Search for: "Reas v. State"
Results 181 - 200
of 1,203
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Aug 2018, 1:53 pm
Advanced IntoxicationThe current state of the law is such that an accused person can negate the mens rea element of the offence as well as the necessary voluntariness element by merely establishing that his state of intoxication might have impaired his foresight of consequences. [read post]
24 Jul 2011, 2:42 pm
Judge Posner addressed just this point in his dissent in United States v. [read post]
4 May 2009, 7:26 am
United States(08-108). [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 1:53 pm
Advanced IntoxicationThe current state of the law is such that an accused person can negate the mens rea element of the offence as well as the necessary voluntariness element by merely establishing that his state of intoxication might have impaired his foresight of consequences. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 2:16 am
10thCir_Ctroom3.jpg In obstruction of justice trial of a police officer, in which the defendant’s mens rea was highly contested, the trial court improperly excluded the defendant’s proffer of good character evidence as a “law-abiding, trusted police officer†requiring reversal of the jury conviction, in United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 4:30 am
EVIDENCEUnited States v. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 12:53 pm
” In Romag v. [read post]
30 Mar 2023, 4:05 pm
Now, the greater mens rea might still constitute a "lesser" offense, since if you have the higher mens rea you necessarily also violate the strict liability offense that requires no such showing. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 9:51 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 7:03 am
Sys. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 12:00 am
In Kahler v. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 8:00 am
McVey v. [read post]
14 Feb 2023, 3:11 pm
(citing State v. [read post]
26 Nov 2012, 8:11 am
See State v. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 1:07 pm
United States v. [read post]
13 Jan 2019, 5:58 am
People v. [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 8:52 am
These decisions, the Court concluded, would not be approved by the Supreme Judicial Court, the highest state court, because the two involve different mens rea requirements – intentional vs. reckless. [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 8:52 am
These decisions, the Court concluded, would not be approved by the Supreme Judicial Court, the highest state court, because the two involve different mens rea requirements – intentional vs. reckless. [read post]
15 Oct 2015, 6:11 pm
United States 14-10154Issue: (1) Whether a misdemeanor crime with the mens rea of recklessness qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" as defined by 18 U.S.C. [read post]
