Criminal Justice Case Senarios The 4 Elements Of The Law Questions There is 3 criminal cases in the attachment below with each one having it’s own question

Criminal Justice Case Senarios The 4 Elements Of The Law Questions There is 3 criminal cases in the attachment below with each one having it’s own question. Please make sure that you read each scenario carefully and answer each question with “the 4 elements of the law” (Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Concurrence, and Causation) in mind. Each question should be a paragraph each. CRIMINAL CASE- GROUP #1
CASE 1. Mark Champion (plaintiff) vs. Dunfee (Defendant), Kakoda (third party defendant)
At around 7:30 p.m. on June 15, 2002, defendant Kakoda drove to David Dunfee’s apartment in
Bridgeton. She had been dating Dunfee for about two years. While at the apartment, she saw Dunfee
consume two or three beers, although she herself did not drink any alcoholic beverages. Champion (the
plaintiff) arrived at the apartment sometime later, driven there by two other friends who left shortly
thereafter. At around midnight, plaintiff received a call from the two friends who had driven him to
Dunfee’s asking to meet them at a graduation party on nearby Barretts Run Road. Dunfee agreed to take
plaintiff to the party.
The trio left Dunfee’s apartment at 12:30 a.m. There was no discussion as to who would drive. Although
Kakoda had not been drinking, Dunfee drove his 1997 Chevy Camaro with Kakoda in the front passenger
seat and plaintiff seated in the rear, behind Kakoda. Their destination was only a couple of miles away
and according to Kakoda, Dunfee showed no signs he was unable to drive the short distance although he
did appear to be “buzzed.”
En route to the party, Dunfee told plaintiff he had modified his Camaro to run faster, but plaintiff
insisted the Mustang could outpace the Camaro. To prove the plaintiff wrong, Dunfee made a right turn
onto Barretts Run Road and he “started hauling tail.” Kakoda repeatedly told Dunfee to slow down. First
when he reached 70 m.p.h., Kakoda said, “[T]hat’s enough, you proved your point.” Then when Dunfee
approached 100 m.p.h., Kakoda again told him to slow down. A third time, she cursed at him.
Within seconds, Dunfee hit a bump in the road, lost control of the car, blacked out and crashed into a
fence on the side of the roadway, severely injuring plaintiff. A State Police investigation of the accident
revealed that Dunfee was traveling at least 82 m.p.h., and Dunfee himself admitted speeding between
90 and 100 m.p.h. He also admitted having consumed an entire twelve-pack of beer prior to driving that
evening. Dunfee’s blood alcohol level was .143%. The plaintiff was injured in the accident.
Did Kakoda have a legal duty to stop Dunfee from operating his car?
CASE 2. R v Malcherek (1981)
The defendant attacked a woman causing injuries that were so severe that the victim had to be placed
on a life support machine. Doctors decided to switch off the machine after determining that the victim
was “brain dead” and that there was no prospect of recovery. Half an hour later the victim was
pronounced dead. The defendant was convicted of murder and appealed on the ground that the doctors
had broken the chain of causation between the defendant’s attack and the death of the victim by
deliberately switching off the life support machine.
Has causation been proven here?
CASE 3. Wetzler very State of Florida (1984)
On the morning of March 23 1983 Wetzler drove his pickup truck, which was towing a padlocked U-Haul
trailer, into the agricultural inspection station of I-10 in Suwannee County. Agricultural Inspector Silas
told Wetzler that he would like to look into the trailer. Wetzler told Silas that he did not have a key to
the padlock. Silas told him that he had a pair of bolt cutters for that purpose and request Wetzler to cut
them. Wetzler voluntarily cut the padlock and Silas open the trailer, observing what he thought to be
marijuana plants. Silas told Wetzler to close the trailer and come into the station. Silas then called the
sheriff’s office. The sheriff arrived, looked into the trailer, and observed the marijuana plants. After
receiving his Miranda warnings, Wetzler told the Sheriff that he had been given $400 to come to
Sarasota, rent a U-Haul trailer and leave it hooked to his truck. He told the sheriff that for a period of
time the truck and trailer were out of his possession. The rig was taken, brought back, and he was
supposed to have received another $400 when he got back to Atlanta, GA. Wetzler told the sheriff that
he knew it was a “shady deal” by the way “they wanted to do things by being secret.”
Wetzler denied any knowledge that there was marijuana in the trailer and asked the sheriff if the charge
was serious. The sheriff counted 164 potted, growing marijuana plants in the trailer with a total dry
weight of 32 or 36 ounces. Wetzler testified in his own defense. He stated that he was living in Atlanta
but that his family lived in Bradenton, FL. He had met a man named Bill in an Atlanta bar who struck up a
conversation with him about Bradenton and about Wetzler’s new truck. After talking about 45 minutes,
Wetzler agreed to go to Bradenton, rent a trailer, and pick up some furniture for Bill. Bill advanced him
$400 and told him he would receive another $400 upon delivery. Wetzler was to go to Bradenton and
park the truck and rented trailer in a certain shopping mall at a certain time. He was to leave the truck
key under the floor mat and go inside the mall for two hours. Although he was somewhat suspicious
about this arrangement and thought it was “just a little bit” shady, he testified that he did not think he
was doing anything illegal. He denied any knowledge of the marijuana in the trailer. Wetzler did not
head directly back to Atlanta because he heard there was a snowstorm there. Instead, he headed for
Tallahassee to see an old girlfriend and thereby ended up at the I-10 agricultural inspection station.
Does his lack of knowledge (ignorance) remove any criminal liability in this case?

Purchase answer to see full
attachment