March 26, 2012
An interesting case that was currently brought before the Supreme Court was Missouri vs. Frye. I found this case interesting due to the injustice that was provided by Frye’s counsel, and that Frye insisted on committing the same crime over and over again even though he knew he had an open case concerning driving under a suspended license. There were many sources and jurisdictions related to criminal law that also relates to this case. Criminal liability is when one takes responsibility for committing a crime, and accomplice liability is when someone helps someone commit a crime. Actus reus means guilty act, mens rea means guilty mind, and concurrence means the equality of rights. Actus reus and mens rea are both necessary in order for a defendant to prove criminal liability. The Missouri vs. Frye case was about a man named Frye who had been arrested for driving on a revoked license. Frye was arrested two times before this arrest for driving on a revoked license. In the state of Missouri is someone is arrested three times for driving on a suspended they can receive a maximum sentence of up to four years in prison. After being arrested for this the prosecution had sent Frye’s lawyers a letter without two different pleas arrangements. The plea agreement included a chance for Frye to plead guilty. If he would have pleaded guilty the charge would be dropped to a misdemeanor and would only be sentenced to 90 days in prison. Frye’s counsel never made him aware of the plea offers and eventually the plea offers expired. A couple weeks later Frye was arrested again for the same thing, plead guilty with no plea agreement, and received three years in prison. When Frye was attempting post conviction relief he argued that his counsel was ineffective because they never made him aware of the plea offers that were presented by the prosecution before the last arrest. His motion was first denied...