Interpretation and Application to Facts of Extracts from Three Essay

Interpretation and Application to Facts of Extracts from Three Statutes - Essay Example He intends to do this by exposing the dog to a chemical-impregnated rag. Just as is usually the case, there are several acts that make up for Alec’s Actus Reus. Although the main criminal act done by Alec is an attempted harm of a sniffer dog, yet Alec has also trespassed Claire’s property, which is her cottage. It is important to note that by destroying the sniffer dog’s olfactory organs, Alec was committing the crime of destroying someone’s property. Despite the destruction of property often being legally referred to as vandalism, Alec’s destruction of property can be fittingly called as such, only that it borders on mutilation, since the property in this case is a living being, a dog. The part of the dog that is being mutilated is its olfactory organ, whether this mutilation is permanent, r temporary, that notwithstanding (Biles, et al., 2011, 177). Conversely, Alec is also acting in collusion with drug dealers, which is another criminal offence. While freedom of association may be cited by the defendant as an explanation to Alec’s tete-a-tete with drug barons, his very act of mutilating Bruno amounts to a (willful) obstruction of justice. Alec’s act is not only classifiable as an anticipatory obstruction of justice, but it also totally proscribed and described. ... Conversely, it is also important to note that Alec’s action makes him complicit to a crime. Guam v. Dela Rosa, 644 F.2d 1257, 1260-61 (1981) sheds light on the fact that Alec has knowledge of an anticipated criminal act (drug dealing and destruction of police property) and continues to strengthen their cause (by attempting to disable a police dog). This totally and explicitly renders Alec an accomplice to crime. Even the mere fact that Alec knew about the drug dealers and maintained contact with them, still serves as exculpating evidence against him. This is because, both points of legal references describe an accomplice as one who is party to an offence by the virtue of having encouraged the principal offender with acts or/ and words, and thereby facilitating the crime. This accomplice needs not participate in the main crime; he merely enables it. Alec by all means is an accomplice since he verbally agreed in a binding agreement and also actively tried to incapacitate a polic e dog, with the chief aid of abetting and enabling the transpiration of narcotics. By also entering Claire’s cottage without permission, Alec became guilty of the crime of trespass. Another salient component that gives the case a strong ground is Mens Rea (the state of a guilty mind, a criminal intent and a wrongful purpose). Alec, having formed a liaison with drug dealers, had planned to destroy Bruno’s sense of smell. He seized Bruno by the collar, drag him towards his van, so as to expose his nose to the chemical-impregnated rag. The conclusion to the foregoing is that there is no room whatsoever for any lawful excuse that may be extended in favor of Alec. Besides this, it is most probable that Alec has a case to answer and that he is likely to be found of