Concurrence and Proof of the Elements

Question 1

Concurrence

Answer 1

The elements of the offense must all concur. Thus in most cases, one can’t form intent after the act occurs.

Question 2

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Answer 2

1. Burden of proof falls on the prosecution, not the accused person. The burden of proof applies to every element necessary to constitute the crime.
2. United States v. Jackson (insufficient evidence: Aaron Jackson in NYC was a felon, assumed to be same Jackson from a crime 18 years ago, cops assumed it was this one, despite not having any confirming evidence  a common name in a city of 8 million people is not enough evidence)

Question 3

Policy rationale of proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Answer 3

worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man free

Question 4

Defendant’s role in proof

Answer 4

defendant need not offer any defense. It’s long been established that burden of proof rests with prosecution.

Question 5

Appellate review

Answer 5

reviews evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict (on an insufficient evidence appeal, the burden shifts to defense)

Question 6

Double Jeopardy

Answer 6

prevents defendant from being subject to a retrial after being acquitted of a criminal charge; when a court reverses a conviction, the gov’t usually can retry the defendant w/o violating DJ clause unless the reversal by the appellate court was due to insufficient evidence to prove an element of the offense

Question 7

Dual sovereignty

Answer 7

(exception to Double Jeopardy) permits the retrial of a defendant on the same criminal conduct if the prosecuting authority is different
Ex: GA and NC can both have a trial against defendant for the same crime, same goes for federal and state gov’ts

Question 8

Reasonable doubt

Answer 8

“more likely than not” –> standard is higher than a preponderance of the evidence. Jurisdictions vary widely in how this is interpreted