transferred malice and contemporaneity

• What are the two main requirements for AR and MR?

  Both must exist together at the same time
• What does the doctrine of transferred malice address?

  It addresses intent when the victim differs
• If D intended to kill X but killed V, what can D argue?

  D had the AR for X, not MR for V
• How do courts typically respond to cases of transferred malice?

  Courts are unwilling to find D not guilty
• What happens to the MR if D has the AR of the same crime?

  The MR is transferred to the AR
• What are the three cases illustrating transferred malice?

  • Latimer 1886
  • Mitchell 1982
  • Pembleton 1874
• What happened in the Latimer 1886 case?

  D swung a belt intending to hit X
• What was the outcome of the Latimer 1886 case?

  D was convicted of wounding the bystander
• What occurred in the Mitchell 1982 case?

  D pushed X, causing V to fall and die
• What was the court's decision in the Mitchell 1982 case?

  D was convicted of manslaughter
• What happened in the Pembleton 1874 case?

  D threw a stone intending to injure people
• What was the outcome of the Pembleton 1874 case?

  D was convicted of criminal damage, quashed on appeal
• What is the requirement of contemporaneity?

  AR and MR must occur at the same time
• What could happen if AR and MR do not occur at the same time?

  D could be acquitted in court
• What are the two common law tests developed for contemporaneity issues?

  1. The continuing act theory
  2. The one transaction theory
• What is the continuing act theory illustrated by Fagan v MPC 1969?

  D parked on a PC's foot and refused to move
• What was the court's conclusion in Fagan v MPC 1969?

  The MR for battery formed during the act
• How does the one transaction theory apply in a scenario where D believes V is dead?

  D disposes of the body, causing V's death
• What is the significance of the one transaction theory?

  It allows MR to precede AR in some cases