocence, reduced
culpability, or unfairness.
o Need to have plan when questioning witness.
o Videoing/ recording
• If defence to be called, who are witnesses to be called?
o Individual who is a victim will usually be called as the
witness and cross-examined
o When the accused is on the stand, the defense can no
longer control the flow of questioning
o How does accused gives previous statements
o Officer – could you tell me what occurred, sometimes
if you must actually give a statement, anyone who is
being interviewed by the police, will be asked to
provide a statement
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
o Under the law, you are presumed to be not guilty,
cannot be required to testify, court cannot order to
testify, if you have a criminal record, you can be cross
examined in your record, if you have a prior record of
fraud, you can be examined for that
• Should accused testify in own defence?
o If so entitled to be cross-examined by crown; previous
inconsistent statements? Prior criminal record?
▪ If they do have a criminal record, they can
be examined on it, though sometimes it can
work for advantage, “your honor I plead
guilty for past but I didn’t for this, so I can’t
be guilty”
▪ Evidence of Bad character is not permitted
▪ Bad character evidence is evidence of, or a
disposition towards misconduct; other than
evidence which has to do with the alleged
facts of the offence with which the
defendant is charged or is evidence of
misconduct in connection with the
investigation or prosecution of that offence.
o Up to accused to decide whether or not to testify
o Accused = when get on the stand, the defence can not
longer control the flow of questioning
o When someone testifies; can challenge their prior
statements
▪ If they have spoken to the authority before;
they can use it against you
▪ Prior statements
o Prior criminal record- under the law you're presume to
be not guilt.
▪ And this applies to character.
▪ Can be examined on prior records – crow
not allow to ask about detail about the
record, just have to admit that they have
one.
▪ Jury cant just assume that because you had a
record before that you are guilt.
▪ But pays role in the creditability of the
witness.
▪ If do have record – can be examine to it.
Can work to their advantage because “I
plead guilt to the other one because I did it
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Criminal trial: crown leads evidence in case in chief, evidence to address elements of offence, prohibited act (actus reus) and, mental element (mens rea) In fraud case key elements are dishonesty and deprivation: standard of proof at criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable. Jury cant just assume that because you had a record before that you are guilt: but pays role in the creditability of the witness. If do have record can be examine to it. But cant say because you have record you did this too. If you were defending henry, what would your defence theory be: hr meets the definition of senior officer under. Org liability: challenge his dishonesty - call sales person to testify that they had systems set in place to set due diligence. Cant be dishonest because he didn"t know about it. Because if you don"t how are you going to prove you took due diligence: absolute liability offence.
