Answer:
30 days or more a year of Class I, Class II
If you delete my answer, you're racist
Explanation:
Answer:
The doctrine of stare decisis is a legal doctrine that mandates the courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case.
The doctrine has a lot in common with the american legal system because the American legal system follows a case step by step before making conclusions.
Explanation:
Stare decisis ensures that cases with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. it binds the courts to follow legal steps set by previous decisions.
Answer:
a dui could be one of the main reasons for a car collision
Answer:
- The mugging of the police officer: purposeful
- The theft/disappearance of the fingerprints: knowing or negligent
- The arson: purposeful or reckless
Explanation:
Mens rea means "a guilty mind" as is required to prove a crime, along with actus reus (the criminal act). A purposeful mens rea means a crime was intentionally commited. A negligent mens rea is the failure to do what a reasonable person would do. A knowing mens rea means the potential result of a criminal act (such as lending a gun to someone who intends to shoot another person). A reckless mens rea increases risk to others, like driving under the influence.
Together, actus reus and mens rea form the corpus delicti or, both the criminal act and guilty mind.
Courts applying the Davis exception most often summarize it with phrases such as "ongoing emergency" or "emergency situation." When police are responding to an ongoing emergency, their motive is to ensure the safety of all concerned, not to collect evidence. The Supreme Court ruled in Davis that statements elicited by police while responding to an ongoing emergency are not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.
Testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-ITlooks like the kind of testimony that would be offered at trial in aid of prosecution;
-It is made when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency; and
-The primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution.
The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution protects the right of a criminal defendant to be confronted by his or her accusers in Court and to cross-examine any testimony that they may offer. The admission of hearsay (an out-of-court statement) – even if admissible under an exception to the rule against hearsay – can be in direct conflict with the right of Confrontation.
On the other hand, “non-testimonial” hearsay is a statement that:
-It is made primarily for the purpose of assisting police to meet an ongoing emergency; or
-It was made primarily for a purpose other than discovering, establishing or proving past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.
To learn more about Testimony visit here ; brainly.com/question/29244222?referrer=searchResultssearchResults
#SPJ4
