On Saturday 14 April 2014, Christian Morales was charged with harassing a professor. This happened in September last year in what seems to be a hate crime. Morales was accused of deliberately pulling the beard of the Sikh professor in New York City. According to the professor, a group of young men accosted him chanting the words “Osama” and “terrorist” before Morales grabbed him by the beard while the others attacked him viciously. Preliminary investigations showed that the professor was targeted as a Muslim. Incidentally, the Sikh religion is from India and has nothing to do with Islam (“Hate Crime Charge in NY Attack on Sikh Professor”).
‘Actus reus’ or guilt act is definite here. There was a bodily movement that resulted in Morales grabbing the professor’s beard. This caused the professor bodily harm and pain, which was further compounded by the beating by Morales’ colleagues.
‘Mens rea’ or the guilty mind is expected since the attack was meted on a human being and it was real. The others not in court are also guilty through accomplice liability for helping the perpetrator which they did with the required ‘mens rea’ (Girgis, 1). The fact that they started chanting anti-terrorist slogans the moment they spotted the professor is a clear indication that the crime was premeditated.
Proximate cause is defined as an act resulting in injury. In this particular instance, the injury was a direct consequence of the act by Morales and his friends. Had they not attacked the professor, the injury would not have occurred. Morales immobilized the professor by holding his beard thereby leaving him vulnerable to beating by the others. The injury here went beyond physical as the professor’s dignity was also hurt.
A two-prong test can be defined as a test that is comprised of two different parts. One part deals with the procedure that is followed in a legal suit and which must be fair to both the complainant and the defendant. The other part is substantive and encompasses the laws applicable to that particular legal proceeding.
The totality of the circumstances is the notion that a single fact cannot be used to determine a case. It calls for a consideration of all facts before reaching a logical decision. Totality of the circumstances, therefore, serves to ensure fairness in trials.
The affidavit applying for a search warrant is supported by the following facts: the defendant’s email address was found to have had a link with the child pornography website; it is a fact that those individuals, who collect child pornography, are sexually attracted to the children, as evidenced by the defendant’s admission of indecently touching a seven year old girl 18 years earlier; the attempt to access the website only means that the defendant’s behavior has not changed over the time.
The reasons for denying the search warrant could be based on the following facts: the defendant is not the owner of the website and there is no proof that he actually accessed the information. There is no proof that the defendant indeed purchased membership for any given period. Further, the defendant did not register as a member and only gained access or attempted to gain access as a non member. The fact that his Yahoo account had active internet service during the period does not necessarily mean he was only accessing the said website.
Works Cited
Girgis, Sherif. “The Mens Rea of Accomplice Liability: Supporting Intentions.” Yale Law Journal 123.2 (2013): 460-494. Academic Search Premier. Web.
Hate Crime Charge in NY Attack on Sikh Professor 2014. Web.