Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
22. Should the appellate court uphold the conviction?
The jury convicted the owner, and the court sentenced him to a large fine and probation. On appeal, the owner has challenged the sufficiency of the trial evidence.
The evidence at trial established that the owner's company had sold contaminated meat that had sickened hundreds of consumers. It further showed, however, that the owner had been out of the country when the meat was sold and had had no reason to know that any of the meat was contaminated.
The owner of a meatpacking company was charged under a state criminal code prohibiting the sale of contaminated meat. The state's highest court has construed the code as imposing strict and vicarious liability to the extent allowed by the federal Constitution.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. For a strict liability offense, all that is required is proof of actus reus. The facts established that the company committed the act of selling contaminated meat. Because of strict liability and vicarious liability, that is sufficient proof of the owner's actus reus.
B is incorrect. For a strict liability offense, there is no need to prove mens rea. According to this jurisdiction's statute, selling contaminated meat is a strict liability offense. Therefore, no mens rea is required.
C is incorrect. Appellate courts have the power to overturn a lower court's decision on appeal.