Criminal charges
Bob and Judy Tyrell would qualify to be charged with the crime of conspiracy to commit arson. While Judy does not proceed to burn the Durans’ home, she deserves to be charged for her part in aiding Bob’s actions. Conspiracy entails two or more persons collaborating to commit a crime. According to the statement, Judy bought the gasoline which Bob used to raze down the Duran home, an act which amounts to conspiracy to commit arson. She further implies that they discussed the plan with her husband before opting out. Her involvement in the planning of the crime and procurement of the object of crime makes her eligible for the crime. The two also qualify for the charge of being accomplices in the crime. An accomplice is one who, in the company of another (or others), commits, aids, or abets the commission of a crime. Judy’s decision to purchase gasoline makes her Bob’s accomplice.
The two elements of crime applicable in the two charges, actus reus and mens rea apply as follows: Judy knows that her action or inaction is critical in the commission of arson on the Duran home. She has a guilty mind. At the same time, she acts in aid of the crime, qualifying for actus reus. The prosecution can prove that both actus reus and mens rea occurred simultaneously to constitute the crime, bringing in the element of concurrence.
Bob is guilty of first-degree arson. His intent to destroy Charles and Nancy Duran’s home is clear. He can no longer tolerate the new couple’s noisy and rude manners and thus decides to stop them by burning the home. The prosecution can argue that Bob has a guilty mind and proceeds to act upon his wishes without mental fault. Meanwhile, he can also be charged with attempted murder. Although Bob is unaware of Rasta Paul’s presence in Charles’ bedroom, his actions nearly kill him. The charge is eligible as Bob fails to ensure there is nobody in the house when he douses it with gasoline and lights fire. For the attempted murder charge, Bob is not intending to kill anyone. Rasta Paul becomes a victim of coincidence. Most importantly, his express intention is not to kill Charles. The argument is supported by the fact that he set the house on fire thinking there was no one within the house. Based on that evidence, the prosecution may struggle to prove that Bob intended to kill Rasta Paul.
Rasta Paul is guilty of forcible and unlawful entry. While Charles and his family are out, he uses a mini crowbar to force his way into the house without permission. While he does not intend to commit a crime, the manner of entry is illegal and is punishable by a fine, a custodial sentence, or both. Rasta Paul cannot be charged with unlawful entry since he intends to find a shelter for the duration of the storm. Bob, meanwhile, is eligible for the charge as he intended to commit a crime in the Duran home. His reason for gaining unlawful entry was to set the house on fire and cause malicious damage to property. The prosecution would, therefore, have a solid case against him.
Charles and Nancy can be charged with being accomplices in the crimes committed by Charles Junior and Noreen. As the parents of the minors, they ought to reign in their children to behave in a manner that does not disturb the peace of neighbors. However, they chose to join the youngsters in making loud sounds that prevent others from enjoying their sleep. Even worse, they tell Bob off when he comes to report the wayward behavior of the children while their parents are away. According to the law, an accomplice includes a person who aids or abets the commission of a crime. The noisy duo, apart from having loud arguments, takes no action to stop their children from causing trouble. In that sense, they can be argued to have abetted the crime of disturbing the public peace. In the same vein, the minors are guilty of being accomplices for the same crime. They appear to have adopted their parents’ loud antics and they use the same without fear of reproach. Therefore, all four family members are accomplices in the offense.
Actus reus refers to the act or omission that comprises the physical elements of a crime. Mens rea, on the other hand, refers to the intent to commit a crime. A suspect needs to have a guilty mind during the execution of crime to qualify for mens rea. As such, law enforcers argue it is wrong for society to punish an offender who causes harm without intending to do so (“Actus Reus | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute,” n.d.). The principle of concurrence dictates that two or more events occur simultaneously. For each crime, there is an element that either strengthens the case against the accused or absolves them of blame. For Judy’s charge of conspiracy to commit arson, an omission satisfies the actus reus requirement. She is aware of the crime Bob is about to commit but does not do enough to stop him. Bob’s case is a result of a commission. Even though he reacts to the Durans’ behavior, that reaction is not reflex. He takes time to plan and execute his idea, meaning he had a criminal intent to destroy property. However, his attempted murder charge takes a different course. Since he does not intend to harm Rasta Paul, neither actus reus nor mens rea applies.
In failing to stop the minors from playing loud music, both Charles and Nancy are guilty of an omission whose consequences qualify it under actus reus. Criminal liability places a person under duty if the person has, among others, a special status relationship requiring them to act. Judy and Bob are the parents of the minors. Therefore, they have to stop them from disturbing the public peace. Their failure to do so is intentional and qualifies the offense under actus reus. The two also have a guilty mind. When they tell Bob off for his complaints, they confirm that they know what is happening but choose to do nothing about it. They act with a criminal intent to protect offensive minors. The charge of being accomplices to their children does not qualify to be prosecuted as actus reus or mens rea. The parents arguably act without intending to propagate loud behavior.
For Rasta Paul, his forcible entry into the Duran home is caused by the desire to shelter from Hurricane Hassan. He arguably breaks the door as a reflex action upon realizing that his incessant knocking is in vain. According to the Supreme Court ruling in Powell versus Texas, 392 US 514 (1968), the actus reus requirement is only fulfilled when a person makes voluntary body movements which society would be keen to prevent (“Actus Reus | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute,” n.d.). The definition does not include actions about which the proprietor had no control. Rasta Paul was trying to save his life therefore the actus reus element does not apply in his case.