Criminal Law Concepts and Cases Quiz

Having physical control over an object, meaning you can directly touch, manipulate, and use it.

Having control over an object indirectly, through someone else who is holding it on your behalf.

The ability to directly control an object, whether it's on your person, in your vehicle, or within your home.

A legal term describing the moment or period of time when possession must be proven.

A concept in law that suggests possession of a prohibited object for a very brief period is still sufficient for conviction.

When two or more individuals work together to possess an object, even though one person may not have direct control of it.

To prove shared possession, you must show that there was agreement between the individuals involved.

To establish possession through another person, you need to show that they are acting under your direction.

Knowledge of the existence of an object is sufficient for possession, not necessarily the exact nature of the object. For example, if you find a bag and know it's a bag, you possess it even if you don't know what's inside.

A person who possesses an item is aware of its existence and its contents. This knowledge is part of the actus reus, not the mens rea (guilty mind) of the offense.

A person can be found guilty of possessing an item even if they deliberately ignore the possibility of its contents. This applies to situations where the individual suspects the item's illegal nature but chooses to remain ignorant.

A person may be under a legal duty to act in certain situations. This duty can arise from a statute, a pre-existing contract, or common law.

The law recognizes various situations where a legal duty to act arises due to special relationships or circumstances. For instance, parents have a duty to care for their children, and individuals who create a dangerous situation have a responsibility to prevent harm from it.

A legal duty to help someone in danger, arising from your actions, not from a pre-existing relationship.

A legal duty requiring individuals to help others in danger, if they can do so without putting themselves at risk.

The individual's mental state when committing an offence, specifically their intention to commit the act and cause the consequences.

Intention directly aimed at causing the specific outcome or result.

Intention where the outcome is not the primary goal, but a practically certain and foreseeable consequence of the actions.

A legal case illustrating how a defendant's actions, even if not directly intending harm, can create oblique intention (i.e. foreseeable and virtually certain consequence).

A legal case illustrating how intent is typically straightforward and oblique intent is rarely necessary.

A legal case defining intention as wanting the consequences of one's actions.

The legal principle that allows for an exception to a rule when necessary to prevent a greater harm.

A legal principle that applies when a woman's life is in danger during pregnancy, allowing for an abortion even in jurisdictions with strict abortion laws.

The ability of a jury to disregard evidence or refuse to apply the law if they believe the outcome would be unjust.

A type of verdict where the jury determines the facts but leaves the legal questions to the judge.

A legal case where a defendant was found guilty of murder despite claiming that their actions were necessary to prevent another person from dying.

Murder

A legal limitation on necessity defense, stating that it cannot justify killing an innocent individual, even if that killing is necessary for the survival of another.

Transferred intent applies when someone intends to harm one person but accidentally harms another. The intent to harm the original target transfers to the unintended victim, as long as the harm caused is of the same type.

Transferred intent only applies if the harm caused is within the same category as the intended harm. This means that intent cannot transfer between different types of harm. For example, the intent to harm a person cannot transfer to harm caused to property.

Transferred intent only applies to direct harm. It does not transfer through a chain of events. For example, the intent to harm a pregnant woman does not transfer to her unborn child or to harm caused indirectly to the child.

Subjective culpability focuses on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the act. It considers whether the defendant intended, knew, or believed that their actions would lead to specific consequences.

Objective culpability focuses on what a reasonable person would have foreseen or done in the same situation. It assesses the defendant's actions based on a hypothetical reasonable person.

Recklessness occurs when a person consciously takes an unjustified risk or fails to foresee a risk that a reasonable person would have foreseen.

Cunningham recklessness, also known as subjective recklessness, requires the defendant to be aware of the risk and to have taken it deliberately, without justification.

Caldwell recklessness, also known as objective recklessness, focuses on whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk, regardless of whether the actual defendant was aware of it.

The concept of the duty to sacrifice one's self for the greater good, particularly in situations of danger, as exemplified by the Birkenhead tragedy.

The case of Mary and Jodie, conjoined twins where the court had to decide whether to separate them, even if it meant one would die.

The argument that upholding moral standards is often harder than achieving them, but it's important to strive for them nonetheless.

The argument that the principle of necessity can be abused and must be carefully considered, as subjective interpretations could lead to justifying harmful actions.

The ethical dilemma of determining the value of different lives, particularly in situations where one life must be sacrificed to save others.

The situation where a person's life is dependent on another person, exemplified by the case of Mary and Jodie, where Mary was dependent on Jodie's lifeblood.

The principle that a person is entitled to be protected from harm, even if that harm is caused by someone else who is also in need.