Why Scarlett Was Killed In The US
1. Withdrawal of money not belonging to Scarlett
Scarlett Scofflaw could be charged under s 322(1), Theft under the Criminal Code. Scarlett could be charged with theft because she knew the money in her account was not hers, yet spent the money anyway. Scarlett should have contacted the bank immediately when she noticed the extra money that appeared in her account. Scarlett would have to prove that she deposited the money into her account, however; the bank mistakenly transferred the money into Scarlett’s account, proving that the money was not Scarlett’s. Section 334 (a), Scarlett could be convicted of an indictable offence because the amount she spent was exceeding $5,000.00. Therefore, I believe there Scarlett could be convicted of theft.
2. Passenger in a stolen vehicle
When Scarlett decided to get into Mary’s car, Scarlett had suspected something was going on, previously being aware that Mary had little money to her name. When Mary told Scarlett not to ask any questions and to look out for the cops, Scarlett could have known that the vehicle was stolen property. Because Scarlett would have been aware the vehicle did not belong to Mary, Scarlett could be convicted under s 335, Taking motor vehicle or vessel or found therein without consent, under the …show more content…
Scarlett will not be able to use the defence of provocation, s 232 under the Criminal Code. Provocation can only be used as a defence under a murder charge. Furthermore, provocation is only a partial defence, allowing the accused to be convicted of a lesser charge. Scarlett threw the trophy, which she used as a weapon, at her boyfriend and injured him. Since Scarlett is unable to use provocation as a defence, she will be convicted of assault with a weapon or causing bodily
Scarlett Scofflaw could be charged under s 322(1), Theft under the Criminal Code. Scarlett could be charged with theft because she knew the money in her account was not hers, yet spent the money anyway. Scarlett should have contacted the bank immediately when she noticed the extra money that appeared in her account. Scarlett would have to prove that she deposited the money into her account, however; the bank mistakenly transferred the money into Scarlett’s account, proving that the money was not Scarlett’s. Section 334 (a), Scarlett could be convicted of an indictable offence because the amount she spent was exceeding $5,000.00. Therefore, I believe there Scarlett could be convicted of theft.
2. Passenger in a stolen vehicle
When Scarlett decided to get into Mary’s car, Scarlett had suspected something was going on, previously being aware that Mary had little money to her name. When Mary told Scarlett not to ask any questions and to look out for the cops, Scarlett could have known that the vehicle was stolen property. Because Scarlett would have been aware the vehicle did not belong to Mary, Scarlett could be convicted under s 335, Taking motor vehicle or vessel or found therein without consent, under the …show more content…
Scarlett will not be able to use the defence of provocation, s 232 under the Criminal Code. Provocation can only be used as a defence under a murder charge. Furthermore, provocation is only a partial defence, allowing the accused to be convicted of a lesser charge. Scarlett threw the trophy, which she used as a weapon, at her boyfriend and injured him. Since Scarlett is unable to use provocation as a defence, she will be convicted of assault with a weapon or causing bodily