Unit 3 Criminal Law and Cyber Crimes Assignment 3: Case Analysis MT311-06 Business Law StevenPorter7 Professor Noel Ransom Unit 3 Case Analysis The Case Review the following case. Prepare an analysis that will demonstrate your ability to both answer the questions presented and incorporate theories and concepts from this week’s material. Armington, while robbing a drugstore, shot and seriously injured Jennings, a drugstore clerk. Armington was subsequently convicted in a criminal trial of armed robbery and assault and battery.
Jennings later brought a civil tort suit against Armington for damages. Armington contended that he could not be tried again for the same crime, as that would constitute double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Is Armington correct? Explain. Armington was found guilty in criminal proceedings. However, Armington felt that his constitutional rights would be violated if he was prosecuted civilly for a civil tort from his actions which occurred when he committed the criminal offences for which he was criminally prosecuted and found guilty.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
According to the textbook, Fundamentals of Business law Part I MT311, Rover LeRoy Miller/Gaylord A. Jentz 2008, p. 125. ” Some torts, such as assault and battery, provide a basis for a criminal prosecution as well as a tort action. We can see that Jennings, the injured party in the criminal acts, was the person who suffered har. Armington, proven to have committed the act of harm against Jennings in the criminal case, was the person who caused the harm to Jennings. There was a preponderance of the evidence against Armington.
Or in other words the evidence presented proved that Armington did in fact commit the crime and tort action. And because of these findings a verdict was handed down by the court that Armington was guilty of the tort(s) and that there was a remedy or decision to grant damages to Jennings, the injured party, in the form of a monetary settlement ordered against Armington. We can see that the two elements that must exist for a criminal act to take place were in fact present when Armington committed the robbery.
Armington performed the prohibited act and he had the state of mind and the intent to commit the prohibited act. And because Armington committed the act and had the intent to commit the act at the same time as the act took place the liability of the act fell on Armington. Therefore Armington had the actus reus, or guilty act,and the mens rea, the wrongful mental state, at the time of the criminal act(s). References: Fundamentals of Business law Part I MT311, Rover LeRoy Miller/Gaylord A. Jentz 2008, p. 125.