KUANTAN SCHOOL OF LAW

domainsss for sale

2011-01-09T23:11:00.003+08:00

email me for detail : suza3036@gmail.com or try out affiliate programme offerred by nivovo.com. trial version available...demo...tutorials...even you are not an expert you can make your own website functional as forum, blog, business website with e-commerce and many other application...choose and install...free seminar and webhosting workshops...you own databases to whatever you uploaded...upgrade your networking range

everyday is a new ***** to you

2011-01-08T09:27:00.004+08:00

no matter how brilliant you are, you never what would and will happen the next day. especially to you and your surround. so what is the best act that you must think of to be done the next day. Every day is a new opportunity. You can build on yesterday's success or put its failures behind and start over again. you are given all the days of your life the opportunity until the last day where nothing will be accepted beneficial except the best acts without permitting you the chance to appeal or to start over again. hence make your daily corrections and act best for your final day which is really final.

p/s: to look through others is easier than to look what is inside yourself. comment on you yourself first...you will succeed in your final.

S300 special exception...provocation (malayVers)

2010-08-16T02:29:00.004+08:00

verbal insults is not enough to qualify accused to use this special exceptin but a 'accumulatively' is different.

Kecualian Khusus S.300 KK

Perbezaan di antara kecualian am (general exceptions) dengan kecualian khusus (special exceptions).
Kesan pemakaian kecualian am ialah tertuduh boleh dibebaskan jika berjaya dibuktikan (melainkan dalam kes2 tertentu).
Kesan pemakaian khusus bagi s.300 ialah tertuduh tidak disabitkan dengan bunuh, tapi sabitan mematikan orang dengan salah. Oleh itu hukuman adalah di bawah s.304.

Kategori Kecualian Khusus

Bangkitan marah/provokasi
Melampaui hak pertahanan persendirian
Melampaui kuasa sebagai penjawat awam
Pergaduhan mengejut
Kerelaan orang yang berumur 18 tahun dan ke atas untuk ditamatkan nyawanya.

Exception 1- Provocation
“Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation, or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.”

Maksud Provokasi menurut undang2
“Acts which are sufficient to prevent the exercise of reason and to deprive a reasonable man of his self-control, so negativing the existence of malice, and thus reducing the crime of homicide from murder to manslaughter”.
“Conducts or words causing someone to lose his self-control. Provocation is not recognised as a general defence to a criminal charge in Englaish law, though what otherwise would have been murder, may be reduced to manslaughter if provocation is shown (it is not however, a defence to a charge of attempted murder”.

Provocation under the English law
Lord Goddard dalam R v Duffy: “Provocation is some acts or things or both done by any person to the defendant which would cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes in the defendant a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, rendering the defendant so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not master of his mind”.

Perkara2 yg perlu diberi pertimbangan
Samada wujudnya masa untuk meredakan kemarahan dan tertuduh boleh menguasai semula kawalan fikirannya;
Samada bangkitan marah itu wajar/munasabah dengan apa yang telah dilakukan mangsa.

Elemen2 Kecualian 1
Hilang akal akibat bangkitan marah
Bangkitan marah yang besar dan mengejut
Berlakunya kematian mangsa yang membangkitkan marah @
Berlakunya kematian orang lain dgn tidak sengaja.

Syarat2 Pemakaian Provokasi
Provokasi tidak dicari2/dibangkitkan secara sengaja oleh tertuduh sebagai helah untuk membunuh
Provokasi bukan disebabkan oleh perkara yg dilakukan menurut undang2/oleh penjawat awam yg menjalankan kuasanya yg sah di sisi undang2.
Provokasi tidak didatangkan oleh perkara yg dilakukan bg menjalankan hak pertahanan persendirian yg sah di sisi undang2.

Bagaimana menentukan provokasi?
Provokasi merupakan suatu persoalan fakta;Lihat Huraian bagi Kecualian1 ie Samada bangkitan marah itu cukup besar dan mengejut bagi mengelakkan kesalahan itu daripada terjumlah kpd kesalahan membunuh orang adalah suatu soal nyataan (question of fact).
Bila ia adalah persoalan fakta, maka mahkamah dalam menentukan wujud atau tidak provokasi untuk menurunkan darjah bunuh kpd culpable homicide, akan menimbangkan keseluruhan fakta kes yang membawa kpd berlakunya provakasi itu.
Lihat kes2 yg telah diputuskan eg Chong Teng v PP,Mat Sawi Bahodin v PP, PP v Lassake etc; bagaimana mahkamah menentukan provokasi tertuduh.

Ujian Provokasi
Ujian subjektif – bagaimana tertuduh menyebabkan kematian mangsa akibat provokasi.
Ujian objektif – bila orang biasa yang munasabah juga akan hilang kawalan diri secara mengejut akibat provokasi itu sebagaimana tertuduh.
Lihat keputusan kes2 Ikau Anak Mail v PP, Vijayan v PP – di mana mahkamah di Malaysia telah menerima pakai ujian provokasi yang digunakan oleh common law : “The test to be applied to ascertain the sufficiency of provocation under our law is the same as that applied under the common law. In every case it depends on the effect of the provocative act on the ordinary man, that is an ordinary reasonable man belonging to the same class of society as the accused”.
Jadi siapakah org biasa yg munasabah?? Adakah dilihat di segi adat, gaya hidup, kebudayaan, nilai sosial atau bangsa yang sama?

PP v Awang Raduan bin Awang Bol[1998] 5 MLJ 460
“Untuk berjaya dalam pembelaan bangkitan marah besar dan mengejut, adalah perlu di sisi undang2 untuk pihak pembelaan memuaskan mahkamah bahawa tertuduh bukan sahaja kehilangan kuasa mengawal diri melalui perbuatan si mati, tetapi perbuatan bangkitan marah demikian juga akan merampas kuasa kawalan kendiri daripada orang munasabah. Sekiranya perbuatan tindak balas keseluruhannya tidak seimbang dgn bangkitan marah yg timbul, rayuan bangkitan marah besar dan mengejut akan gagal. Perkara ini mestilah dipertimbangkan secara objektif dan beban terletak pada tertuduh untuk membuktikan bangkitan marah pada imbangan kebarangkalian”.

bersambunglah...

'Menjadi AlHafiz di rumah' is possible next step

2010-08-15T02:47:00.005+08:00

Anda boleh dengan mudah menghafal Quran Karim kerana zaman skrg sesiapa pun memiliki satu atau lebih peranti berikut:
* Desktop Komputer
* Komputer
* Laptop Tablet PC
* MP3 Player
* DVD Player
* VCD Player
* iPod kereta
* MP3 player
* Telefon bimbit yang menyokong fail audio
* peranti lain yang menyokong fail audio

2. anda hanya mecuba penyelesaian keseluruhan bacaan Quran dengan suara dari file mp3 kegemaran yang disediakan dalam segmen-segmen kecil sekitar 1-1,5 setiap minit.

3. Dengan cara ini kita berulang-ulang boleh mendengar 1 segmen atau lebih sehari selama 10-20 kali, dan yang pasti akan membantu anda mengingat dengan lebih baik. benar, 10-20 minit sehari boleh membuat anda menghafal semua Ayat Al Quran.

4. ragu-ragu tentang konsep ini? cuba fikirkan bagaimana orang-orang yang mendengar lagu kegemaran mereka. Apakah mereka terus menghafal lirik setelah mereka membeli album terbaru? Bagaimana mereka boleh melakukannya? Repetitiveness adalah kuncinya!

5. Ketika kita mendengar segmen Quran berulang-ulang, otak kita menyerap sepotong ayat dari setiap audio dan memaksanya disimpan dalam memori anda. Keputusan jangka jauhnya: Quran suci yang akan tersimpan di dalam memori dalaman otak. Bahkan jika anda melupakan beberapa segmen yang hafal, mereka akan dengan mudah dpt melalui semakan, kerana otak anda sudah menyerap bunyi ayat-ayat dengan banyak kali.

seterusnya apa yang nak dimainkan di player anda. pastinya anda perlu memuat turun fail mp3 semua juzuk alquran dan memperdengarkannya secara berjadual dan menanda setiap juzuk yang sudah dihafaz serta menyemak bacaan dengan alQuran.

download ayat-ayat di link berikut..http://www.memorize-quran.com...maksudnya jika ada yang berminat...gunakan Download Accelerator plus (boleh buat bulk download)

***juga link utk download alQuran Bentuk PDF untuk menyenangkan anda menyemak ketika menghafaz.

'Menjadi AlHafiz di rumah' is possible step by step

2010-08-15T02:39:00.003+08:00

Adik Muhammad ...Tamat hafaz Al-Quran pada usia 10 tahun...yang dewasa lagi boleh...

1. List of Juz in the Holy Qur'an....memorize these first.

Juz’ 1 – Al Fatiha 1 – Al Baqarah 141
Juz’ 2 – Al Baqarah 142 - Al Baqarah 252
Juz’ 3 – Al Baqarah 253 - Al Imran 92
Juz’ 4 – Al Imran 93 - An Nisaa 23
Juz’ 5 – An Nisaa 24 - An Nisaa 147
Juz’ 6 – An Nisaa 148 - Al Ma’idah 81
Juz’ 7 – Al Ma’idah 82 - Al An’am 110
Juz’ 8 – Al An’am 111 - Al A’raf 87
Juz’ 9 – Al A’raf 88 - Al Anfal 40
Juz’ 10 – Al Anfal 41 - At Tauba 92
Juz’ 11 – At Tauba 93 - Hud 5
Juz’ 12 – Hud 6 - Yusuf 52
Juz’ 13 – Yusuf 53 – Ibrahim 52
Juz’ 14 – Al Hijr 1 – An Nahl 128
Juz’ 15 – Bani Isra’il 1 - Al Kahf 74
Juz’ 16 – Al Kahf 75 – Ta Ha 135
Juz’ 17 – Al Anbiyaa 1 - Al Hajj 78
Juz’ 18 – Al Muminun 1 - Al Furqan 20
Juz’ 19 – Al Furqan 21 - An Naml 55
Juz’ 20 – An Naml 56 - Al Ankabut 45
Juz’ 21 – Al Ankabut 46 - Al Ahzab 30
Juz’ 22 – Al Ahzab 31 - Ya Sin 27
Juz’ 23 – Ya Sin 28 - Az Zumar 31
Juz’ 24 – Az Zumar 32 - Fussilat 46
Juz’ 25 – Fussilat 47 - Al Jathiya 37
Juz’ 26 – Al Ahqaf 1 - Az Zariyat 30
Juz’ 27 – Az Zariyat 31 - Al Hadid 29
Juz’ 28 – Al Mujadila 1 – At Tahrim 12
Juz’ 29 – Al Mulk 1 - Al Mursalat 50
Juz’ 30 – An Nabaa 1 - An Nas 6

"satu hari nanti, kita akan berjaya."

2010-08-07T02:38:00.004+08:00

pic: sourced from Google

mereka melalui rintangan dan cobaan untuk menegakkan keadilan dan kesaksamaan. mereka bersusah payah dengan apa jua kesanggupan sebagai bayaran untuk keadilan itu. walaupun keputusan bukan untuk mereka pada hari ini. hanya kerana ada yang cenderung berpihak, ada yang melihat jumlah dari hasil pertolongan dan selainnya...tapi tidakkah mereka ingat bahawa hasil segala departures from the original will cost them later on...sabar mereka itu pasti terbayar, keringat mereka pasti dikenangkan, usaha mereka pasti orang benar-benar menyokongnya tanpa diupah, disogok atau didorong. ingatlah "satu hari nanti, kita akan berjaya."

S300 COMMENTARIES

2010-08-04T02:40:00.004+08:00

visual ihsan dari: ibnufathani.blogspot.com
Mahkamah agung milik Yang Maha Esa ialah di Mahsyar...
lawyer: diri sendiri....
saksi: diri sendiri (anggota terlibat jenayah maksiat)
jatuh hukum: berdasarkan pengakuan sendiri
pelaksana hukuman: diri sendiri.
rayuan: not-available kalo tak merayu dari skrg n bertaubat
ratio decidendi: Awwal kalimah kat atas itu...diperbenarkan, diperlafazkan n diperamalkan dan banyak exceptions available di Mahsyar...n jgnlah ia diperlanggar, dipertentang, diputarbelitkan, ditakperlembagakan...dan banyak charges diperuntukkan (mahkamah itu takkan bertangguh)...fikir-fikirkan

(belajar dalam INGAT) (bukan study smart / hard) (you write you remember)
dan terus kepada tajuknya...

..........................................................................................................................

Section 300 Penal code: Murder; mens rea determined; exceptions draw direction to culpable or grievous hurts...need full copy of digital Act 574 PC...send request to myemail to download link. or you already have it on your pc...great...but do make a comment on this article (originally Morgan's)

In case of murder in which the conclusion of guilt is drawn by prosecution it must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and conclusion of guilt is drawn by prosecution it must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and consistent with the guilt of the accused ; S.D Soni v. State of Gujarat, (1991) Cr LJ 330 (SC).

Infliction of the injury on the vital part of the body with the agricultural instrument by the enraged accused in a sudden quarrel – Held. Accused did not cause the injury intentionally; Patel Rasikal Becharbhi v. State of Gurjarat, AIR 1992 SC 1150.

(1) The test of “grave and sudden” provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused , placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self- control
(2)In India, words and gestures may also , under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the First Exception, to Section 300.
(3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and suddenprovocation for committing the offence. Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 3 Crimes 146 (Med).

Mere sudden quarrel woud not entitle the accused to seek for Exception 4 to section 300; Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v.State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 Crimes 185 (Med).

To invoke Exception 4 to section 300, four requirements must be satisfied, namely
(i) it was sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner… The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence mast have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have been acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner . Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the , moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this Exception provided he has not acted cruelly; samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State of Madhya pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 582 (MP).

Where a mutual conflict develops and there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it started and as to who was the aggressor, it will not be correct to assume private defence for both sides. Such a case will be a case of sudden fight and conflict and has to be dealt with under Exception 4 to section 300 of the Code; Januram v. State of Madhys Prasesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 582 (MP).

Where the extra judicial condession made by accused admitting the crime of throwing his three minor children also recovered form well, therefore accused liable for offence of murder punishable under section 302 IPC; Narayana Swamyt v. Stateof Karnataka ,2000 Cr LJ 262 (Karn).

Where evidence of both eye witness reliable and well corroborated by medical and other evidence on record inspires confidence that accused had intention to kill deceased then conviction is liable to be sustained ; Rabba Ramanna Dora v. State of Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 118 (AP).

Where the eye with nesses were close relations of accused and were natural with ness and their consistant evidence regarding assault by accused with knife to deceased , bother of accused which caused his death, corroborated by other with ness of incident,
therefore guilt of accused proved beyond reasonable doubt; Suaukar Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2000 Cr LJ 118 (AP).

Where the ocular evidence is explicit and fully supported by medical evidence and evidence of other with ness who apprehend the accused after some hours of occurrence with blood stained weapon then absence of proof of motive will not render the entire prosecution case unbelievable, therefore , charge of murder against accused proved beyond all reasonable doubt; Ram Nath Novia v. State of Bihar, 2000 Cr LJ 318 (Pat).

Plea of alibi in murder case, when most of the evidences prove presence of accused on spot of murder, can not be relied upon. It is on accused to prove that he was not present that too by reliable evidence only; Singha Magan Gamit v. State of Gujarat, 1999 Cri LJ 2111 (Guj).

Pelting stones resulted into rob-fracture. Rupture of pleura is sufficient to cause death. External injury noted by doctors- appellants cannot put under clause 3rd or section 300. Guilty of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Madan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 1998 SCC (Cr) 1549.

Chain of evidence must be complete with fully established circumstances not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused. It should be of conclusive nature: Arvind v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1999 (4) SCC 4861: 1999 (3) JT 554.

Wrist watch was santched by accused of deceased . On request called to meet on specified spot. Hot words were exchange knife blow was given on chest to deceased also to the person who came to rescue him. It cannot be said fatal injuries were without predestination exception cannot be applied ; Mahesh Balmiki v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 1999 AIR (SC) 338:

Where the evidence of eye with ness regarding assault to deceased by accused persons was truthful , reliable and clearly corroborated by medical evidence and common intention of accused parsons to Commit murder of deceased also proved therefore conviction under section 300/34 us proper ; Ratan Devnath v. State of Tripura, 2000 Cr LJ 237 (Gau).

Where the co accused also shard common intention of committing murder of deceased by exhorting accused to commit crime, then offence punishable under section 302r/ w section 34 IPC was also proved against him; Ravindra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 63 (All).

Where evidence of eye withness neither woholly reliable nor wholly unreliable then it can not be inferred that both accused were individually or collectively were respondible for causing death of deceased while injury was grievous in nature , there conviction under section 302 althred to one under section 326 IPC; Shaik Subhani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 321 (AP).

Where no prejudice caused to accuded due to alteration of charge from under sections 302,392 I.P.C to section 396, Therefore trial not vitiated; K.M.Ibrahim v. State of Karnataka, 2000 Cr LJ 197 (Karn).

S300 ; short comments of 30 principles

2010-08-01T23:27:00.003+08:00

1. Dalam kes di mana tidak ada niat untuk menyebabkan kematian, perbuatan itu dilakukan dengan pengetahuan yang sama mungkin menyebabkan kematian, yang bersalah dari pelanggaran datang di bawah bahagian II dari section. 304;
SDSoni v. State of Gujarat, (1991) CrLJ 330 (SC)

2. Dalam tidak ada niat untuk menyebabkan kecederaan tertentu mungkin menyebabkan kematian keyakinan datang di bawah bahagian II dari section. 304;
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 55 (1981 Cr LR (SC) 543: (1981) 4 SCC 484.

3. Ketika tidak ada bukti tentang bagaimana kematian itu berlaku, bukti-bukti yang berkaitan dengan tuduhan pembunuhan akan diputuskan tidak cukup dan tidak boleh diterima;
Kedar Nath v. Negara bahagian Madhya Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 989 (SC).

4. Ketika dalam kes pembunuhan membuat aduan setelah sebulan insiden, kenyataan direkodkan selepas 9 bulan, keyakinan tidak boleh ditubuhkan (conviction cannot be founded); Negara Bengal Barat v. Shew Mangal Singh, AIR 1981SC 1917:1981) Kr LJ1683: (1981) Cr JR (SC) 501: (1981) 4 SCC 2.

5. Keadaan dimana tertuduh berada menunjukkan dia memiliki ternakan milik simati tidak boleh menyebabkan tertuduh terus dituduh bersalah atas pembunuhan;
Joga Gola v. State of Gujarat, AIR SC 982 1227; (1982) SCC (Cr) 141.

6. Ketika tertuduh tidak punya niat untuk menyebabkan kecederaan pada bahagian non-vital tubuh yang sudah cukup (sufficient) untuk menyebabkan kematian dlm ordinary course of nature, ilustrasi (c) section 300 adalah tidak terpakai;
Gokul Parashram Patil v. Negara Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1441; (1981) Cr LJ 1033.

7. Jumlah kecederaan dikenakan pada simati dengan jelas menyokong penemuan kedua-dua mahkamah di bawah bahawa tertuduh / perayu meneruskan belabouring simati sampai dia mati on the spot. Dalam situasi ini, tanggapan bahawa tertuduh tidak berniat untuk menyebabkan pembunuhan tidak dapat ditegakkan (upheld) oleh Fed. court;
Prabhu v. Negara Madyha Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 1373 (1373-1374) (SC).

8. Berkitan jumlah cedera yang dikenakan pada simati, contention untuk menegakkan pendapat bahawa tidak ada niat untuk membunuh adalah tidak mungkin ;
Prabhu v. Negara bahagian Madhya Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 1373 (1373-1374) (SC).

9. Pendirian bahawa penglibatan tertuduh dalam insiden dan perasaan waswas dari pukulan Barchhi kepada cucu simati ketika dia cuba untuk menyelamatkan simati, cukup untuk menghukum tertuduh dibawah section 300 dibaca dengan section 34 ;
Banta Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) Cr LJ 1342 (SC).

11. Jumlah dan sifat kecederaan boleh memberi keterangan yang baik untuk mempertimbangkan apakah tertuduh telah melebihi hak untuk mempertahankan diri;
Patori Devi ay. Amar Nath, (1988) Cr LJ 836; AIR 1988 SC 560.

to be continued...wt 19 more.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

2010-07-31T19:38:00.004+08:00

A. Structure.
1. Penal code s 299 and s 300
2. Penal code s 304
3. Penal code s 302
4. Penal code 304(A)

B. Actus reus of homicide.
1. Penal code 315

C. Mens rea terms compared.
1. S 299(1) and s 300(a)
(a) Proof of intention
(b) Meaning of intention
2. S 299(2) 299(3) and s 300(b)
3. S 299(2) and s 300(c)
(a) Introduction / overview
(b) S 300(c) ; subjective or objective?
(c) Escape cases
(d) Egg-shell skull cases
4. S 299(3) and s 300(d)
(a) S 299(3) and s 300(d)(i)
(b) S 299(3) and s 300(d)(ii)
(c) Lack of excuse.
5. Conclusion.

D. Transferred malice and constructive mens rea.
1. Penal code s 301

E. Killing a supposed cropse.
1. The problem
2. The solution
3. Conclusion.

**simplified from Morgan's.

CRIMINAL...CHAPTER XVI...OFFENCES AFFECTING HUMAN BODY

2010-07-28T03:17:00.003+08:00

SECTION 299. Culpable homicide.-

299. Culpable homicide.- Whoever cause death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Pembunuhan menyebabkan kematian dengan melakukan tindakan (ACTUS REUS) dengan tujuan (MENS REA) menyebabkan kematian, atau dengan tujuan menimbulkan kecederaan tubuh seperti yang mungkin menyebabkan kematian, atau dengan pengetahuan (MENS REA) bahawa ia cenderung dengan tindakan tersebut untuk menyebabkan kematian, melakukan CULPABLE HOMISIDE (pembunuhan patut disalahkan.)

Illustrations

(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed . A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

Ilustrasi

(a) A meletakkan kayu dan rumput di atas lubang, dengan tujuan sehingga menyebabkan kematian, atau dengan pengetahuan bahawa kematian mungkin disebabkan demikian. Z percaya tanah itu kukuh, berpijak di atasnya, jatuh dan mati. Si A telah melakukan kesalahan “pembunuhan patut disalahkan”.

(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B dies not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(B) A tahu Z berada di balik semak-semak. B tidak tahu bahawa A berniat untuk menyebabkan, atau mengetahui hal itu terjadi mungkin menyebabkan kematian Z, telah mendorong B untuk nyalakan api di semak-semak. B laukan pembakaran dan membunuh Z. Disini, B mungkin tidak bersalah, tetapi A melakukan kesalahan “pembunuhan patut bersalah”.

(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful acct, he was not guilty of culpable homicide , as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

(C) A menembak pada unggas dengan maksud untuk membunuh dan mencuri, telah membunuh B yang berada di belakang semak-semak ; A tidak tahu bahawa B ada di sana. Di sini, walaupun A melakukan perlakuan yang menyalahi undang-undang, dia tidak bersalah atas “pembunuhan patut bersalah”, kerana dia tidak berniat untuk membunuh B, atau untuk menyebabkan kematian dengan melakukan -- tindakan yang dia tahu ada kemungkinan untuk menyebabkan kematian.

Explanation 1.- a person who cause bodily injury to another who is laboring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Penjelasan 1 .- seseorang yang menyebabkan kecederaan kepada orang lain yang dalam keadaan di bawah disorder, penyakit atau kelemahan tubuh, dan dengan demikian mempercepatkan kematian si mati, harus dianggap telah menyebabkan kematiannya.

Explanation 2.- Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Penjelasan 2 .- apabila kematian disebabkan oleh kecederaan tubuh badan, orang yang menyebabkan kecederaan tersebut akan dianggap telah menyebabkan kematian, walaupun dengan beralih kepada penyelesaian yang tepat dan rawatan pakar kematian mungkin telah dicegah

Explanation 3.- The causing of the death of child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

Penjelasan 3 .- yang menyebabkan kematian anak di ibu rahim bukan pembunuhan. Tapi ia mungkin boleh disabit sebagai kes “pembunuhan patut bersalah” kerana menyebabkan kematian anak yang hidup, jika ada bahagian dari anak yang telah zahir (cukup sifat), walaupun anak mungkin tidak bernafas atau tidak benar-benar lahir.

COMMENTS

(i) “Culpable homicide” is genus, and “murder” is the specie. All “murder” is culpable homicide but not vice-versa;

(ii) The assault for murder cannot be said to be sudden and without meditation as the deceased was not armed;.

KOMENTAR

(i) "pembunuhan patut bersalah" adalah genus, dan "pembunuhan" adalah specie. Semua “pembunuhan " adalah “pembunuhan patut bersalah” tetapi tidak sebaliknya;

NARASINGH CHALLAN V. STATE OF ORISSA,(1997) 2 CRIMES 78(ORI) refer Malaysian case;

(ii) Serangan untuk pembunuhan tidak boleh dikatakan tiba-tiba dan tanpa meditasi jika Si mati tidak bersenjata;

STATE OF MAHRASHTRA V. KRISHANA MURTI LAZMIPATTI NAIDU, AIR 1981 SC 617; refer Malaysian case;

sumber: www.agc.com.my

Special ebook...twrd paperless world

2010-07-26T22:57:00.003+08:00

ihsan: jomPHP

download your favourite english novels, books in all field of hobbies for those who do like reading everyday. some credits given to this blogger for making people who love reading to read more. i assume that he/she got the licence from the relevant publisher. klik... Jim's eBook Gratis: eBook Bahasa Inggris.

to pjj and out campus students....

2010-07-26T22:44:00.004+08:00

sedia bantu anda especially rakan-rakan yang buat pjj di OUM terutama course pendidikan; Bahasa arab; pengajian islam; semua peringkat dari diploma; ijazah dan master...

jika anda tak cukup masa...

jika anda register banyak subjects semester ni...

jika anda ada masa berkolaborasi dgn saya...

jika anda boleh tentukan harganya...ayuh berunding

email jingga segala keperluan soalan yang perlu dijawab dlm tugasan anda...

*p/s: saya membantu rakan blogger @ sayabantuassignmentanda.blogspot.com

Anda ada masa menulis? tulisan anda dibayar.

2010-07-10T19:28:00.003+08:00

menulis ulasan / review tentang apa sahaja dari movie, article, novel, kolum dalam akhbar dll yang pernah anda baca adalah sesuatu yang mudah jika anda mempunyai masa. masa anda ketika melayari web2 juga boleh dimanfaatkan dengan berkongsi pendapat anda tentang apa yang anda selalu baca. sampaikan 900 patah kata dalam ulasan anda dan anda dibayar.

caranya dengan melayari beberapa laman web yang menyediakan ruangan tersebut dalam web mereka seperti yang kat bawah ini.

Malaysian Criminal Law

2010-07-10T18:47:00.004+08:00

Ebooks! klik untuk carian buku pilihan dengan harga yang berpatutan dengan pelbagai variati. The less we know, the more we suspect" Semakin sedikit kita tahu, semakin kita tersangka. banyakkanlah membaca.

UITM tawar peluang pengajian percuma kepada golongan pekerja...

2010-06-28T16:59:00.002+08:00

UITM tawar peluang pengajian percuma kepada golongan pekerja
28/06/2010 4:38pm

SHAH ALAM 28 Jun - Golongan pekerja yang berminat untuk mendapatkan pendidikan tinggi namun tidak berkemampuan kini berpeluang berbuat demikian di Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM).

Menteri Pengajian Tinggi, Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin berkata, pengajian secara percuma itu akan ditawarkan pada masa terdekat dan pelajar akan mengikutinya menerusi program pengajian jarak jauh dan luar kampus di semua kampus UiTM.

"Tawaran ini merupakan satu tanggungjawab sosial (CSR) UiTM yang diusahakan sendiri oleh universiti itu melalui program 'Mengubah Destini Anak Bangsa'," katanya kepada pemberita selepas menghadiri Majlis Pertemuan dengan Penuntut Baru UiTM, di sini hari ini.

Khaled berkata, tawaran itu adalah untuk semua peringkat umur. Mereka yang berminat akan mengikuti satu program pengajian khas sebelum diserapkan ke peringkat diploma bagi mengikuti kursus bersesuaian pada semester berikutnya bergantung kepada keputusan yang dicapai, kata beliau. - Bernama

notes from outside...yumkin tufidukum.

2010-02-17T10:36:00.001+08:00

I. What is a crime?

Voluntary act + mens rea = result

A. Must be a voluntary act (actus reus)

1. Does not include:

a. thoughts

b. acts done while sleepwalking (but hard to get jury to believe it)

c. acts done while under hypnosis (but hard to get jury to believe it)

d. reflex or convulsions

e. words, usually. But may in cases of conspiracy or aiding and abetting a crime.

2. May be very little action, such as mere possession (drug cases).

3. An omission (failure to act) can be criminal if D was under a legal duty to act.

a. Apparent caregiver must have had a legal duty (either by contract or by voluntarily assuming the duty to care) to act before she can be found to have breached duty to care for a friend’s kid who starved to death. Jones v. U.S., D.C. 1926.

b. Duties may be imposed by:

i. Statutes – statute imposes a duty to care for another

ii. Relationships – one stands in a certain status relationship to another

x. State v. Walden, N.C., 1982, mom can’t watch friend beat her baby.

xx. Commonwealth v. Twitchell, Mass. 1993, religious convictions not an excuse for parents not getting medical care for child.

xxx. People v. Heitzman, Cal. 1994, woman did not have a legal duty to control her brothers in the care of her father.

xv. Police officers have no relationship w/ and thus, no duty to protect a particular victim (Rodney King, 1991, watched beating from afar).

iii. Contracts – one assumes a contractual duty to care for another.

iv. Voluntary assumption – one cares for another and secludes helpless person to prevent others from rendering aid (putting person in worse position by that action).

c. No obligation to rescue (except in Vermont).

i. It’s legally safer not to help b/c you don’t want to leave person worse off. But you can start to help and stop as long as person isn’t left worse off.

ii. Charging for one’s assistance may be extortion.

d. No obligation to report a crime in most states.

i. Examples: Neighbors overhear Kitty Genovese being stabbed to death, N.Y. 1964 but don’t call police and the Cash/Strohmeyer case in 1997.

ii. Under c/l, misprision of felony was a misdemeanor, the failure to report or prosecute a known felony.

B. Must have a certain mens rea (state of mind) – except for strict liability crimes and cases of ignorance of the law.

1. MPC’s levels of culpability (adopted by 30 states). Acting with intent means purposely or knowingly.

a. Purposely – consciously causing a particular result

b. Knowingly – subjectively aware of a substantial certainty or a practical certainty.

i. Example: taking the last parachute when a plane is crashing – you know others will die but you are not purposely causing their deaths.

ii. In some states, defined as “highly probable,” a lower standard. Common in drug/environment cases. U.S. v. Villegas, 2d. Cir. 1993, overturned conviction for vials of blood on beach. May be another way of saying “reckless.”

c. Recklessly – conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustified risk.

d. Negligently – may not be aware of the risk but should have been aware of it.

i. Different from civil negligence – must be grossly neg. beyond a reasonable doubt.

ii. Some argue it should be abolished b/c includes people w/o criminal intent.

2. Specific-intent and general-intent crimes

a. Specific intent – crimes that require evidence of an extra-special mental element in addition to proof D had a particular state of mind.

i. Example: larceny, “extra-special” intent to permanently deprive another of his property or burglary, “extra-special” intent to commit any crime.

ii. State v. Peery, Minn. 1947, indecent exposure conviction overturned b/c D who seen naked in his room lacked specific intent to be indecent or lewd.

b. General intent – requires proof of a particular state of mind accompanying crime. Example: battery – intentionally or recklessly inflicted injury on another.

c. Can be manipulated either way; MPC and 30 states don’t recognize distinction.

3. Transferred intent doctrine – person intends to do one crime but instead commits another. (Example: accidentally sets fire while stealing rum, no mens rea for arson).

a. Applies only to felony-murder and misdemeanor manslaughter.

b. Can transfer intent from victims – A intends to kill B, but misses and kills C.

4. Possible defenses

a. Ostrich – deliberate ignorance not usually a defense. Esp. w/ drugs, paid $50,000 to carry box over border but D didn’t know what was in it and didn’t look.

b. Good motive – not usually a defense b/c D knew what she was doing.

i. May help establish recognized defense: self-defense, necessity or duress.

ii. Commonly claimed in assisted-suicide cases.

c. Mistake of fact is a defense if it negates required mens rea.

i. For general-intent crimes, must be honest and reasonable. Gordon v. State, Ala. 1875, election fraud conviction overturned b/c voter honestly and reasonably believed he was old enough to vote.

ii. For specific-intent crimes, can be unreasonable but must be sincere.

iii. Under MPC, mistake compared to crime’s required culpability level.

x. Purposely or knowingly – mistake can be reckless but must be honest.

xx. Recklessly – mistake can be negligent but not reckless.

xx. Negligence – mistake just has to be reasonable.

iv. Mistake has to make a difference (causation).

v. Not a defense to strict liability crimes.

d. Mistake of law is a defense only if it is reasonable and one of the following:

i. Mens rea requires knowledge of the law. Rare.

x. People v. Weiss – Ds believed they had been deputized and thus acting w/in authority of the law when they kidnapped Lindbergh baby suspect.

xx. B/c of their complexity, S.Ct. (1991) interprets “willfully” to require a specific intent to violate the tax laws. But D’s honest belief that income tax was unconstitutional is not a defense.

ii. D had no reason to know of the relevant legal requirement and no genuine opportunity to comply w/ law’s mandate. Limited to facts of Lambert v. CA, 1957, applies only to wholly passive conduct, L.A. felon failed to register.

iii. D had reason to know of relevant legal conduct but did not believe his actions fell outside of the law. Not a defense unless relying on an “official” statement of the law (such as a court (sometimes only appellate) opinion or certain (usually high-level) public officials) or law is not published.

x. People v. Wendt, Ill. 1989, D convicted for not filing tax return although research led him to believe that as an individual he wasn’t required to.

xx. Reliance must be reasonable. Example: Fishing license case in which D knew trial court ruling in his favor had been appealed.

xxx. Can’t rely on attorney’s advice.

xv. New Jersey broadened this defense to include diligent research.

iv. D’s mistake or ignorance is not about the existence or meaning of the criminal prohibition but about an element of the crime that turns on a legal distinction. Queen v. Smith – tenant destroys his own improvements not knowing they were his landlord’s property.

v. D’s mistake or ignorance is about entitlement to a special exemption from the reach of that prohibition, such as reasonably aiding a police officer in an emergency when summoned or obeying unlawful military orders. U.S. v. Barker, 1976, Ellsberg psychiatrist’s burglars believed break-in was legal for nat’l security reasons.

e. Intoxication – by illegal drugs or alcohol

i. Voluntary intoxication a defense only if it negates mens rea for specific-intent crimes. But courts accept it reluctantly. U.S. v. Williams, bank robber wasn’t drunk enough to negate intent to permanently deprive another of property.

ii. For general-intent crimes, voluntary intoxication is not a defense and evidence that D was drunk is generally not admissible.

iii. MPC – Voluntary intoxication a defense if it negates mens rea of purpose or knowledge but not if it negates recklessness or criminal negligence.

iv. Involuntary intoxication is always a defense if it negates the mens rea.

x. Involuntary if D is unaware he is consuming an intoxicating substance, consumes it under force or duress, or is following medical advice.

xx. Addiction or alcoholism are not considered involuntary.

5. Why have this difficult-to-prove requirement?

a. Helps define more precisely the behavior society wants to deter.

b. Protects those who accidentally or “innocently” cause harm.

c. Retributive purposes are served by punishing only those who are culpable.

C. Act & mens rea leads to a certain result.

II. Strict, Vicarious & Corporate Liability

A. Strict liability – requires no mens rea

1. Applies most often to public welfare crimes, public health and safety regulations, such as serving alcohol to a minor or serving adulterated or underweight food.

a. Legislature seldom makes it clear that crime is meant to be strict liability; instead it usually just omits any mens rea.

b. Thus, courts look at nature of particular item being regulated in determining whether to apply strict liability. Staples v. U.S., 1994, holding gun ownership (unlike having grenades or drugs) is commonly thought of as a legal, innocent act and thus Nat’l Firearms Act violation isn’t strict liability crime.

2. Also applies to statutory rape and under c/l, to bigamy (no longer in most states).

3. MPC – not called “crimes” b/c D shouldn’t be morally condemned unless her act was culpable. Refers to them as “violations,” punishable only by fine.

4. Mistakes of fact can never be a defense.

5. Justifications

a. Generally modest penalties, such as fines (but imposes criminal stigma even on saints and may reduce effect of criminal stigma).

b. Social consequences of crime are great.

c. Proof of culpability could be difficult (but sacrifices civil liberties).

B. Vicarious liability – imputing one’s (employee’s) action to another (employer).

1. Dispenses both w/ mens rea and actus reus requirements.

2. Rare in criminal law, often used in conjunction w/ strict liability. (MPC allows.)

a. Commonwealth v. Koczwara, Penn. 1959, tavern owner held vicariously liable for employee’s violation of strict liability crime of selling alcohol to a minor. Court holds he cannot be sentenced to prison, can only be fined. (Others disagree.)

b. In re: Marley, CA, 1946, market owner convicted for employee’s overweighing of meat.

3. Impossibility a defense if person is powerless to prevent or correct violation. U.S. v. Park, 1975, holding president of nat’l retail food chain guilty when rodents contaminated food in regional warehouse b/c he stood in “responsible relation to a public danger.”

4. Justifications similar to reasons for strict-liability crimes. A risk of owning a business and may promote great care but may hurt small-business owners.

C. Corporate liability

1. C/l rejected b/c a corporation could not form criminal intent.

2. Under modern view, company can be convicted if legislative intent plainly appears to impose strict liability on the corporation or the crime consists of an omission to perform an act which the corporation is required by law to perform or see 3.

3. When should an employee’s criminal acts be attributed to company?

a. Traditional majority view – any employee w/in scope of employment.

b. Trend – employee in a high managerial position commits crime or authorizes, requests or orders it. State v. Adjustment Depart. Credit Bureau, Idaho, 1971, company not liable for lower-level employee’s extortion.

c. MPC – requires high-level employee to “recklessly tolerate” behavior.

4. Doesn’t preclude also prosecuting individuals, vicariously or not, for the crime.

5. Pros and cons

a. Civil liability is more powerful – publicity, higher fines and firm can’t go to jail anyway.

b. Easier to convict because don’t have to nail a specific individual, yet it encourages organization to allocate blame and impose its own sanctions

c. Deterrence – perhaps by stigma in that it creates a culture where crime is not allowed b/c it jeopardizes company’s good name and $. But perhaps deterrence is greater for individuals who can be threatened by jail.

d. Necessary b/c economic pressures may tempt individuals to risk personal liability for company gain.

III. Inchoate Crimes & Accomplice Liability

	# of bad guys	Required action	Overlap?	Possible defenses
Solicitation	at least 1	Encourage or advise but no one does crime.	Only used when prosecutor can’t get D for any other crime.	Renunciation: Persuade person not to do crime or otherwise prevent it.
Attempt	at least 1	Act beyond mere preparation	Can’t be punished for both attempt & crime.	Voluntary abandonment
Accomplice liability	at least 2	Aid or encourage; crime or attempt required.	Probably also guilty of conspiracy, esp. if help is before crime.	Withdrawal: Remove all encouragement or aid, or give cops timely notice.
Conspiracy	Usually at least 2	Agreement. If any overt act required, it may be mere preparation or less.	Also might be guilty as an accomplice to an attempt or crime.	Withdrawal: Quit. Voluntary renunciation: Persuade others not to commit crime.

A. Solicitation

1. C/l elements

a. Encouraging or advising another to commit any felony or serious misdemeanor

i. Immediate, direct advocacy crucial to avoid trampling on First Amendment rights.

ii. Some states seem to require speaking to a specific person but can be broadly defined. Met in State v. Schleifer, Conn. 1923 union leader urging assembly to attack scabs, but not in People v. Quentin, N.Y. 1968, subversive brochure given to kids.

b. w/ the intent that the other person commit the acts constituting that crime. (mens rea)

2. Modern statutes tend to limit liability to situations where D encouraged one of the particular crimes specified in statute. CA only allows for certain serious crimes.

3. Solicitation charges brought only when the crime was not attempted or committed.

a. Solicitation doesn’t constitute an attempt b/c it is doesn’t go beyond “mere preparation.”

b. If crime is committed, solicitor would be guilty as an accomplice.

4. MPC merges attempted solicitation into solicitation. D is guilty even if person he is attempting to solicit did not get the message.

a. Probably not followed by any state.

b. Thus, MPC would punish prisoner whose letter to wife urging her to talk stepdaughter out of testifying against him was intercepted. State v. Cotton, N.M. 1990.

5. Defense of voluntary renunciation

a. Solicitor must either successfully persuade the solicited person not to commit the crime or otherwise prevent its commission.

b. Not recognized under c/l but MPC and an increasing number of jurisdictions accept it.

6. Should this be a crime?

a. Desire to get the mastermind, rather than foot soldiers, and to thwart group criminality as early as possible.

b. But it’s very anticipatory. Additionally, a rational person who acted on her individual agency to say no intervenes.

B. Attempt

1. Elements

a. An intent to do acts and/or cause results constituting a crime (mens rea)

i. Culpability for attempt is usually same as for crime.

ii. For attempted murder – D must have intent for BOTH act and the result. D must have “intent to kill.”

iii D can attempt voluntary manslaughter but not involuntary manslaughter.

iv. W/ specific-intent crimes, D also must have the extra-special intent.

b. and an act that goes “beyond mere preparation.”

i. Under c/l, D had to be on the “last proximate act,” only one more step would complete the crime.

ii. States began to adopt more flexible tests, still judging the attempt by how many acts until it was completed.

x. Physical proximity approach – D must come physically close to completion. People v. Rizzo, N.Y.,1927 – police finally gave up and arrested Ds (acquitted) who wanted to rob an armed truck but spent hours driving around looking for it.

iii. Modern trend and MPC’s view: “substantial step” test – act must be “strongly corroborative” of a criminal purpose.

x. Examples that are ?s of fact for jury: lying in wait or searching for a victim; enticing or trying to entice victim to scene; reconnoitering scene; unlawful entry; possession of materials for crime.

xx. U.S. v. Jackson, 2d. Cir. 1977, Ds convicted of attempted robbery after abandoning their second attempt before even entering the bank b/c they knew they were being watched.

xxx. U.S. v. Buffington, 9^th Cir., 1987 – Ds surprisingly acquitted under test b/c court also wanted them to be moving toward their target. Bank teller saw one putting on a scarf outside and so they abandoned their attempt.

2. Defenses

a. Voluntary abandonment – not voluntary if D postpones or stops b/c encountered unanticipated difficulties, unexpected resistance, or circumstances that would increase the probability of detection or apprehension.

i. C/l did not allow this defense but then it was harder to convict for attempts and less likely D could voluntarily abandon b/c D had to be further along.

ii. MPC and modern trend allows defense. MPC allows abandonment up until the last moment that the criminal result can be avoided.

iii. Appeals courts in CA are split on whether to allow it. People v. Staples, 1970, holding it’s not a defense for mathematician convicted of attempted burglary after renting office above bank vault and drilling holes in the floor.

iv. D can’t abandon once any crime is complete.

x. D points gun in victim’s face and demands his wallet but then changes his mind about robbery. Guilty of lesser crime of brandishing a weapon.

xx. D stabbed uncle twice but then overcome w/ remorse, rushes him to the hospital. Guilty of attempted murder. State v. Smith, Ind., 1980.

iv. Pros and cons of permitting defense.

x. More deterrence if don’t allow it b/c D won’t start the crime. Can’t erase reality; attempt was started.

xx. Defense provides incentive to change mind about committing the crime. D lacks mens rea. D who quits is less dangerous to society anyway.

b. Legal impossibility is a defense; factual impossibility is not.

i. C/l, about one-third of the states still use distinction.

ii. Legal impossibility – If the D did everything she wanted to do, it wouldn’t be a crime. Shooting wax bust instead of intended victim; stealing umbrella that’s really hers.

iii. Factual impossibility – What the D wants to do is illegal but fails for reasons unknown to her. Shooting at bed but intended victim isn’t there; pickpocketing but wallet is empty.

iv. Any attempt can be construed to fit into either category but courts tended to distinguish based on mistaken identity (legal impossibility) vs. something missing/empty (factual impossibility).

c. Modern rule (MPC) – If it would have been a crime if the circumstances were as the D believed them, the D is guilty of attempt.

i. Eliminates legal v. factual impossibility distinction; neither usually defenses.

ii. People v. Dlugash, N.Y. 1977, D convicted of attempted murder after shooting victim 5 times a few minutes after another guy had shot him 3 times. D argued he knew victim was dead when he fired, but jury could conclude he believed victim was alive.

iii. Inherent impossibility exception – if particular conduct is so inherently unlikely to result in crime that neither conduct nor D presents public danger. Example: A tries to kill B using a voodoo doll.

iv. D can’t attempt to do something that would not be a crime even if the facts were as D thought. Like pulling tags off furniture b/c D believes it’s a crime.

3. Sentences – can be convicted of both attempt and crime but can’t be punished for both. (Prosecutor covering both theories in case one fails.)

a. C/l punished mildly.

b. Majority today (CA) punish half as much as completed crime.

c. MPC punishes same as for completed crime b/c mens rea more important than result.

C. Accomplice liability

1. C/l distinctions

a. Principal in 1^st degree – committing actus reus, at least one of acts that make up crime

b. Principal in 2^nd degree

i. Aiding OR encouraging a principal in the 1^st degree at the time of the crime, must be present (but loosely interpreted).

ii. Journalist guilty who attended and gave a positive review of concert given by foreign sax player performing w/o a work permit. Wilcox v. Jeffery, England, 1951.

iii. Mere words are enough. Cash got off b/c he walked fine line of giving no encouragement or aid to Strohmeyer.

c. Accessory before the fact

i. Aiding OR encouraging before the crime, not present during crime.

ii. Anti-tax lecturers guilty of aiding and encouraging workers to file fraudulent tax forms. U.S. v. Buttorff, 8^th Cir. 1978, rejecting their First Amendment arguments.

iii. Under c/l this one and principal in 2^nd degree could be liable for all crimes that are the “natural and probable consequences” of the initial crime they assisted or encouraged. MPC and many courts reject this view today.

d. Accessory after the fact – affirmative aid or encouragement after the crime completed.

i. Four elements required under c/l: (1) a felony has been committed, (2) D knows felon committed crime (3) and D aids felon (4) w/ purpose of hindering apprehension.

ii. Many states and MPC merge or supplement w/ obstruction of justice statutes.

x. Typical modern statute (MPC): W/ purpose to hinder punishment of another for crime, D: conceals him OR provides or helps provide weapon, transit, disguise, or other means of evading detection OR conceals or destroys evidence or tampers w/ witness or other information regardless of admissibility in evidence OR warns other of impending discovery or apprehension.

xx. MPC adds a fifth element, adopted by only a few states: volunteers false information to a law enforcement officer.

xxx. Perjury (c/l definition) – false oath in a judicial proceeding in regard to a material matter. A false oath is a willful and corrupt sworn statement made w/o sincere belief in its truthfulness. (Even if D is trying to be tricky and unhelpful, it’s not perjury unless D believes he is lying, Starr report).

iii. MPC drops requirement that crime has been committed; it’s enough if person is wanted by the authorities. But other jurisdictions say D is not guilty if sincerely believed criminal didn’t commit the crime.

iv. D is convicted of being an accessory after fact, not of the specific crime.

2. Mens rea – D must give aid or encouragement (whether before or after) “purposefully.”

a. Most courts as well as MPC do not allow merely “knowingly” to suffice. Some do if crime and/or involvement (D was a but-for cause) is very serious.

b. State v. Gladstone, Wash. 1970, conviction overturned for student who told undercover officer where he might be able to get some pot b/c he lacked “purposeful” mens rea.

c. N.Y. has a separate, lesser crime for those who “knowingly” assist in a crime.

d. Exception – D may be convicted as an accomplice in involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide if he assists in a reckless or criminally negligent act that leads to death. Usually accomplice and killer must be engaged in a “common enterprise.”

3. Most modern statutes treat the first three the same way. Any of these people is guilty of the crime and are subject to same sentencing range.

4. MPC – adds “attempted aid” to principal in 2^nd degree and accessory before fact.

a. If criminal sees D’s attempt to aid that would be encouragement so D would be guilty under c/l or MPC. (Example: Tossing gun to robber that he misses; it falls into gutter.)

b. If criminal doesn’t see the attempt, not guilty under c/l but guilty under MPC.

c. But no communication is required to give aid under either view. Spontaneously assisting would still make one guilty as an accomplice.

5. Accomplice or not?

a. Under MPC and c/l, person legally incapable of committing the crime can be convicted as accomplice. Example: Hubby hiring another to rape his wife (marital rape exemption).

b. Under MPC and c/l, people inevitably incident to commission of crime are not accomplices. Such as a prostitute’s partner or the extortionist’s victim.

c. Under modern, accomplice can be convicted even if principal never caught or acquitted.

i. At accomplice’s trial, prosecutors must prove principal in 1^st degree committed crime.

ii. C/l required principal to be convicted before accomplice could be tried.

d. Doctrine of innocent agency – one who uses an innocent person (someone with a defense of insanity, immaturity, duress or mistake) can be convicted as an accomplice.

e. Accomplices can be accessories to an attempt.

f. A person who has a duty to prevent a crime can be convicted as an accomplice if she fails to perform that duty (if mens rea is present). Some jurisdictions disagree.

6. Possible defenses for accessory before fact or principal in 2^nd degree

a. No but-for defense.

i. D can’t argue others would have completed crime even w/o his aid or encouragement.

ii. Only Minnesota requires any connection but not as strict as but-for. State v. Ulvinen, 1981, reversing conviction of mom who responded “it would be best for the kids” when son told her he was going to kill his wife.

b. For the withdrawal defense, D must remove all aid or encouragement before the crime occurs OR give timely notice to the police.

i. A few courts allow the defense if D is not successful at withdrawing but tries hard to take back his aid or encouragement.

ii. Most courts are unsympathetic to this b/c D can always pick up the phone and call the police. Has to be timely but perhaps not enough time for police to stop crime.

iii. States split on whether D’s motivation (fear of apprehension vs. moral reasons) matters to claim this defense. MPC doesn’t care.

iv. If D waits too long to w/draw aid or encouragement, he may be guilty of being an accessory to the attempt or even guilty of a crime such as burglary. If he w/draws before the crime is unstoppable, he is not an accessory even if crime later occurs.

v. Commonweath v. Huber, 1958, D convicted of robbery for being accessory before fact by lending robber his rifle. Not a defense that he went to police (b/c he overheard there that robbery had occurred and ran out to get his rifle back).

D. Conspiracy

1. Elements

a. An agreement between at least two people,

i. Wharton rule: Some crimes require at least three people b/c nature of crime makes two people’s participation necessary. Like adultery, incest or dueling.

ii. May be implied from actions, such as two attacking another simultaneously.

x. Williams v. U.S., 2d. Cir. 1954, liquor law violator bought off police; all convicted of conspiracy despite argument they acted as individuals, rather than as a group.

xx. So broad most Ds who are accomplices are also conspirators.

iii. MPC only requires “agreeing.” Accepted by very few states. Allows conspiracy convictions of drunk plotting w/ statue or person plotting w/ undercover police.

iv. Chain agreements: Everyone connected w/ a criminal enterprise is pulled in even if didn’t know all others in conspiracy or all the crimes involved. Controversial.

b. with purpose to enter into that agreement, (a bit redundant)

c. an overt act in furtherance of the agreement (majority requires)

i. Any overt act is usually sufficient, even ones that would not constitute an attempt, such as one person setting an alarm clock to get up for a bank robbery.

ii. Only one conspirator needs to do an overt act.

d. with the purpose to promote the unlawful act that is the object of the conspiracy

i. Can be unlawful w/o being criminal under federal law and common law as well as in some states. May be a tort, contract violation or “immoral” act.

ii. Contractor violated firm’s ethical policy. U.S. v. Conover, 11^th Cir., 1985.

e. and with knowledge that the unlawful act is indeed unlawful.

i. Only required in a very small minority of jurisdictions, including California.

ii. Thus, ignorance of law would be an excuse for conspiracy such as a group of alumni planning a bingo fund-raiser not realizing such gambling is illegal.

2. Pinkerton doctrine: Co-conspirators are responsible for all “foreseeable” crimes in furtherance of conspiracy even if they didn’t participate in the specific crime. Some courts and MPC don’t accept or won’t stretch it from one end of a chain conspiracy to other end.

3. Partial or complete defenses

a. Withdrawal – D must tell all other conspirators that he has quit the conspiracy.

i. D is still guilty of conspiracy if an overt act was committed but is not guilty of any crimes that occur after he quits.

ii. Withdrawing starts statute of limitations running on conspiracy charges. Charges can’t be brought after a certain number of years after person leaves conspiracy or it ends. Also no incriminating statements made by co-conspirators after person’s withdrawal are admissible in evidence.

iii. Pinkerton v. U.S., 1946, brother guilty of other brother’s crime even though he was in jail at the time crime was committed b/c he had not withdrawn from conspiracy.

iv. Some courts allow withdrawal defense if D acts totally inconsistent w/ membership in conspiracy. But an affirmative act is required. Rule wouldn’t have helped Pinkerton.

v. D could end up withdrawing from conspiracy but not from being an accomplice b/c of different requirements for each.

b. Renunciation

i. MPC and many states permit if D does it voluntarily (not motivated by fear of apprehension) AND persuades others not to commit crime before it occurs.

ii. Many states OK if D timely notifies cops or substantially tries to thwart crime.

iii. Not allowed under c/l or in other states b/c it’s rewriting history.

iv. D is no longer guilty of conspiracy.

v. People v. Sisselman, N.Y. 1989, D can argue renunciation even though he was not causal agent in preventing crime b/c his co-conspirator was undercover police agent.

c. Statute of limitations is up. Concealing crime does not keep a conspiracy alive.

4. Punished more severely than attempt and sometimes earlier than attempt. D can be punished both for conspiracy in addition to attempt or addition to a completed crime, but cumulative sentences don’t happen very often in practice. D couldn’t be punished for both under c/l and MPC rejects cumulative sentencing.

5. Justifications – fears of group crime (division of labor and moral support such crimes provide) and threats conspiracy presents to justice system (mob killing witnesses).

IV. Theft – Larceny

	Common-law definition	Changes
Larceny – possession	1. A trespassory 2. taking and 3. carrying away 4. of the property 5. of another 6. with the intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently.	Many and MPC abolished “taking.” Consolidated into theft.
Mislaid/lost property – possession	7. At the time finder took it, he had a clue owner could reasonably be found and 8. at time finder took it, he had intent to deprive owner permanently of the property.	MPC and some states abolish “at time of” requirements. Consolidated into theft.
Mistaken delivery – possession	7. At the time of delivery (or taking), the recipient knew a mistake was made and 8. at time of delivery intended to deprive the owner permanently of the property.	MPC abolishes “at the time of” requirement. Consolidated into theft.
Larceny by trick	7. Deceptive means used to get possession.	Consolidated into theft.
Embezzlement – entrustment	1. Fraudulent 2. appropriation 3. of property 4. of another 5. by one entrusted w/ possession.	Consolidated into theft.
False pretenses – ownership or title	1. Misrepresentation 2. of present or past material fact 3. w/ the intent at the time to defraud victim 4. where victim relies on misrepresentation 5. in transferring title.	Consolidated into theft.

A. Required elements (or what makes the acquisition of wealth evil)

1. A trespassory (unlawful, wrongful)

2. taking (caption, control or possession) and 3. carrying away (asportation, moving)

a. Very minimal movement satisfies “carrying away” in most states.

i. Can’t be merely shifting the object; every part of it must move.

ii. Moving air conditioner off its base and four to six inches toward the door was enough to meet both of these elements. State v. Carswell, N.C. 1978.

ii. Some argue no validity b/c it’s the difference between rotating a pie (attempted larceny, b/c center wasn’t moved) vs. rotating a doughnut (larceny, b/c all of its parts were moved).

iii. But others say it prevents merely touching property from being larceny and that the line has to be drawn somewhere. Naturally, right next to the line the distinction seems arbitrary.

iv. MPC abolished “carrying away” and so have many states but not CA.

x. D. can be convicted of attempted larceny if he went beyond mere preparation. For example, shoplifter in Meyer.

xx. But makes it difficult to distinguish between attempt and crime.

b. “Taking” can occur even if property doesn’t leave the premises but some sort of concealment is usually necessary in these instances (shoplifting cases).

c. In rare instances asportation is satisfied but not caption.

i. People v. Meyer, California, 1888, “carrying away” was satisfied but “taking” wasn’t b/c the shoplifter didn’t realize the overcoat was chained.

ii. Also would be the case if purse snatcher accidentally pushed the purse off a bridge into the water.

iii. But in People v. Rivera (Illinois, 1990), defendant “took” even though a chain stopped him from driving the car off the owner’s lot.

4. of the property

a. Must be tangible, movable objects (personal property) under c/l.

i. Some statutes now include intangibles such as stocks, bonds, checks and possibly even trade secrets (information).

ii. W/ trade secrets, states must be careful to balance concern over devastating to the economy w/ First Amendment concerns. (Proctor & Gamble, Ohio case, in which company tried to go after employees who talked to journalists).

b. Under c/l did not include real property (attached to the soil) if it was taken in one continuous act.

i. Thus, it wasn’t larceny to take trees or gravestones.

ii. But it could be if trees were cut down one day and removed the next.

iii. “Continuous act” requirement dropped in modern statutes.

c. Computer services and time aren’t property (Lund v. Commonwealth, VA, 1977).

i. Some modern statutes have expanded larceny to include labor and services.

ii. Electricity, gas, water & power always included (People v. Menaga, Ill. 1937.)

d. C/l distinguished between “domestic” (needed for a person’s livelihood such as horses) v. “base” (cats) animals but distinction no longer matters.

e. Value of the property usually is minimal or doesn’t matter.

i. California considers reasonable and fair market value. Empty cigarette carton could be stolen (People v. Franco, 1970), but not free newspapers.

ii. Others say must have value to its owner, not necessarily market value.

iii. Grand larceny is worth more than a statutory cut-off amount, usually $100. Petit (or petty) larceny less than $100.

f. MPC’s definition – anything of value, including real estate, tangible and intangible personal property, contract rights, choses-in-action and other interests in or claims to wealth, admission or transportation tickets, captured or domestic animals, food and drink, electric and other power.

5. of another person

a. Boarder who offered his clothes and bike as a security deposit but kept using them took “property of another.” Landlady had a superior right to possess them. Henry v. State, Georgia, 1900.

b. Also D can steal stolen property. Protecting possession over ownership.

c. Most courts take c/l view that partner who steals from partnership has not taken “property of another.” But MPC rejects this view.

d. Under c/l spouses couldn’t steal from each other b/c hubby owned wife and her stuff. Modern: most states and MPC, a spouse’s property is “of another.”

6. with the intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently.

a. Wrongful borrowing, including forceful borrowing, is not larceny.

i. Oxford v. Moss, 1978, holding student who borrowed final exam did not commit larceny, also confidential information is not tangible property.

ii. People v Kunkin, California, 1973, holding newspaper employees could not have known a list of undercover narcotics agents was stolen property although the court found that the attorney general’s employee who took the information had this intent, rather than to borrow it, b/c he had quit his job.

iii. Some borrowing is criminalized but it’s not larceny. Joyriding and taking shopping/laundry carts are separate crimes with lesser penalties.

iv. If at any time he decides to keep it permanently, he is guilty of larceny even if he later returns it under c/l doctrine of continuous taking. Taking continues as long as D possesses the property to avoid original rule’s “at the time of” construction. Doctrine may not apply to lost/mislaid property and to mistaken deliveries.

b. Defining “permanently.”

i. for the property’s useful life – returning football tickets after the game is over

ii. exposing the property to such risk that its return could be impossible – State v. Davis, N.J. 1875, Princeton students taking buggy and abandoning it.

iii. placing an unacceptable condition on the property’s return – Commonwealth v. Mason, 1870, hiding horse until owner offered reward. But reasonable conditions – storeowner who took hubcaps until their owner could show he was a customer and thus, legally parked Cincinnati v. Herron, 1971.

c. Other defenses

i. If you have sincere claim of right (even if incorrect), you lack this intent. Roark v. State, Indiana,1955, taking grain as an agreed-upon payment of a debt.

ii. Intent to pay: A person who gives or intends to give an equal or more valuable substitute for a fungible good that is for sale doesn’t have this intent. Mason v. State, Ark., 1877, patrons broke in and took beer while seller was asleep.

x. Some states don’t allow “intent to pay” as a defense if goods weren’t for sale.

xx. MPC – Intent to pay is a defense only if took goods for sale or reasonably believing the owner would have consented.

iii. D must sincerely believe the property belongs to someone else but her belief doesn’t have to be reasonable. If D stole something that was really hers but she believed it wasn’t, element 6 would be satisfied but not element 4.

7. Protects property interests, especially possession, and public’s general sense of security. C/l killed someone caught stealing but someone caught w/ stolen property paid damages.

B. Lost/mislaid property

1. Additional elements are added to the trespassory element for finders of lost/mislaid property to commit larceny.

a. At the time the finder took the property, the finder had a clue the owner could reasonably be found and

i. May depend on the uniqueness of the item and where it was found. In Baker v. State, Ohio, 1876, pocketbook finder who had seen its owner in the area was convicted.

ii. If the property is indistinct at the time D took it but a day later he sees an ad telling him who the owner is, he isn’t guilty of larceny if he keeps it.

iii. This is a mandate not to conceal, rather than to look diligently for the owner.

b. At the time the finder took the property, the finder had the intent to deprive the owner permanently of the property.

i. If D found a watch with an engraved name and phone number and decided to return it, but then later she decided to keep it, she’s not guilty.

ii. Remember this intent can be formed at any time for some of other larceny crimes.

2. Majority upholds conviction when defendant found $200 by a hitching post and attempted to conceal his find. But dissent argued that first element was not met b/c the mere fact that it was a great deal of money was not enough to make it distinct and just b/c he acted guilty doesn’t make him guilty. Brooks v. State, Ohio, 1879.

3. MPC abolishes “at the time of the taking” requirements and instead mandates that the finder make reasonable efforts to find the owner. Thus, MPC assesses guilt based on one’s final intent (at least “final” w/in a reasonable period of time.)

a. Some states have adopted. It’s unclear whether California has – statute appears to say “intent at any time” but doesn’t address clue issue.

b. C/l protects property and possession, while MPC protects only property interests.

4. Constructive possession rule – C/l initially only punished those who took mislaid (rather than lost) property. Mislaid property, such as a passenger leaving wallet in a cab, remains under constructive possession of owner and thus if cab driver takes it, he commits larceny.

5. Why the extra requirements? Such situations lack a threat to social order b/c they aren’t forcible in any way. C/l covers situation where someone dropped it right in front of you and you quickly grabbed and concealed it. Other finders-keepers may not need to be punished.

C. Mistaken delivery

1. Two elements are added to the trespassory element of larceny:

a. At the time of delivery (or taking), the recipient knew a mistake was being made.

b. And at the time of delivery (or taking), the recipient intended to deprive the owner permanently of the property.

i. U.S. v. Rogers, 4^th Cir. 1961, holding trial judge misstated rule by leaving out “at the time of” in case of bank teller giving back the wrong amount of money.

ii. Clerk gives me $20 too much in change. I notice right away, decide to keep it and start to rush out. But feeling guilty, I return it right away – guilty of larceny.

iii. I decide at the time to give it back, but I’m going to return it at the end of the day to teach the clerk a lesson. Then I decide to keep it and I spend it, but I get caught – not guilty of larceny.

2. When does taking occur?

a. Courts split on whether it occurs at the time of delivery or of discovery. Robinson v. State, Texas 1882, holding that defendant committed larceny when he bought a trunk believed to be empty, took it home, opened it and found clothing that he decided to steal.

b. Some courts distinguish between containers (delivery of such an item constitutes delivery of its contents as well, no larceny) and non-containers (could be larceny if items are discovered inside it after delivery).

3. Mistakes about value: Larceny doesn’t occur when both parties understand what items are the subject but one of them makes a mistake about their value under c/l or MPC.

a. But what is the difference between value and identity? You know it’s a Picasso, but seller thinks it’s worthless.

b. Also, case of boy who bought baseball card for $12 knowing the price must be a mistake.

4. MPC – drops “at the time of the taking” and requires recipient take reasonable measures to restore property to person entitled to have it. MPC bases decision to punish on “final” intent. But how long after must one inform? What if error is discovered months later?

D. Larceny by trick “possession”

1. Seventh element added to regular larceny requirements: Deceptive means were used to obtain possession, but not ownership or title.

a. State v. Robington, Conn. 1950, holding D committed larceny by trick when she was given a car to test-drive but didn’t return it or pay for it. The sale wasn’t complete b/c car was placed in her hands conditionally (only possession transferred).

b. Distinguished from false pretenses, in which deceptive means lead to a transfer of title.

c. Crime looks at victim’s intent – victim has to be tricked.

2. Major expansion of larceny law. C/l originally punished this as felony and false pretenses as a misdemeanor. Why? B/c w/ false pretenses, the owner intended to permanently give the property away. The owner didn’t lose something he wanted to keep. Simply made a bad deal. Today many states punish both as felonies.

E. Receiving stolen property, three elements required.

1. The property was received, concealed or withheld by the accused,

2. such property had been stolen and

3. the accused knew the property had been stolen. People v Kunkin, California, 1973, third element wasn’t met. But journalists possibly could have been convicted of embezzlement.

V. Theft – Embezzlement & False Pretenses

A. Embezzlement “entrustment”– required elements

1. the fraudulent (evil state of mind)

a. Some jurisdictions hold this means the “intent to deprive another of his property” b/c the immediate breach of trust makes the offense. People v. Talbot, California, 1934, holding chairman who openly borrowed company funds for his personal use but intended to pay it back was guilty of embezzlement.

b. Other jurisdictions say this means the “intent to deprive permanently” and thus borrowing would not be embezzlement. But borrowed cash is not the same as what is returned so D is guilty for borrowing money even in “permanently” jurisdictions.

c. Claim of right is a defense.

d. Intent to pay or to substitute equivalent property for embezzled property is NOT a defense.

2. appropriation – the use of property in a manner inconsistent w/ what the owner has authorized. Misappropriation is the criminal act that characterizes embezzlement just as “taking” characterizes larceny.

a. Could be merely using a photocopier or a computer for your personal use, makes it very easy to go after political opponents. But you have to know your use is unauthorized.

b. Even more dubious extension is some statutes that say any shortage in the accounts of a public official is a basis for convicting him of embezzlement – eliminates necessity of proving misappropriation.

3. of property 4. of another

a. People v. Yannett, N.Y. 1980, funds were paid to nursing home, so the nursing home couldn’t embezzle its own property when it didn’t refund the residents after receiving payments from Medicare. (Breached a contract instead.)

b. MPC expands this concept so nursing home could be convicted.

5. by one who has been entrusted w/ possession.

a. Access is not enough; it must be a relationship of “special trust and confidence,” “special right of access to, or control or possession of, the money, article or thing of value which is appropriated.”

b. Warren v. State, Indiana, 1945, maintenance employee who stole Prestone from his workplace and sold it for profits merely had access to the building where it was stored; there was no “relation of special trust in regard to the article appropriated.” (This was larceny, not embezzlement.)

6. Master-servant theft which didn’t fit larceny led to embezzlement laws.

a. Embezzlement is less prosecuted than larceny b/c criminal is someone everyone knows – white-collar crime. Usually secretaries, not higher level people, get prosecuted.

b. Underreported; most companies handle it internally and avoid the bad publicity.

B. False pretenses “title-ownership”– required elements (in most jurisdictions)

1. a misrepresentation

a. Generally not expressions of opinion or puffing in the sale of goods.

b. But value can be a known market price that you can lie about or can be too subjective to lie. Difference between asking what wheat is worth today vs. asking what farm is worth.

c. Misrepresentations to obtain educational services, such as falsifying transcripts to get into a university or lying about your address to get your child in a better school district, can be false pretenses.

d. But writing bad checks is considered a separate crime w/ different elements and usually lesser penalties.

2. of a present or past material (crucial) fact

a. If you misrepresent a portion of your status, if it’s material, it can be enough.

b. Majority view: A promise is not a present material fact.

i. Chapin v. U.S., D.C. Cir. 1946, holding Ds in liquor business who told woman they’d buy her stamps and just took her money did not commit false pretenses.

ii. Future facts traditionally excluded b/c courts unwilling to punish criminally every person who failed to follow through on a promise.

c. Minority view (including California): Promises count b/c D is presently misrepresenting his future intent. This fills in the hole b/c otherwise too many guilty would go free and criminal penalties are necessary for swindlers.

d. MPC compromise: Includes false promises as well as formulations to ease business-related fears. Look at actions in context, i.e. did businessman submit to civil remedies for breaching a contract or did he flee the country?

3. with the intent (at the time) to defraud the victim

a. D knew the misrepresentation was false or he did not know whether it was true or false and nevertheless represented it as true AND

b. D intended to take something he knew was not his and to which he had no right.

c. Claim of right is a defense in most states.

d. Honest mistakes are OK.

e. If D intends unconditionally to return the property w/in a reasonable period of time, this element isn’t met.

f. Acts are required; omissions are not enough, although the modern trend is expanding the areas where an affirmative duty to disclose exists. For example, if D and victim were in a fiduciary or confidential relationship.

g. Monetary impact on the victim doesn’t matter.

4. where the victim relies on the misrepresentation – Belief can be slight (protects fools). Prosecution has burden of proving the victim relied on the misrepresentation, but jury may consider the absurdity of the misrepresentation in determining whether the victim was actually deceived. Exorcising evil spirits case.

5. in transferring title to some property.

a. If title is transferred it can’t be any crime but false pretenses.

b. But remember it also can’t be a future promise or it’s not a crime at all in most states.

C. Consolidating into crime of theft

1. Majority, including California, have consolidated larceny, embezzlement and false pretenses into one crime of theft. MPC also includes extortion and receipt of stolen property.

2. Each individual juror has to believe all the elements of a particular crime, such as larceny, but juries can disagree about which specific theft crime has been committed.

3. Claim of right can be used as a defense for all three of these crimes.

4. Pros & cons

a. Eliminates need to determine whether person took possession or title when it’s clear he committed one of the crimes.

i. Oklahoma case – 29 cases of beer but told cashiers it was 29 six-packs. He paid for a quarter of what he got. Charged with false pretenses. Overturned b/c crime committed was larceny. He wasn’t given title to all the beer.

ii. Also Michigan – switching price tags at the store. Charged with larceny. Overturned b/c it was false pretenses b/c given title (wrong price).

b. There must be reasonable doubts if jurors haven’t agreed on the facts to agree on what kind of theft D committed. Covers up for incompetent prosecution.

VI. Aggravated Property Crimes

	Common-law definition	Changes
Robbery	Larceny plus 7. taking by force or causing the victim to fear threat of immediate force and 8. taking from the victim or from the immediate presence and control of the victim.	MPC (perhaps unnecessarily) leaves out 8.
Armed robbery	Robbery committed while possessing a dangerous weapon.	MPC describes specific threatening conduct, no “weapon” requirement.
Burglary	1. The breaking 2. and entering 3. of the dwelling 4. of another 5. in the nighttime 6. w/ the intent to commit a felony.	1. The unauthorized entering 2. of a building or structure 3. w/ intent to commit any crime.
Extortion (coercion)	1. The use of a specified threat 2. in an attempt to obtain 3. property from or action by another.	Overlaps with bribery.
Bribery (voluntary deal)	Bribery is a corrupt offer or solicitation of payment for an official act.	Overlaps w/ extortion. Expanded to cover other situations.

A. Robbery

1. The six elements of larceny plus (7) the taking must be accomplished by force OR by causing the victim to fear the possibility of immediate force and

a. Can’t rob a dead person. Technically not robbery if person is dead and intent formed after victim’s death. But some cases say if interval short between killing and taking, D could be convicted of robbery even if intent to steal was formed after the victim’s death.

b. No force if victim takes drug as long as it is knowingly and voluntarily.

c. Robbery vs. larceny in case of purse-snatching: Most courts hold the force required for robbery doesn’t exist if item taken from the owner’s grasp and control so suddenly the owner doesn’t have time to resist.

d. Interpretations of immediate fear

i. In most jurisdictions, a victim merely has to be frightened by D, even if an ordinary person would not have been scared under similar circumstances.

ii. Some states use objective standard instead: The victim doesn’t have to be afraid as long as the circumstances would have induced fear in mind of a reasonable person.

iii. MPC: “It is not the victim’s reaction to the actor’s conduct that controls, but the purposeful behavior by the actor in communicating the threat of injury.”

e. Threatening a third person will also fit the definition of robbery.

f. Use of force to escape

i. Under c/l, crime was not raised from larceny to robbery or from simple robbery to armed robbery b/c the force didn’t occur at time of taking.

ii. Modern statutes may include using force to escape under robbery.

2. (8) the taking must be from the person OR from immediate presence and control of the victim.

a. C/l can be stretched pretty far. Example: Thief makes victim call another thief to tell him where stuff is hidden in house. Stuff is under victim’s “control.”

b. MPC leaves out requirement.

3. Claim of right defense

a. C/l, MPC and most states say it is a defense b/c robbery includes all the elements of larceny and larceny allows claim of right defenses.

b. But trend: States are partially or fully rejecting it – eschewing self-help through violence.

c. Some states distinguish between actual property (accept claim of right defense) and debts (not taking the exact same currency so no claim of right defense). State v. Mejia, N.J. 1995, robber kills guy who wouldn’t give back some $ he gave him for safekeeping.

d. California distinguishes between disputed debts and undisputed debts.

B. Armed robbery – robbery committed while possessing a dangerous weapon.

1. What is a dangerous weapon?

a. A German shepherd, a hammer, a shoe, a nasal inhaler, a finger in a vest. A hairbrush in a case where D pointed a concealed one at a restaurant cashier who had seen him with a real gun during four prior robberies.

b. Courts split as to whether a toy gun qualifies.

c. Some states look to the objective use of the device while others consider the subjective view of the victim.

d. Some (CA) have sought to narrow definition to avoid some of above absurdities.

2. Can still be armed robbery even if weapon remains concealed and is not brought to the attention of the victim.

3. MPC – robbery is first-degree felony if the D attempts to kill anyone or purposefully inflicts or attempts to inflict serious bodily injury. “Weapon” is not in definition.

C. Extortion

1. Most statutes require:

a. the use of a specified threat

i. Qualifying threats vary by state. May include: threats of bodily harm to person or family or to accuse victim of crime or disgrace. Pg. 546.

ii. May be implicit or explicit.

iii. Differs from robbery: Threat over future, rather than immediate, force.

b. in an attempt to obtain (or, in some states, actually obtaining)

c. property from (not of) another person, or some action by another person.

i. Some states might not include action.

ii. Some do not allow intangibles, such as the freedom to contract with the garbage collectors of one’s choice.

2. At c/l, crime was a misdemeanor and solely concerned official misconduct. Today, general and vague statutes leave lots of room for prosecutorial abuse.

a. State v. Harrington, Vt. 1970, divorce lawyer (later pardoned) convicted of extortion. Set up a sting operation to catch adulterous hubby and then threatened to reveal hubby’s acts (adultery and sneaking stuff around customs) if he wouldn’t settle.

b. Definition may include negotiations and breaking contracts. Alan Dershowitz accused in Allen/Farrow custody support.

c. McCormick v. U.S., 1991, extortion conviction overturned for W.Va. legislator, who sponsored a bill for campaign contributors. S.Ct. says for official action or inaction, there must be an explicit quid pro quo. Legislator was acting in donors’ benefit before he received contribution. (No quid pro quo required for extortion that doesn’t deal with color of office.)

3. States split over whether claim of right is a defense, but most say no.

a. More likely to be a defense w/ disclosure, rather than physical injury, threats, and must have something to do w/ the claim of right unlike Harrington’s customs threat.

b. U.S. v. Jackson, 1999, federal extortion law, Autumn Jackson’s threat to Cosby had to be “wrongful.” $40 million was more than she could legitimately say was a claim of right.

4. Differs from compounding in that transfer of property is by mutual agreement in exchange for agreeing to conceal or not prosecute a crime. Some states now punish both parties, but traditionally only recipient was charged. Compounding must be explicit quid pro quo.

5. Should this be a crime?

a. It’s a legal trade – threatening to commit an act of free speech and soliciting money. But exchange isn’t free b/c extortionist can threaten again.

b. Extortionist is a benefactor unlike a gossip b/c you can buy his silence. But this is inefficient capitalism b/c no real service is provided.

c. Reduces gain from crime. It’s a private enterprise that deters immoral behavior. But this undermines public law enforcement.

D. Bribery

1. Bribery is a corrupt offer or solicitation of payment for an official act.

a. Official duties usually defined broadly.

b. Exception: State v. Bowling, Arizona, 1967, legislators who were paid to testify on resident’s behalf for a liquor license, were not acting w/in their official duties. Overturned by statute.

c. Explicit quid pro quo usually required.

d. MPC eliminates “corrupt” and defines prohibited types of arrangements. Pg. 570.

2. C/l distinguished bribery from extortion; today a lot of overlap.

a. Extortion was use of coercion against a victim under duress; bribery was voluntary payment to obtain a special favor.

b. Both parties can be punished for bribery.

c. Bribery penalties are generally less than extortion penalties.

3. Expanded to include witnesses, jurors, commercial bribery, bribery in sports, etc.

4. Possible defenses

a. Irrelevant whether bribe was ever paid.

b. Irrelevant if public official was legally bound to perform the act or would have done so anyway w/o the bribe.

c. Extortion is not a defense in many states and under MPC.

5. Differs from illegal gratuities – a “reward” for an act a public official will take or has taken. Almost a quid pro quo – I will give you this and I hope you do this. (Bribery – I will give you this and you agree do this.)

E. Burglary

1. Common-law definition:

a. the breaking

i. Creation of a breach or opening.

ii. Can be constructive, D uses a threat or trick.

b. and entering c. of dwelling d. of another e. in nighttime f. w/ intent to commit a felony.

2. Typical modern statute:

a. the unauthorized entering

i. Entry must be wrongful.

x. People v. Gauze, California, 1975, D can’t be convicted of burglary for entering own home to shoot roommate because he had an absolute right to enter.

xx. Right to enter store or building is conditional upon entering w/ a purpose consistent w/ why the building is open.

xxx. MPC: It’s only burglary if D has no right to be there for any reason.

ii. Occurs as soon as any part of D’s body enters.

b. of a building or structure

i. May include office, car, store, telephone booth or an ATM if it’s built into a bank wall.

ii. Some states distinguish 1^st- and 2^nd -degree:

x. By whether it was residence. Not inhabited if owner is dead.

xx. Or by whether it was “in the nighttime.”

c. w/ the intent to commit any crime (majority & MPC view).

i. CA says any felony or larceny.

ii. Intent must exist at the time of the entering (and/or breaking).

3. First-degree can be basis for felony-murder and in some states, (California) one of three strikes. (Boy took ice cream from school cafeteria, convicted of burglary & larceny).

4. Many states have also criminalized trespassing, unprivileged entry onto land or inhabited structure. Queen of England nighttime visitor acquitted.

Murder – “malice aforethought”

1. Intent to kill

2. Intent to cause grievous bodily harm

3. Extreme recklessness

4. Intent to commit certain felonies.

Voluntary manslaughter if these are

in the heat of passion.

Involuntary manslaughter –

gross negligence/wanton recklessness,

less than what’s needed for murder.

VII. Homicide

Mens rea usually determines type and punishment

A. Murder = mens rea of malice aforethought, w/ four meanings below + act of killing + death caused by act and proximate cause of act.

1. Intentional or knowing (willful means intent to kill)

a. First-degree murder if killing was also committed w/ premeditation and deliberation; w/o premeditation & deliberation, it’s 2^nd degree.

b. Premeditation means future planning, although some courts have found it can be as short as a few seconds.

c. Deliberation means logically calculated rather than frenzied. But some courts may define it as awareness of one’s actions, confusing its meaning w/ willful.

d. Commonwealth v. Carroll, Penn. 1963, husband who killed his nagging and sadistic wife premeditated in the few seconds between picking up a gun and shooting her while she slept. Court interprets deliberate to mean awareness.

e. California’s Anderson (1968) factors for p & d: D’s planning activity, D’s prior relationship/conduct toward victim from which motive could be inferred and manner of killing so particular and exacting D killed by preconceived design.

i. Test wasn’t met in Anderson’s violent stabbing of girlfriend’s child, opposite result Pennsylvania would have reached.

ii. CA diluted factors in People v. Perez, 1992. Factors sufficient but not exclusive.

f. Evasive conduct after the killing may or may not indicate premeditation. Split.

g. P & d requirements make 1^st-degree murder a specific-intent crime.

h. Diminished capacity – Allows psychiatric testimony to show D was incapable of p & d, although he doesn’t qualify for insanity defense. Usually reduces to 2^nd-degree murder.

i. Evidence showing D lacked capacity to form necessary mental state no longer admissible in CA b/c Twinkies defense reduced assassin’s crime to voluntary manslaughter in 1978 killings of S.F. mayor and council member. CA does allow such evidence to show D did not in fact form a required specific intent.

ii. Some states recognize it as partial defense for homicide.

iii. Even fewer states allow it as defense for other specific-intent crimes b/c they don’t want Ds to get off completely and there often isn’t a lesser crime.

i. Can be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if D acted in the heat of passion.

j. Is this how 1^st and 2^nd degree should be distinguished? Is planning out who to kill worse than killing people like flies in fits of rage?

i. Domestic cases are less likely to be 1^st degree.

ii. Euthanasia cases are easily 1^st degree.

2. Intent to cause grievous bodily harm

a. 2^nd-degree murder, unless D acted in the heat of passion (voluntary manslaughter).

b. MPC and most states no longer make this a separate category but it could still be murder if it falls under extreme recklessness.

c. Commonwealth v. Dorazio, Pennsylvania, 1950, former heavyweight prize fighter who beat a co-worker to death with his fists convicted of 2^nd-degree murder.

3. Extreme recklessness – indifference to human life, depraved-heart murder, unintentional homicide, implied malice aforethought

a. 2^nd-degree murder, unless D acted in the heat of passion (voluntary manslaughter).

b. Most courts & MPC require: D must be conscious of extreme risk and disregard it.

i. Commonwealth v. Malone, Penn., 1946, D convicted of 2^nd-degree murder for playing Russian roulette; he fired three times and third time killed friend. Also 2^nd-degree murder in cases in which first shot killed other person.

ii. Drunk driving most often involuntary manslaughter but may be murder if D aware, had previous convictions and driving recklessly. Some (California) have separate crimes, such as gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.

iii. Berry v. Superior Court, Cal, 1989, prosecutor allowed to try D fond of dog fighting on charges of 2^nd-degree murder when his pit bull killed a neighborhood child. But D ultimately convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

c. Irony – someone acting w/ extreme recklessness can be convicted of murder, but someone who intended to kill can get a lesser penalty if acted in heat of passion.

4. Intent to commit specified felonies (felony-murder rule)

a. Transferred intent or constructive intent doctrine – the intent to commit a particular felony is transferred to act of killing to find culpability.

i. Applies even if underlying felony failed, was only an attempt.

ii. Criminal takes victim as he finds him – applies even if victim dies of heart attack during or shortly after felony. People v. Stamp, California, 1969.

iii. Makes it much easier for prosecution to get murder, esp. 1^st-degree murder.

b. All states except two have the rule. MPC (adopted by 1 state) creates rebuttable presumption that the person acted w/ “extreme recklessness.” Thus, D can get off by showing he was careful.

c. 1^st -degree murder if it’s listed in the state’s statute. California includes: arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem (battery w/ intent to disfigure), kidnapping, train wrecking, sodomy, lewd or lascivious acts involving kids, oral copulation, and penetration by a foreign object.

d. 2^nd-degree murder if the felony is “inherently dangerous to human life.”

i. Most states measure it by considering whether it is inherently dangerous in the abstract and/or was committed in an inherently dangerous fashion.

ii. Some states (CA) measure it only in the abstract.

x. People v. Hansen, California,1994, D convicted of murder b/c shooting at inhabited dwelling (even if believed no one is at home) is inherently dangerous.

xx. This approach is a tougher standard, addresses worry that all felonies will come out dangerous b/c in hindsight we know a death occurred.

iii. Whether drug trafficking is inherently dangerous has not been resolved in California but some other states have said yes, in particular circumstances.

e. Defenses

i. Not listed or not inherently dangerous.

ii. Merger doctrine – rule not applied b/c felony merged w/ resulting homicide.

x. Majority: Doctrine is only a synonym for felonious assault and battery b/c of practical reason: Otherwise f-m would apply to almost all killings.

x. CA has used more aggressively, considering whether the underlying felony was assault-like. Beating death but not malnutrition/starvation death merges w/ felony child abuse. Burglary merges if the D’s specific intent was to commit assault. But kidnapping does not merge even when sole intent was to commit assault and Hansen felony did not merge.

xxx. A few states don’t recognize this doctrine at all.

xv. Why this doctrine? Lets off many who intentionally kill or inflict injury. It’s effective to punish only those that accidentally kill while committing a felony b/c only they can be prodded to be more careful criminals.

iii. Agency/third-party issues

x. Majority: agency doctrine – f-m doesn’t apply if the killing is directly attributable to the act of one other than D or those associated w/ him in unlawful enterprise.

xx. Minority: proximate cause theory – If felony sets in motion a chain of foreseeable events, liability attaches to any deaths. People v. Dekens, Ill. 1998, D convicted of felony-murder for death of co-felon shot by police officer.

xxx. Another minority view: Under either theory, if a felon was killed, f-m rule doesn’t apply. Majority disagrees b/c deterrence maximized if all victims included regardless of identity.

xv. CA only: If felon is guilty of murder b/c of extreme reckless and extreme reckless occurred during listed felony, it is 1^st-degree reckless murder.

iv. “In furtherance” requirement – A number of jurisdictions limit f-m to cases in which the killing occurred in furtherance of the underlying felony.

x. U.S. v. Heinlein rape case, overturning two Ds’ convictions b/c co-felon’s stabbing after victim slapped him was “independent of any common purpose to rape” and “frustrated and defeated common purpose.”

xx. Could argue felony ended before death occurred. Some states say felony ends after drugs are sold so dealer isn’t liable for overdose deaths.

v. Causation – underlying felony must have caused the death, but most stretch causation pretty far for f-m rule. Was it a cause or merely coincidental?

x. People v. Taylor, California,1980 – drug dealer guilty of f-m even though heroin alone would not have caused the death (combo of alcohol & heroin).

xx. King v. Commonwealth, Virginia, 1988, holding no causation b/c plane would have crashed anyway even if its cargo had been legal.

vi. Ten states have an affirmative defense for unforeseeable deaths if certain other requirements are met.

f. Why the felony-murder rule?

i. Encourages criminals to be careful or deters dangerous felonies altogether. But how does one deter an unintended act? What about the gentleman bandit – one of his victims still had a heart attack?

ii. Criminal shouldn’t complain about consequences no matter how unexpected. On the other hand, it’s more appropriate to use sanctions against the particular harm the criminal actually intended.

iii. Devalues life if crimes that take human life aren’t punished equally. On the other hand, many crimes that take human life aren’t punished equally i.e. mitigating heat-of-passion.

iv. The result sometimes matters more than the mens rea. On the other hand, criminal law should care about degree of guilt.

v. Avoids ambiguities and perhaps false excuses of “it was an accident.”

g. Misdemeanor manslaughter – punishes as involuntary manslaughter any killing that occurs in the commission of an unlawful act such as a traffic violation or a felony not included under f-m rule.

i. MPC rejects it and so have a number of states.

ii. Other states limit it, such as malum in se (inherently evil misdemeanors) vs. malum prohibitum (technical misdemeanors, evil only b/c law prohibits it).

5. MPC defines murder as committed knowingly or purposefully or w/ extreme recklessness and indifference to human life.

a. Murder isn’t divided into degrees b/c p & d is meaningless; most states disagree.

b. Remember f-m rule is a rebuttable presumption of extreme recklessness.

6. Sentences: First-degree murder is usually 25 years to life in prison or death; second-degree is usually 12-15 years to life.

B. Voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion)

1. Intent to kill, intent to cause grievous bodily harm or extreme recklessness is mitigated b/c D was provoked and killed in the heat of passion.

a. Why? Provocation not a defense for any other crime.

b. Are these cases where person partly deserved to die or where killer partially excused b/c passion made him less responsible for his conduct?

2. Provocation must be one that would cause a reasonable person to lose their cool and not have enough time to regain their composure.

a. Under c/l, specific acts and only these acts were sufficient provocation:

i. Witnessing an act of adultery by one’s wife (not one’s husband).

ii. a serious assault or battery

iii. mutual combat

iv. an unlawful arrest

v. commission of a crime against a close relative.

b. Modern approach: would circumstances provoke a reasonable person?

i. Mere words are usually not enough. Seems to want to prevent those mistaken about the provocation from getting only voluntary manslaughter.

ii. Some courts permit a series of provoking events, such as domestic violence, to be reasonable provocation but others don’t.

c. State v. Thornton, Tennessee, 1987, holding D who fatally shot wife’s lover in the hip after catching them in bed acted in the heat of passion.

d. MPC and a few states allow juries to consider reasonableness from D’s perspective, even though a reasonable person would not have lost his cool.

i. Permits more flexibility in punishment.

ii. But when would killing not be reasonable from killer’s point of view?

3. Passion is typically rage, but may also be fear or any violent and intense emotion sufficient to overrule reason.

4. MPC defines manslaughter as homicide committed recklessly OR which would otherwise be murder but is committed under influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Does not specific voluntary or involuntary.

5. Diminished capacity defense may also be used to mitigate not only p & d but also malice aforethought, thus reducing murder conviction to voluntary manslaughter.

6. Sentence is usually about three years to 11 years in prison.

C. Involuntary manslaughter – gross negligence

1. Gross negligence/wanton recklessness in committing an unlawful act or a lawful act in an unlawful way.

a. Majority (California): Reasonable person would have been aware of risk even if particular D wasn’t aware and wasn’t capable of being aware.

b. Minority requires actual awareness of the risk.

c. Distinguished from 2^nd-degree murder either b/c it’s a lesser degree in terms of malice or b/c the D’s conduct is a little less risky.

2. Some examples

a. Commonwealth v. Welansky, Mass., 1944, owner convicted of involuntary manslaughter for fire deaths in overcrowded nightclub w/ blocked exits.

b. Commonwealth v. Feinberg, Penn., 1969, storeowner on Skid Row sold fuel, Sterno, to homeless knowing they would drink it. Some died b/c maker had increased formula’s potency. Convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

c. Commonwealth v. Woodward, Mass., 1998, judge reduced nanny’s sentence to involuntary manslaughter in baby-shaking case.

3. MPC has two crimes, manslaughter “committed recklessly” (but less recklessly than murder) and negligent homicide.

4. Contributory negligence is not a defense in any criminal action.

5. Sentences: About one to four years in prison.

6. Why prosecute people who can’t be “deterred” b/c they didn’t know the risk?

a. Need for retribution.

b. Can’t be certain they didn’t know since most people do know.

c. Result is too serious, a death, not to punish even a stupid mistake.

D. Death penalty

1. 38 states and federal government have it.

2. Supreme-Court-imposed restrictions

a. Statutes must have aggravating vs. mitigating factors.

i. Furman v. Georgia (1972), holding standardless discretion in capital cases violates 8^th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment b/c decisions are freakish and random at best, or influenced by discrimination at worst.

ii. Woodson v. N.C. (1976), striking down statute w/ mandatory death sentences for certain crimes as violating 8^th Amendment. Guided discretion is required.

iii. Gregg v. Georgia (1976), upholding statute w/ guided discretion of lists of aggravating and mitigating factors.

iv. Typical aggravating factors (vary by state): killing for financial gain, killing a police officer or prison guard, killing more than one person, killing in order to escape lawful custody or avoid arrest, history of violence.

x. Most of the listed felonies for felony-murder are aggravating factors and S.Ct. says this is OK.

xx. Aggravating factor of “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman” declared unconstitutionally vague in Godfrey v. Georgia (1980). Must be narrowed to purposeful torture or aggravated battery.

v. Mitigating factors MUST include character, prior record and other circumstances of the crime.

x. Lockett v. Ohio (1978), overturning statute that had only three mitigating factors (if D under duress or had a mental deficiency or if the victim had induced or facilitated the offense) in sentencing getaway driver to death for f-m. Dissent fears sliding down slope back to unlimited discretion.

xx. Empirical evidence shows doubts about guilt is a major reason why juries don’t impose death, but juries are not required to consider this.

b. D’s role/participation in the crime

i. States generally require a 1^st-degree murder conviction.

ii. Emmund v. Florida (1982) – 5-4 decision holding 8^th Amendment prohibits executing D “who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force will be employed.”

iii. Tison v. Arizona (1987) – holding 5-4 “major participation in the felony … combined w/ reckless indifference to human life, is sufficient to satisfy the Emmund culpability requirement.” Upheld death sentence of teens who helped dad escape from prison; dad killed family to obtain getaway car.

c. Age – Criminal must be 16 or older at the time the crime was committed.

i. May run afoul of some international agreements that set the age at 18.

ii. Executing 15-year-old is cruel & unusual punishment (Thompson v. Oklahoma, 1988), but executing 16-year-old isn’t (Stanford v. Kentucky, 1989).

d. May only apply to murder convictions.

i. Coker v. Georgia (1977) – struck down statute imposing execution in rape of woman b/c “grossly disproportionate & excessive punishment.”

ii. Unclear if court would allow certain other crimes, such as rape of a child.

e. Mental illness considerations

i. Unconstitutional to execute insane D. Ford v. Wainwright (1986). D will be treated until she is sane enough to be executed. Guidelines aren’t clear b/c hasn’t come up too often.

ii. Not unconstitutional if D is mentally retarded w/ the reasoning capacity of a 7-year-old (Penry v. Lynaugh, 1989) or if D is merely mentally ill.

3. Other constitutional challenges

a. S.Ct. holds 6-3 death penalty doesn’t violate due process clause of 14^th Amendment, McGautha v. California, 1971.

b. Statistical evidence that death penalty is racially discriminatory is insufficient to declare it unconstitutional; D must show imposing it in his particular case was racially biased. McCleskey v. Kemp, 1987, S.Ct. 5-4.

i. Some states warn juries about avoiding racial bias.

ii. Could also be prosecutorial discretion problem in deciding to seek death.

c. Federal court’s role is to ensure that D got a fair trial, not that D got the right result. Threshold extraordinarily high to consider new evidence of innocence b/c disrupts “need for finality.” Herrera v. Collins, 1993.

d. Victim-impact evidence OK to include in sentencing factors. Payne v. Tenn., 1991.

e. 1996 act after Oklahoma City bombing put new limits on habeas corpus petitions.

4. How death sentences are imposed

a. Most states use juries to impose death sentences but may be imposed only by judges or by some combination of the two.

b. Jurors can’t be excluded by statute from serving if they have “conscientious scruples against capital punishment” as long as they are not so opposed they would be unable to decide impartially. Witherspoon v. Illinois (U.S. 1986).

c. Most states provide for automatic review, including challenges to conviction and sentence. Proportionality review is no longer constitutionally required – i.e. compare D’s sentence to the sentences imposed in similar cases, but 23 of death-penalty states require it.

5. Methods of execution

a. S.Ct. has never declared any execution type unconstitutional, but the 9^th Circuit has declared the gas chamber unconstitutional.

b. Most states use lethal injection (32), followed by electrocution (11), lethal gas (6), hanging (3) and firing squads (3). Some states offer options.

VIII. Rape

A. Statutory rape – Victim cannot lawfully give consent unless she is of age of consent.

1. Age of consent ranges from 12-18, with 16 the most popular choice. Some states require D be a certain age and/or a certain number of years older than the victim.

2. Law makes conclusive presumption that victim is too naīve to consent.

a. Cannot be rebutted by evidence of girl’s actual comprehension/experience.

b. But, under c/l, victim’s chastity was required for a conviction.

c. Today promiscuity may be a defense (MPC) but states are starting to abolish it.

3. Historically, crime was gender-specific but today most statutes are gender-neutral, although this is not constitutionally required.

4. Strict liability: Thus mistake of fact is never a defense in many states.

a. Garnett v. State, Md. 1993, D, 20, convicted even though he believed girl, 13, was 16 and that she consented, and his social age of 12 was w/in 4 years of her age. (Statute prohibited sex between one under 14 and another at least 4 years older.)

b. California makes one limited exception: Reasonable mistake of fact a defense for two peers older than 14. People v. Hernandez, California, 1964.

c. MPC – reasonable mistake of fact is a defense only to crimes in which age of consent is older than 10.

5. MPC – Man convicted of rape for sexual intercourse w/ girl under 10. Either gender convicted of deviate sexual intercourse for sexual intercourse w/ one under 10. Either gender guilty of lesser corruption of a minor for sexual intercourse if complainant is under 16 and the D is at least 4 years older. Sexual assault misdemeanor – sexual contact w/ any person under 10 or w/ any person under 16 if D is at least 4 years older.

6. Sentences tend to be significantly less severe than other rape cases but they could be as high as 20-50 years in prison.

7. Why this crime?

a. Traditionally it was to protect girl’s eligibility for marriage and thus her value to her father as an object, a means to enhance the family’s wealth.

b. Today, protecting against own immaturity and dangers of unprotected sex and pregnancy. Is this the way to go about it? Promotes idea sex is shameful and makes it hard to discuss healthy choices and birth control.

B. Forcible rape

1. C/l definition:

a. Sexual intercourse

i. Modern statutes count any minor penetration, including by foreign objects.

b. by a man (not her husband) c. against a woman

i. Majority of statutes today are gender neutral. MPC is not.

ii. Under c/l, a husband could not rape his wife b/c she was his property and later b/c she gave a generalized consent to sex when she married the man.

iii. Modern: 32 states have abolished exemption but marital rape may be punished less severely. 18 states that have partially abolished it may punish only certain types but a few have extended exemption to cohabitants or voluntary social companions.

iv. MPC keeps exemption for all sex offenses. Judicial separations avoid exemption.

v. People v. Liberta, New York, 1984, eliminating exemption and making statute gender-neutral. Marriage is “not a license for a man to forcibly rape his wife w/ impunity.” Courts intrude on family life for d/v. The rape, rather than prosecuting it, is what defeats hopes of reconciliation. False claims are concern w/ many crimes. Nothing shows consequences of marital rape are less severe than with other forcible rapes.

d. by force and

i. Originally meant a threat of immediate grievous bodily harm.

x. Many states (California included) have eliminated “grievous” part.

xx. A few allow other kinds of immediate threats.

ii. Threat had to explicit but today California and others allow it to be implicit.

iii. Force of rape alone is not enough.

iv. Most rapists do not use a weapon.

e. against her will

i. “Utmost resistance” originally required, even though one wouldn’t expect a robbery victim to resist.

x. No longer necessary in any state.

xx. But absence of utmost resistance may be sign of whether D honestly and reasonably believed he was engaged in consensual sex.

ii. Now “reasonable resistance” in many states.

x. Victim must resist and her resistance is overcome by force or she didn’t resisted b/c she feared for her safety. Her fear must be reasonable and honest if there isn’t any other proof of actual force or physical resistance.

xx. State v. Rusk, Md. 1981, affirming acquaintance rape conviction in which D took victim’s car keys, victim was afraid, said D lightly choked her. But judges very divided – of 21 who looked at case, 11 said no rape.

xxx. Very hard to define. In some cases jury finds no reasonable resistance b/c victim asked rapist to use birth control or condom.

iii. Some (California) have eliminated the requirement. People v. Iniguez, 1994, victim did not cry out or resist when family friend’s boyfriend got on top of her while she was sleeping and raped her. Also unreasonable fear is OK as long as D “knowingly took advantage of that fear.” And fear may be inferred.

f. without her consent.

i. Is rape a specific-intent or general-intent crime? Does D have to know or be reckless as to whether woman did not consent?

x. California says general intent. State must prove D acted negligently regarding victim’s consent. Reasonable and honest mistake of fact is a defense.

xx. Middle position: State must prove D acted recklessly regarding victim’s consent. Negligent mistake of fact is a defense. Reynolds v. State, Alaska, 1983.

xxx. Other jurisdictions say it’s specific intent. Mistake must be honest but can be unreasonable. Public Prosecutions v. Morgan, England, 1976, rapists believed wife consented b/c husband told them she would act feisty but really wanted it. (Conviction affirmed anyway b/c mistake was not “honest.”) This position often overturned by statute.

xv. A few jurisdictions say mistake of fact is never a defense b/c no mens rea requirement is attached to element of consent.

ii. B/c requirements of force and resistance have been watered down, courts are concerned about Ds convicted in situations in which consent is ambiguous. Number of states don’t instruct jury on defense unless D has substantial evidence of his belief, i.e. situation must be truly ambiguous.

iii. Incapacity to consent – victim is under age, asleep, unconscious, or incapacitated. Some explicitly or implicitly require D knew or should have known of incapacity.

2. Procedural issues

a. Lord Hale charge – every jury had to be instructed that rape is a crime easily charged and not easily disproved and jury should take special precautions not to convict an innocent person. Abolished everywhere about 20 years ago.

b. Corroboration – other evidence besides victim’s testimony needed to convict. Abolished. When it existed, some states very strict on “other evidence.” One court found evidence of physical injuries was not enough.

c. Timely notice – if there was not an immediate complaint by the victim, case would be thrown out as possibly fraudulent.

i. Most construed very strictly. Maryland threw out case in which victim raped at 1 a.m. didn’t call police until 5 a.m.

ii. Mostly abolished but still may influence contemporary notions and juries.

d. Impeachment of witnesses – defense tries to discredit victim, making her look like tramp.

i. Two years ago, Oakland prosecutor said can’t bring a rape case if victim was a prostitute b/c it’s so hard to prove it’s not worth the trouble.

ii. But shield laws have been enacted. Evidence is offered in judge’s chamber and judge decides whether to allow jury to hear it. Courts tend to allow it if person had consensual sex at some point w/ rapist, but not usually evidence of consensual sex w/ other people.

e. Prior conduct of D – usually not admitted unless D testifies and doesn’t keep his testimony limited to certain areas.

i. Kennedy-Smith rape case – ex-girlfriends from around the country came forward and said they were raped, too. Jury didn’t hear this.

ii. California has modified evidence rules for rape, sometimes letting in evidence of previous rape accusations even if D doesn’t testify.

3. Rape is underreported and very difficult to prosecute

sourced from http://www.boalt.org/outlines/CriminalLaw/Crim_Diamond_2000fall-1.doc

ALHAMDULILLAH...

2010-02-01T15:00:00.000+08:00

Islamic / Muslim Boys Names

A-M
.
Aazad (free, independent - Persian word)
Aban (abaan-more clear)
Abbad (abbaad-great worshipper)
Abbas (abbaas-name of the Prophet's uncle)
Adib (adeeb - cultured, civilised)
Affan (affaan-name of Caliph Uthman's father)
Ajwad (better)
Allam (very knowledgeagble)
Almas (diamond)
Amir (aamir-thriving, prosperous)
Ammar (ammaar-great builder)
Aniq (neat, elegant, smart)
Antar (name of Arab hero of chivalry)
Arwarh (more delicate, more gracious)
Ashraf (more noble)
Asif (aasif-describer)
Asil (aseel-genuine, pure)
Asir (captivating, fascinating)
Askari (soldier)
Awwab (awwaab-great repenter to God)
Ayaz (ayaaz-slave [Persian])
Ayham (imaginary)
Ayman (right-handed, lucky)
Azhar (very or more evident - Arabic word)
Baariq (shining, lighting, illuminating)
Bakir (baakir-early)
Basil (brave, bold, valiant)
Basim (baasim-smiling)
Baz (falcon)
Dara (possessor, sovereign)
Diwan (royal court, tribunal of justice)
Faiq (faa-eq- outstanding, awake)
Fakih (fakeeh-pleasant)
Faqih (faqeeh - wise)
Fatih (faateh-conqueror, opener)
Haidar (lion)
Haitham (lion)
Hamdan (praiser (of God))
Hamza (name of the Prophet's uncle)
Hariz (strong, secure, guarded)
Hasan (beautiful, good)
Hashim (haashim-smasher, name of the Prophet great grandfather)
Hisham (hishaam - popular Arab name)
Humam (humaam- generous, heroic)
Husain (demunitive form of Hasan (above))
Imad (pillar, post, support)
Iqbal (iqbaal - advance, advent)
Isam (isaam-self-made success)
Jalal (jalaal-glory, splendour)
Jamal (jamaal-beauty)
Jamil (jameel-beautiful)
Jasim (great & famous)
Jawwad (jawwaad-generous)
Kamil (perfect, complete, genuine, learned)
Labib (labeeb-wise)
Laith (lion)
Mahdi (guided one)
Mansur (mansoor-victorious)
Marwan (marwaan-name of an Omayad caliph who built the Dome of the Rock)
Muaz (protected)
Munsif (just, fair)
Muntasir (winner)
Murad (muraad-aim)
Muslih (reformer)
Muslim (surrender (to God))
Muslim (surrender to God)
Muwaffaq (fortunate)

N-Z

.
Nabih (noble, famous)
Nail (naa-yel-achiever)
Nawaf (nawaaf-popular Arab name)
Nawfal (popular Arab name)
Nazir (bright)
Najm (star, planet)
Nasif (just)
Numan (numaan-blood)
Pasha (lord, honourific title)
Qa'id (qaayed-leader)
Qadir (able, powerful)
Quds (holiness, sanctity)
Rafi (exalted)
Raghib (willing, desirous)
Rashad (rashaad-good sense, maturity)
Rauf (ra-oof-merciful)
Rayhan (ease, fragrant, comfort)
Sadiq (saadiq-truthful)
Safwan (popular Arab name)
Samir (companion, entertainer)
Sayid (sayy-id-chief, leader)
Shakil (shakeel-beautiful)
Sharaf (honour)
Tawqir (goodluck, success (granted by Allah))
T'ariq (taariq-knocker)
Tazim (honour)
Usaid (small lion)
Waiz (preacher)
Wasi (broad-minded)
Yusuf (Joseph)
Ziad (ziyaad - popular Arab name)
Ziaul-Haq (Zia-ul-Haq - "Light of Truth")
Zoheb "little gold" - the dimunitive form of zahab [correct Arabic is: dhahab]
Zohoor (appearance)
Zuhair (demunitive form of zahr (flower))

Source:http://www.milligazette.com/misl/muslim_islam_islamic_baby_names_girl_boy_name.htm and http://www.milligazette.com/misl/muslimbabyname.htm

Islamic / Muslim Girls Names

Islamic / Muslim Girls Names
.
A-M

Abir (abeer - fragrance)
Adiba (adeeba - civilised / cultured)
Afaf (afaaf - purity/modesty)
Afia (aafiya-vigour/vitality)
Afifa (afeefa-honest, upright)
Ahlam (ahlaam - dreams)
Amal (hope)
Amira (ameera - princess)
Anbar (ambar - camphor)
Areej (fragrance)
Arwa (satisfied, pleasant, fresh)
Azhaar (flowers)
Azizah (azeeza - dear / powerful)
Azra (azraa - virgin - used for Maryam/Mary)
Badr (full moon)
Badriya (full moon-wali)
Bahia (bahiya - nice)
Bahija (baheeja - happy)
Bahja (happiness)
Baligha (baleegha - eloquent)
Banan (banaan-finger tips)
Barirah (bareera-pious, kind)
Basha'ir (bashaaer-good tidings)
Bashasha (bashaasha-cheerfulness)
Bashira (basheera-report of good tiding)
Basima (baseema-smiling)
Batul (batool - immaculate)
Bilqis (bilqees - name of the queen of Sheeba who became Muslim at the time of Solomon)
Budur (full moons)
Bushra (good tiding)
Dalal (dalaal-pampering)
Durriyah (durriyyah-brilliant)
Fadwa (redemptor, sacrifing)
Faiqa (faa-eqa - outstanding, awake)
Faiza (victorious)
Farah (happiness)
Farha (happy)
Faryal (faryaal-?)
Fatema (faatima - one sucking her mother's milk)
Firdaus (paradise)
Ghada (ghaada-young lady)
Ghunwah (song)
Gulnar (gulnaar-flowery [Persian])
Hafsa (cub)
Hajar [haajar - name of Prophet Ismail's mother]
Hawwa [Eve]
Heba [Gift]
Hind (India - common Arab name)
Huriya (hooriya-houri, nymph)
Husna (beauty)
Ibtihaj (ibtihaaj-happiness)
Ibtihal (ibtihaal-supplication)
Ibtisam (ibtisaam-smile)
Iffat (purity/modesty)
Ilham (ilhaam-revelation)
Inas (Eenaas-cordiality)
Intisar (Intisaar-triumph)
Ishraq (ishraaq-radiance)
Itidal (I'tedaal-balance)
Itimad (I'temaad-trust)
Jamila (jameela-beautiful)
Janna (garden)
Jasmin (yasmin)
Jawhara (gem)
Juwairiyah (little girl)
Kamila (kameela/kaamila-complete)
Kausar (reservoir in Paradise)
Khadeeja (prophet's[pbuh] wifes, a female child born earlier than it was due to be born)
Khansa [pre-Islam Arabic poetess]
Khawlah (loneliness)
Laila (dark-old Arab name)
Lulu (pearl-plural)
Lulua (pearl -singular)
Ma'ali (heights)
Mahasin (virtues)
Maimuna (lucky, blessed)
Mais (proud gait)
Maisa (one with proud gait, walker with proud gait)
Maisara (comfort, prosperity)
Maisun (maysoon / meaning ?)
Makarim (makaarim-kindnesses)
Malak / Malaeka (angel - angels)
Malika (maleeka-owner)
Manal (manaal-achievement)
Manar (manaar-lighthouse)
Maram (maraam-aim)
Mariha (joyful, cheerful)
Maryam (Mary)
Mawahib (mawaahib-abilities)
Mayesa (same as "Maisa" above)
Muna (desire)
Muniba (muneeba-repentant to God)
Munira (muneera-illuminator)

N-Z

Naaz (pride, elegance)
Nabiha (nabeeha-eminent, noble, alert, intelligent)
Nabila (nabeela-noble)
Nadira (naadira-unique)
Nafisa (refined, pure, exquiste)
Nahla (drink)
Naira (shinning, glittering)
Najida (brave)
Na'ila (naayela-achiever)
Nargis (flower)
Nasim (naseem-breeze)
Nisrin (corrupted in the Subcontinent as Nasreen (nisreen -musk rose)
Nur (noor - light)
Qahira (victorious)
Qudsia (holiness)
Qurratulain (sweetheart)
Rabab (rabaab-rabab (an Arab musical instrument))
Radwa (contentment)
Raghad (carefree, comfortable)
Raiqa (pure, clear)
Rahil (wife of Prophet Yaqub))
Rana (delight)
Rania (raaniya-gazer, delighted)
Raya (aroma)
Reem (froth)
Sabat (firmness, truth)
Sabiya (brilliant, splendid)
Sakina (sakeena-tranquil, calm)
Salima (saleema-safe, complete)
Salma (safe, faultless)
Salsabil (salsabeel-a sping in Paradise)
Samina (healthy, fertile land without rock and stone)
Sana (brilliance, majestic)
Sara (Sarah - name of Prophet Ibrahim's wife)
Shadiya (shaadiya - singing)
Shaima (shaymaa-good-natured)
Shakira (shaakira-grateful)
Shaza (fragrance)
Shazia (shaaziya-fragrant)
Shurooq (sun-rise, rise)
Sughra (tender)
Suhair (vigilant)
Taghrid (taghreed - churping)
Tahani (tahaani-greetings)
Tahira (taahira-pure, clean)
Ula (glory, high rank)
uzma (greatest)
Wafa (loyalty)
Wajd (passion)
Warda (rose)
Yasmin (yasmeen-jasmin)
Yusra (easy)
Yusra (easy)
Zahra (flower)
Zaima (leader)
Zainab (corruption of Zenubia, pre-Islam Syrian queen)
Zarin (golden)
Zeba (pretty)

Source:http://www.milligazette.com/misl/muslim_islam_islamic_baby_names_girl_boy_name.htm and http://www.milligazette.com/misl/muslimbabyname.htm

Land Law

2009-11-12T17:14:00.002+08:00

LAW504 LAND LAW I

Obj
Basic sources of relevant aspects of land law and law on changes over land.

Outline
1. introduction
• definition of land
• torrent system and legislation governing land

2. system based on registration
3. effects of registration-indefeasibility
4. exceptions to indefeasibility
• fraud – section 340 (2) (a) NLC 1965
• misrepresentation - section 340 (2) (a) NLC 1965
• forgery - section 340 (2) (b) NLC 1965
• insufficient or void instruments - section 340 (2) (b) NLC 1965
• position of subsequent purchaser taking defeasible title / interest

5. effect of non-registration
6. procedures of registration
7. stamping
8. alienation of land
• freehold land
• leasehold land
• tenancies
• other aspects on title and interest
9. forms of title
• final title
• qualified title
• register document of title and issue document of title
10. condition and restriction on titles
• restrictions in interest
• conditions of land use
• quit rent
• check-list for exam of IDT / Duplicate lease
11. dealings
• transfers
• leases
• tenancies
• charges
1. forms of charges
2. registration and procedures
3. right and duties of the chargor
4. right and duties of the chargee
5. the charge annexure
6. priority between charges
7. charge-in-escrow
• liens
1. rights and duties of the parties
• easement
12. restraints on dealings
• caveats
1. types of caveats
• private caveats
• trust caveats
• lien-holder’s caveats
• registrar’s caveats
2. prohibitory order

Hukum Mengerat Kuku

2009-07-09T22:28:00.002+08:00

Barang siapa yang mengerat kukunya pada;

Hari sabtu: keluar dari dalam tubuhnya ubat dan masuk kepadanya penyakit.
Hari ahad:keluar daripadanya kekayaan dan masuk kepadanya kemiskinan.
Hari Isnin:keluar daripadanya gila dan masuk kepadanya kesihatan.
Hari Selasa:keluar daripadanya kesihatan dan masuk kepadanya penyakit.
Hari Rabu:keluar daripadanya was-was dan masuk kepadanya kepapaan.
Hari Khamis:keluar daripadanya gila dan masuk kepadanya sembuh dari penyakit.
Hari Jumaat:keluar dosa-dosanya seperti pada hari dilahirkan dan masuk kepadanya rahmat.

p/s: Kerat kuku mempunyai kaedah dan adabnya tertentu kerana ia adalah sebahagian daripada badan kita yang perlu kita hormati selain dibuang ke tanah (kita juga adalah unsur tanah) dan bukan ditempat kotor seperti tong sampah. Pic by: http://norimaliza.blogspot.com

1. Mulakan kerat kuku dengan Bismillah dan Selawat.

2. Mula dari jari telunjuk sebelah kanan sampai habis tangan kanan. Kemudian jari kelingking sebelah kiri sampai ibu jari kiri dan akhirnya ibu jari tangan kanan.

3. Kaki pula, mula dengan jari kelingking kaki kanak sampai kelingking kaki kiri.

sumber: Mufakkirah Mukmin, www.hidayah.com.my.

Aku bangga dengan seorang Mukmin jika ditimpa kepadanya suatu musibah, dia ikhlas dan sabar jika mendapatkan kebaikan, dia memuji Allah dan bersyukur

التقويم الهجري ‎

2009-07-09T21:52:00.005+08:00

**pic by: www.deviantart.com

Tarikh Penting Dalam Islam 2009

12 Rabiul Awwal 1430H / 9 Mac 2009 - Maulidur rasul
27 Rejab / 20 Julai - Israk Mikraj
1 Ramadhan / 22 Ogos - Awal Ramadhan
17 Ramadhan / 7 September - Nuzul Qur'an
1 Syawal / 20 September - Hari Raya aidilfitri
10 Zulhijjah / 27 November - Hari Raya aidiladha
1 Muharram / 18 Disember - Maal Hijrah

---------------------------------

Winner vs Loser
The winner is always a part of the answer
the loser is alwalys a part of the problem

The winner always has a program
The loser always has an excuse

The winner sees the answer for problems
The loser sees a problems in every answer

The winner sees a green in every sand trap
The loser sees two or three sand trap near every greeen

The winner say “ It may be difficult ,but it’s possible “.
The loser says “ It may be possible ,but it’s too difficult

Be a Winner !

“ Keep Constant on Searching for The Real Truth! “

What a difference a sad event in someone's life makes.

2009-07-08T23:36:00.004+08:00

What a difference a sad event in someone's life makes.

* The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider Freeways, but narrower viewpoints.
1. Paradoks dalam zaman kini adalah bahawa kita memiliki bangunan yang lebih tinggi tetapi kesabaran yang rendah, jalinan jalanraya yang lebih lebar tetapi sudut pandang yang lebih sempit.

* We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy less.
2. Kita berbelanja lebih banyak, tetapi jarang memiliki; kita membeli lebih banyak, tetapi jarang menikmati.

* We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time.
3. Kita memiliki rumah yang lebih besar dan keluarga yang lebih kecil, lebih nyaman, tetapi waktu yang lebih sedikit.

* We have more degrees but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, yet more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.
4. Kita memiliki lebih banyak gelaran, tetapi kurang logika; lebih banyak pengetahuan, tetapi kurang penilaian; lebih banyak ahli, tetapi lebih banyak masalah; lebih banyak ubat-ubatan, tetapi kurang kesehatan.

* We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too little, watch TV too much , and pray too seldom.
5. Kita minum dan merokok terlalu banyak, meluangkan waktu dengan terlalu menyimpang, ketawa terlalu sedikit, memandu terlalu laju, marah terlalu berlebihan, tidur terlalu lewat, bangun terlalu letih, membaca terlalu sedikit, menonton TV terlalu banyak, dan berdoa terlalu jarang.

* We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values.
6. Kita telah melipatgandakan kepunyaan kita, tetapi mengurangkan nilai-nilai kita.

* We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life.
7. Kita terlalu banyak berbicara, terlalu jarang mencintai, dan terlalu sering membenci. Kita telah belajar bagaimana mencari wang, tetapi bukan kehidupan.

* We've added years to life not life to years.
8. Kita telah menambah tahun-tahun dalam hidup kita, tetapi bukan kehidupan dalam tahun-tahun tersebut.

* We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor.
9. Kita telah mencapai bulan, tetapi memiliki masalah dalam menyeberang jalan dan menemui kenalan baru.

* We conquered outer space but not inner space.
10. Kita telah menjelajah luar angkasa, tetapi bukan dalam diri kita.

* We've done larger things, but not better things.
11. Kita telah melakukan banyak perkara besar, tetapi bukan perkara yang lebih baik.

* We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul.
12. Kita telah membersihkan udara, tetapi mengotori sang jiwa.

* We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice.
13. Kita telah menguasai atom, tetapi bukan rasa diskriminasi.

* We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less.
14. Kita menulis lebih banyak, tetapi mempelajari lebih sedikit. Kita merancang lebih banyak, tetapi mencapai lebih sedikit.

* We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less and less.
15. Kita telah belajar untuk terburu-buru,bukan menunggu. Kita menghasilkan lebih banyak komputer untuk menampung lebih banyak informasi, menghasilkan fotocopy yang lebih banyak, tetapi kita semakin kurang berkomunikasi .

* These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships.
16. Ini adalah zaman dimana makanan siap saji tetapi lambat cerna, orang besar dengan karakter yang rendah, keuntungan yang tinggi dan hubungan yang renggang.

* These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes.
17. Ini adalah zaman dimana ada dua pendapatan tetapi lebih banyak perceraian, rumah yang lebih mewah tetapi keluarga yang punah.

* These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill.
18. Ini adalah zaman dimana perjalanan sesingkat-singkat mungkin,pakai dan buang, moral yang mudah dibuang, hubungan satu malam, berat badan berlebihan, dan pil-pil yang melakukan segalanya dari menceriakan, menenangkan, sampai membunuh.

* It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit “delete”...
19. Ini adalah zaman dimana banyak barang di showroom tanpa stok. Zaman dimana teknologi dapat menyampaikan surat ini kepada Anda, dan zaman dimana Anda dapat memilih apakah Anda akan berkongsi renungan ini, atau hanya tekan “hapus”…

* Remember, spend some time with your loved ones, because they are not going to be around forever.
20. Ingatlah, luangkan lebih banyak waktu dengan orang yang Anda kasihi, karana mereka tidak akan ada selamanya.

* Remember, say a kind word to someone who looks up to you in awe, because that little person soon will grow up and leave your side.
21. Ingatlah, ucapkan kata yang baik kepada orang yang memandang Anda dengan ketakutan, karena si kecil tersebut akan segera tumbuhbesar dan meninggalkan Anda.

* Remember, to give a warm hug to the one next to you, because that is the only treasure you can give with your heart and it doesn't cost a cent.
22. Ingatlah, berilah semangat kepada orang di sisi Anda, karena itulah satu-satunya harta yang dapat Anda berikan dengan hati dan tidak berbayar.

* Remember, to say, "I love you" to your partner and your loved ones, but most of all mean it. A kiss and an embrace will mend hurt when it comes from deep inside of you.
23. Ingatlah, katakan “saya menyayangimu” kepada pasangan Anda dan orang yang Anda kasihi, tetapi dengan penuh makna. Ciuman dan pelukan akan memperbaiki luka ketika dilakukan dari lubuk hati yang paling dalam.

* Remember, to hold hands and cherish the moment for someday that person will not be there again.
24. Ingatlah, berpeganglah tangan dan nikmati saat itu karena suatu hari orang tersebut tidak akan ada lagi.

* Give time to love, give time to speak! And give time to share the precious thoughts in your mind.
25. Peruntuklah waktu untuk mencintai, berikan waktu untuk berbicara! Dan berikan waktu untuk berkongsi buah fikiran yang berharga di benak Anda.

* AND ALWAYS REMEMBER:
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.

source:
A wonderful message by George Carlin

Secebis Ulasan: Setiap Muslim mesti merasakan Rasulullah S.A.W amat dekat dihati sehingga segala pesanan baginda melalui sahabat-sahabat baginda dan ulama-ulama. Ianya akan lebih jauh terkesan dalam jiwa anda untuk mengharungi kehidupan sebagai seorang muslim yang sebenar. bukan sekadar nama, baka atau keturunan.

Making Dreams Come True

2009-07-08T23:12:00.003+08:00

If you desire to move forward in life towards fulfillment,

You should not, at any time complain about the obstacles.

To complain of difficulties

Is to betray weakness and lack of faith.

Every obstacle is a golden opportunity for further progress.

Those who transfer obstacles into opportunities are true leaders.

They make dreams come true.

Test Your Brain

2009-07-05T03:15:00.001+08:00

This is so neat. The second one is amazing.

1

ALZHEIMERS' EYE TEST

Count every ' F ' in the following text:

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTI
FIC STUDY COMBINED WITH
THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS...

HOW MANY ?

WRONG, THERE ARE 6 -- no joke.
READ IT AGAIN !
Really, go Back and Try to find the 6 F's before you scroll down.

The reasoning behind is further down.

The brain cannot process 'OF'.

Incredible or what? Go back and look again!!

Anyone who counts all 6 'F's' on the first go is a genius.

Three is normal, four is quite rare.

Send this to your friends.
It will drive them crazy.!
And keep them occupied
For several minutes..!

O lny srmat poelpe can raed tihs.

cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm.

Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if
you can raed tihs psas it on !!

Psas Ti ON !

Beauty of Mathematics !!!!!!!

2009-07-04T00:35:00.006+08:00

Absolutely amazing!

Beauty of Mathematics !!!!!!!

1 x 8 + 1 = 9
12 x 8 + 2 = 98
123 x 8 + 3 = 987
1234 x 8 + 4 = 9876
12345 x 8 + 5 = 98765
123456 x 8 + 6 = 987654
1234567 x 8 + 7 = 9876543
12345678 x 8 + 8 = 98765432
123456789 x 8 + 9 = 987654321

1 x 9 + 2 = 11
12 x 9 + 3 = 111
123 x 9 + 4 = 1111
1234 x 9 + 5 = 11111
12345 x 9 + 6 = 111111
123456 x 9 + 7 = 1111111
1234567 x 9 + 8 = 11111111
12345678 x 9 + 9 = 111111111
123456789 x 9 +10= 1111111111

9 x 9 + 7 = 88
98 x 9 + 6 = 888
987 x 9 + 5 = 8888
9876 x 9 + 4 = 88888
98765 x 9 + 3 = 888888
987654 x 9 + 2 = 8888888
9876543 x 9 + 1 = 88888888
98765432 x 9 + 0 = 888888888

Brilliant, isn't it?

And look at this symmetry:

1 x 1 = 1
11 x 11 = 121
111 x 111 = 12321
1111 x 1111 = 1234321
11111 x 11111 = 123454321
111111 x 111111 = 12345654321
1111111 x 1111111 = 1234567654321
11111111 x 11111111 = 123456787654321
111111111 x 111111111 = 12345678987654321

Now, take a look at this...

101%

From a strictly mathematical viewpoint:

What Equals 100%?
What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?

Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%?

We have all been in situations where someone wants you to
GIVE OVER 100%.

How about ACHIEVING 101%?

What equals 100% in life?

Here's a little mathematical formula that might help
answer these questions:

If:

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Is represented as:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

If:

H-A-R-D-W-O- R- K

8+1+18+4+23+ 15+18+11 = 98%

And:

K-N-O-W-L-E- D-G-E

11+14+15+23+ 12+5+4+7+ 5 = 96%

But:

A-T-T-I-T-U- D-E

1+20+20+9+20+ 21+4+5 = 100%

THEN, look how far the love of God will take you:

L-O-V-E-O-F- G-O-D

12+15+22+5+15+ 6+7+15+4 = 101%

Therefore, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that:

While Hard Work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will
get you there, It's the Love of God that will put you over the top!

It's up to you if you share this with your friends & loved ones just
the way I did..

Have a nice day & Try to Culculate by using your name...you'll find it amazing stuff about yourself...

Continued...

2009-07-03T23:58:00.000+08:00

Position of Yang di Pertuan Agong
According to The Reid Commissioner :-
i. YDPA is the symbol of unity of his country and focal point of allergiance particularly for the public service.
ii. Although the YDPA is constitutional monarch (act on advise) but the comm. allow him to be given a measure of independent.
iii. He will entitle to be kept informed on important public affair and to make his views known to Prime Minister.
iv. Entitled to confor honours and commission under his name.
v. He must be supported by a Civil List.

*In Negeri Sembilan the power to appoint is on the Undangs.

Appointment of Prime Minister
1. Article 43(2) of Federal Constitution stated that YDPA shall first appoint a member from House of Representative to be a Prime Minister, who is in his judgment likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that house. This is one of the truly prerogative power of the YDPA.
2. So far at Federal Level the matter of appointment of PM had not been tested since the Barisan Nasional having strong majority.

State Level
The appointment of Menteri Besar or Chief Minister are similar but at state level there are several cases reported.
1. 1986 – In Penang General Election – Umno 12 seats & Gerakan 9 seats. CM from Gerakan don’t want to give ways to UMNO and treathen to withdraw from BN. UMNO give ways.
2. In Perak please refer to Ghazali Jawi v Sultan
3. Johor – Datuk Othman Saat v Sultan
4. Tun Dato Haji Mustapha v YDPN Sabah & Dato’ Pairin Kitingan (Leading Case)

Position of Head of State

2009-07-03T23:56:00.001+08:00

Although in our Constitution System the function and role of YDPA/Rulers and Governors have the similar functions but the basis of legitimacy of YDPA and Rulers are not similar to Governors because they are hediatary and historic.
***In the case of Tun Dato’ Haji Mustapha (No. 2) it was decided that the powers are similar is very much doubtful.

Reid Commissioner stated that the position of Rulers as Constitutional Monarchy in his state similar to YDPA at Federal level.

Reid Commissioner further stated that Governors position are as follows :-
i. Governors will be the constitutional Head of State and represent the unity of the state and should be above politics.
ii. Governors should be independent from Federal like Rulers for equality.
iii. Section 19A (1) 8th Schedule stated that after his appointment the Governor is responsible to the power of the state and not Federal Government or YDPA.
iv. YDPA appoint with recommendation from Chief Minister. He can be terminated by YDPA after pursuant from Legislature of State Assembly and by majority of 2/3.

Amendment of the Constitution

2009-07-03T23:07:00.002+08:00

Introduction

1. Historically the centralization of the subject occurred in 1911 and then there was freedom movement who fight for independent. A forum to make a constitution was formed. The forum adopted Westminster style based on Montique idea ie separation of powers.

2. In contrast the American style of Constitution is different from the Westminster. That constitution is meant for pluralistic society.

2. Therefore the Reid Commission decided to adopt Westminster style. The founder of the constitution were in one hand influenced by Westminster model and on the other hand they knew well the merits of a written constitution. Since in Malbury v Madison it was clearly laid down that there should be a different between ordinary law and Constitutional law. This could be possible only if the Constitution is to be declared to be supreme. Hence the amendment of the constitution should be different than the ordinary law.

4. Impress by this Reid Commission in para 80 recommended that the amendment of the constitution should not be difficult that it becomes frustrated and it should not be easy that constitution losses its meaning. So a flexible method was emphasized.

5. This was adopted by the court in the case of Loh Koi Choon v Govt of Malaysia. It was held that the law is evolving because people multiply day to day. It is necessary that the nature method of amendment should be flexible.

Method of Amendment (Article 159 & 161E(2)) of Federal Constitution

1. By simple majority – admit a state to Federation, restriction of freedom of movement in federation, speech assembly; alter composition of Dewan Negara etc.

2. By 2/3 majority in Both Houses and Consent from the Conference of Rulers

3. By 2/3 majority in both Houses and consent from Governor of Sabah or Sarawak (matters relating to that states ie citizenship, resident, bornthere, court suspension of judges.

4. By 2/3 majority in both Houses (Article 159(3) of Federal Constitution) the support must be during second and third reading. This also called ordinary method of amendments. Most of the provision in constitution are amended by this ways.

Reid Commission Proposal

It was desired by the commission that any Bill amendment pilot in the Dewan Rakyat and receive 2/3 majority vote on all 3 readings, should not prevail upon the Dewan Negara. If fails to acquire 2/3 majority of this House.

However situation evolve in Malaysia. The ratio of Dewan Negara’s composition since 1957 particularly when Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak joint to Federation. Now have 26 elected/26 selected. Before 22 elected and 16 selected. This number keeps on increasing. The ratio under Article 45 or Federal Constitution is 29 : 40.

*** This amendment process can be understood clearly when we touch certain important features of the constitution case laws. We are fundamentally governed by principle of Ferealism ie :

1. Supremacy of constitution

2. Division of powers between central and state

3. Non concentration of powers into the hands of single individual

State of Kelantan v Govt of FMS & Tg Abdul Rahman –
Thompson J : Federal Government had not done something revolutionary that the constitution of state of the Federation. The Constitution does not provides for it and the amendment to Article 1 & 2 of Federal Constitution as such was the constitutional process.

The same judge observes further that if the unit of the Federation feel that they have given ample to the Federation, it is their misfortune. They may limit it if they do desire only by the amendment to the constitution. The expression uttered by the Judge alarming in the sense does it means that a revolutionary changes need the approval of the constituent and the federation but it so happen that the period between 1965 to 1971 changed the whole context of the amendment process. In 1971 the constitution was amended and this amendments mainly touch on Article 38, 70, 71, 64(4), 10(2)(a) and 152 of Federal Constitution.

Retrospective Application and Amendment

Amend constitution today but have effect since before. Is this legitimate.

Azlan v Govt of Malaysia –

A police constable who was having a private vehicle and put it on road. Using it as a taxi. A report was made and disciplinary action was taken by Police Supt. and dismiss him. Under Article 140 police comm. has power to appoint dismiss. Accused pleaded that Supt has no power to dismiss because High Court ruled in favor for Azlan. State then appeal till Privy Council. Meanwhile the Constitution was amended. Amendment made in 1973 but retrospective effect from merdeka day. All Police Officer was given power to dismiss. Whether can have retrospective effect. This plea should have been made in lower court. Since not brought in lower court, the appeal court did not entertain.

General Comment

The court generally takes into consideration whether or not to permit retrospective application by the amendment. This particular problem came for discussion in a couple of cases. Namely Azlan b Usman v Govt of Malaysia. Where the court have ruled in favor of the petitioner but at appellate court the Government pleaded the amendment to Article 140 of Federal Constitution be considered which the court legitimately considered the after effect of amendment to Article 5(4) of Federal Constitution and continued that the judiciary should not involve itself in political ticket but interpret the provision of the law.

THE MEDINA CHARTER 622 C.E. A Great Example

2009-06-27T22:45:00.001+08:00

In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful.

(1) This is a document from Muhammad the prophet (governing the relations) between the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and labored with them.

(2) They are one community (umma) to the exclusion of all men.

(3) The Quraysh emigrants according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit within their number and shall redeem their prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers.

(4-8) The B. ‘Auf according to their present custom shall pay the bloodwit they paid in heatheism; every section shall redeem its prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers. The B. Sa ida, the B. ‘l-Harith, and the B. Jusham, and the B. al-Najjar likewise.

(9-11) The B. ‘Amr b. ‘Auf, the B. al-Nabit and the B. al-‘Aus likewise.

(12)(a) Believers shall not leave anyone destitute among them by not paying his redemption money or bloodwit in kindness.

(12)(b) A believer shall not take as an ally the freedman of another Muslim against him.

(13) The God-fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or him who seeks to spread injustice, or sin or animosity, or corruption between believers; the hand of every man shall be against him even if he be a son of one of them.

(14) A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.

(15) God’s protection is one, the least of them may give protection to a stranger on their behalf. Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders.

(16) To the Jew who follows us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided.

(17) The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate peace shall be made when believers are fighting in the way of God. Conditions must be fair and equitable to all.

(18) In every foray a rider must take another behind him.

(19) The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God.

(20)(a) The God-fearing believers enjoy the best and most upright guidance.

(20)(b) No polytheist shall take the property of person of Quraysh under his protection nor shall he intervene against a believer.

(21) Whoever is convicted of killing a believer without good reason shall be subject to retaliation unless the next of kin is satisfied (with blood-money), and the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.

(22) It shall not be lawful to a believer who holds by what is in this document and believes in God and the last day to help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse of God and His anger on the day of resurrection will be upon him if he does, and neither repentance nor ransom will be received from him.

(23) Whenever you differ about a matter it must be referred to God and to Muhammad.

(24) The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.

(25) The Jews of the B. ‘Auf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families.

(26-35) The same applies to the Jews of the B. al-Najjar, B. al-Harith, B. Sai ida, B. Jusham, B. al-Aus, B. Tha'laba, and the Jafna, a clan of the Tha‘laba and the B. al-Shutayba. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The freedmen of Tha ‘laba are as themselves. The close friends of the Jews are as themselves.

(36) None of them shall go out to war save the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that.

(37) The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.

(38) The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts.

(39) Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document.

(40) A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime.

(41) A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family.

(42) If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and goodness in this document.

(43) Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.

(44) The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib.

(45)(a) If they are called to make peace and maintain it they must do so; and if they make a similar demand on the Muslims it must be carried out except in the case of a holy war.

(45)(b) Every one shall have his portion from the side to which he belongs.

(46) The Jews of al-Aus, their freedmen and themselves have the same standing with the people of this document in purely loyalty from the people of this document. Loyalty is a protection against treachery. He who acquires ought acquires it for himself. God approves of this document.

(47) This deed will not protect the unjust and the sinner. The man who goes forth to fight and the man who stays at home in the city is safe unless he has been unjust and sinned. God is the protector of the good and God-fearing man and Muhammad is the apostle of God.

This text is taken from A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad — A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1955; pp. 231-233. Numbering added.

test...test...test...

2009-02-25T16:13:00.002+08:00

The ultimate test by Allah shows that we're in His Love...no exclusion...we belong to no other but to Him...Allah The ALLKNOWING.

It's between a constitutional and conventional

2009-02-19T09:48:00.004+08:00

The constitution - a case against 'doctored' relations

"Quot homines tot sententiae" (as many men, so many minds or opinions). Reading through an article captioned "Misinterpreting the Constitution" one cannot help but feel that it is just not meant to be an opinion but 'the last word' in terms of constitutional law pertaining to political crisis.

The constitution is a "living instrument which must be capable of growth and development over time to meet new social, political and historical realities unimagined by its framers".

"The judiciary as the guardians of the constitution must bear these considerations in mind when interpreting its provisions" . It is up to the judiciary to respond to the gratuitous advice in the latter statement.

The constitution, a written constitution, clearly lays down the different provisions and specifies how such provisions can be amended by way of two-third majority or such majority and referendum.

Sir Ivor Jennings: being in the country and given his profound knowledge and affinity to convention. In fact, in propounding his theory about interpretations and contention that - "conventions provide the flesh which clothes the dry bones of the law".

Indeed, conventions need to be evolved and developed to enable the constitution to meet changing political and social ideas, as for instance, that a State Officer must not be blamed in Parliament for his actions as the Minister himself is responsible.

sourced from: Daily news, 2003.

to be continued...

SEM 3 Registered subjects

2009-01-24T13:15:00.004+08:00

law of TORT 1 ( LAW 435 )
Constitutional Law 1 ( LAW437 )
ESP ( BEL 452 )
ARABIC LANG. ( BAB 451 )
MLS ( LAW 481 )

Agak 'heavy' sem ni...takut jugek...mintak-mintak jangan ada yang gagal antara semua subject tu...ameen...minta bantuan rakan-rakan 'add up' notes yang available...terima kasih...syukur Alhadulillah...baru dapat memulakan coretan 2009...InsyaAllah...La Haula Wala Quwwata Illa Billah...

Until We Meet Again...

2008-11-08T15:12:00.013+08:00

Sourced by youtube.com

Road not to taken

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth.

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same.

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

by Robert Frost

P/s: 77 artikel pada 2008...sekadar itu sahaja termampu untuk tahun ini...semuanya tentang membawa kesedaran dalam diri saya...kerana saya bukan sesiapa tetapi hamba Allah yang banyak berdosa...kalau ada antara artikel di blog ini yang mengganggu atau membuatkan anda tidak selesa...atau ketelanjuran yang disengajakan atau tanpa disedari...saya menyusun sepuluh jari memohon kemaafan...tiada niat melainkan hanya berkongsi sesuatu untuk kefahaman bersama dan manusia ini sering tersilap kata. Seterusnya, jika ada secebis mutiara ilmu yang dapat menerangkan anda tentang sesuatu, itu adalah kekuasaan ALLAH Yang Maha Mengetahui tentang hikmahnya...Saya pasti bahawa setiap ilmu ada kemabukannya tersendiri...melainkan ianya ditapis, disulam dan digarap bersandarkan Wahyu ALLAH...ilmu membuang kesombongan dalam diri, membunuh kejahilan, membuka jalan tentang sesuatu...kesedaran juga adalah ilmu...sedar bahawa alam maya ini mempunyai cabarannya tersendiri... dan memilih hanya cara yang direhaiNYA...yang paling penting pandangan ALLAH s.w.t...Hmmm...Kesedaran itulah yang membawa semangat sebenarnya, bukan putus asa...Cuma bagi saya kesempatan masa tidak lagi mengizinkan...Tahniah buat anda yang berjaya mengharunginya (termasuk yang sedang membaca)...Ucapan terima kasih juga buat semua yang pernah membimbing saya tanpa jemu...Sehingga bersua kembali di alam maya ni 2009 akan datang...InsyaALLAH...Saya sentiasa membuka ruang komen dan idea sesiapa yang sudi...insyaALLAH ianya akan dapat membantu. ALLAHU AKBAR.

A True Story Of Death...Islamic View (1)

2008-11-07T09:55:00.014+08:00

Source byYoutube.com

Let us Prepare for the final destination...
If you live to a night do not expect to live to a morning...
and if you stay in the morning do not expect to stay in the night.

A Lecture by Sheikh Feiz Mohammad is an Australian Islamic Figure Feiz Mohammad (born in 1970) and an Australian Muslim preacher, head of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool, a suburb of Sydney. He was featured on a British television documentary called Undercover Mosque. He is a member of Sunni Islam's fundamentalist.

He is of Lebanese origin, and was born in Sydney, Australia. He is a former boxer.He has been living in Lebanon since November 2005....

He represented beauty of the provision of ALLAH and on how to prepare a 'Lunch Box' for the Final Destination...Happy Listening.

Hubbur Rosul Wa Warosatuh...

2008-11-06T22:50:00.007+08:00

Sumber Video: Youtube.com

Sanjungan Terhadap ilmu Para Ulama Sebagai Pewaris
Para Nabi mesti disuburkan ketika hayatnya bukan hanya sebaliknya
...lantaran bakti membawa kesedaran ummah ke jalan ilahi...
Al-Fatihah Buat para Ulama' yang telah pulang ke Rahmatullah
{ "Ilmu itu akan ku jadikan bekalan dalam Ibadahku" }

Tanda-Tanda Saat Kematian

100 hari : Seluruh badan rasa bergegar.

60 hari : Pusat rasa bergerak-gerak.

40 hari : Daun dengan nama orang yang akan mati di arash akan jatuh dan malaikat maut pun datang kepada orang dengan nama tersebut lalu mendampinginya sehingga saat kematiannya. Kadang-kadang orang yang akan mati itu akan merasa atau nampak kehadiran malaikat maut tersebut dan akan sering kelihatan seperti sedang rungsing.

7 hari : Mengidam makanan.

5 hari : Anak lidah bergerak-gerak.

3 hari : Bahagian tengah di dahi bergerak-gerak.

2 hari : Seluruh dahi rasa bergerak-gerak.

1 hari : Terasa bahagian ubun bergerak-gerak di antara waktu subuh and asar.

Saat akhir : Terasa sejuk dari bahagian pusat hingga ke tulang solbi (di bahagian belakang badan).

Seelok-eloknya bila sudah merasa tanda yang akhir sekali, mengucap dalam keadaan qiam and jangan lagi bercakap-cakap.

******Bila Malaikat Mencabut Nyawa******

Baginda Rasullullah S.A.W bersabda:
"Apabila telah sampai ajal seseorang itu maka akan masuklah satu kumpulan malaikat ke dalam lubang-lubang kecil dalam badan dan kemudian mereka menarik rohnya melalui kedua-dua telapak kakinya sehingga sampai kelutut. Setelah itu datang pula sekumpulan malaikat yang lain masuk menarik roh dari lutut hingga sampai ke perut dan kemudiannya mereka keluar. Datang lagi satu kumpulan malaikat yang lain masuk dan menarik rohnya dari perut hingga sampai ke dada dan kemudiannya mereka keluar. Dan akhir sekali datang lagi satu kumpulan malaikat masuk dan menarik roh dari dadanya hingga sampai ke kerongkong dan itulah yang dikatakan saat nazak orang itu."

Sambung Rasullullah S.A.W. lagi:
"Kalau orang yang nazak itu orang yang beriman, maka malaikat Jibrail A.S. akan menebarkan sayapnya yang disebelah kanan sehingga orang yang nazak itu dapat melihat kedudukannya di syurga. Apabila orang yang beriman itu melihat syurga, maka dia akan lupa kepada orang yang berada disekelilinginya. Ini adalah kerana sangat rindunya pada syurga dan melihat terus pandangannya kepada sayap Jibrail A.S."

Kalau orang yang nazak itu orang munafik, maka Jibrail A.S. akan menebarkan sayap disebelah kiri. Maka orang yang nazak tu dapat melihat kedudukannya di neraka dan dalam masa itu orang itu tidak lagi melihat orang disekelilinginya. Ini adalah kerana terlalu takutnya apabila melihat neraka yang akan menjadi tempat tinggalnya.

Dari sebuah hadis bahawa apabila Allah S.W.T. menghendaki seorang mukmin itu dicabut nyawanya maka datanglah malaikat maut.Apabila malaikat maut hendak mencabut roh orang mukmin itu dari arah mulut maka keluarlah zikir dari mulut orang mukmin itu dengan berkata:

"Tidak ada jalan bagimu mencabut roh orang ini melalui jalan ini kerana orang ini sentiasa menjadikan lidahnya berzikir kepada Allah S.W.T." Setelah malaikat maut mendengar penjelasan itu, maka dia pun kembali kepada Allah S.W.T. dan menjelaskan apa yang diucapkan oleh lidah orang mukmin itu. Lalu
Allah S.W.T. berfirman yang bermaksud:

"Wahai malaikat maut, kamu cabutlah ruhnya dari arah lain." Sebaik saja malaikat maut mendapat perintah Allah S.W.T. maka malaikat maut pun cuba mencabut roh orang mukmin dari arah tangan. Tapi keluarlah sedekah dari arah tangan orang mukmin itu, keluarlah usapan kepala anak-anak yatim dan keluar penulisan ilmu. Maka berkata tangan: Tidak ada jalan bagimu untuk mencabut roh orang mukmin dari arah ini, tangan ini telah mengeluarkan sedekah, tangan ini mengusap kepala anak-anak yatim dan tangan ini menulis ilmu pengetahuan."

Oleh kerana malaikat maut gagal untuk mencabut roh orang mukmin dari arah tangan maka malaikat maut cuba pula dari arah kaki. Malangnya malaikat maut juga gagal melakukan sebab kaki berkata:

"Tidak ada jalan bagimu dari arah ini kerana kaki ini sentiasa berjalan berulang alik mengerjakan solat dengan berjemaah dan kaki ini juga berjalan menghadiri majlis-majlis ilmu."

Apabila gagal malaikat maut, mencabut roh orang mukmin dari arah kaki, maka malaikat maut cuba pula dari arah telinga. Sebaik saja malaikat maut menghampiri telinga maka telinga pun berkata:

"Tidak ada jalan bagimu dari arah ini kerana telinga ini sentiasa mendengar bacaan Al-Quran dan zikir." Akhir sekali malaikat maut cuba mencabut orang mukmin dari arah mata tetapi baru saja hendak menghampiri mata maka berkata mata:

"Tidak ada jalan bagimu dari arah ini sebab mata ini sentiasa melihat beberapa mushaf dan kitab-kitab dan mata ini sentiasa menangis kerana takutkan Allah." Setelah gagal maka malaikat maut kembali kepada Allah S.W.T. Kemudian Allah S.W.T. berfirman yang bermaksud: "Wahai malaikatKu, tulis AsmaKu ditelapak tanganmu dan tunjukkan kepada roh orang yang beriman itu." Sebaik saja mendapat perintah Allah S.W.T. maka malaikat maut menghampiri roh orang itu dan menunjukkan Asma Allah S.W.T.

Sebaik saja melihat Asma Allah dan cintanya kepada Allah S.W.T maka keluarlah roh tersebut dari arah mulut dengan tenang.

Abu Bakar R.A. telah ditanya tentang kemana roh pergi setelah ia keluar dari jasad. Maka berkata Abu Bakar R.A:"Roh itu menuju ketujuh tempat:-

1. Roh para Nabi dan utusan menuju ke Syurga Adnin.
2. Roh para ulama menuju ke Syurga Firdaus.
3. Roh mereka yang berbahagia menuju ke Syurga Illiyyina.
4. Roh para shuhada berterbangan seperti burung di syurga mengikut kehendak mereka.
5. Roh para mukmin yang berdosa akan tergantung di udara tidak di bumi dan tidak di langit sampai hari kiamat.
6. Roh anak-anak orang yang beriman akan berada di gunung dari minyak misik.
7. Roh orang-orang kafir akan berada dalam neraka Sijjin, mereka diseksa berserta jasadnya sampai hari Kiamat."

Telah bersabda Rasullullah S.A.W: Tiga kelompok manusia yang akan dijabat tangannya oleh para malaikat pada hari mereka keluar dari kuburnya:-

1. Orang-orang yang mati syahid.
2. Orang-orang yang mengerjakan solat malam dalam bulan ramadhan.
3. Orang berpuasa di hari Arafah.

Sekian untuk ingatan kita bersama.

Petikan: Zubir Pekan Rabu.

P/s: Al-Fatihah buat para Ulama yang telah pulang ke Rahmatullah...Juga Salam Takbir pada anda yang sedang berjuang di Jalan ALLAH hingga Hari Qiamat...

Mutiara Hidup (2)

2008-11-04T15:51:00.012+08:00

* Sumber: Youtube.com

Ketika kau didendang dengan habuan libur dunia...ketika kau mendengar dosa pada pencipta menjadi santapan utama...ketika kau melihat kezaliman mana-mana... ketika kau merasa putus asa dalam perjuangan...ketika itu dan saat ini...Agamamu memanggil...menyeru...merayu...

" Muslim sejati...kemanakah dikau pergi... Muslimah mithali...kemanakah kau menghilang diri..."

Tiada yang menyahut...tiada yang endah...tiada yang peduli... Agamamu sedang menangis...Agamamu terus menadah...menanti sahutan...menunggu jawapan sambil memanggil...terus merayu...menyeru

" Ummahmu ternanti-nanti...kembalilah kemari. "

Maka jawablah...Laungkanlah...Luahkanlah...

" Islamku... Usah kau menangis lagi..."

" Usah kau merayu lagi... " "Senyumlah kepadaku. " " Kini Aku datang kepadamu. "

LambaianMu Semakin Hampir...ALLAHU AKBAR

2008-11-03T02:37:00.022+08:00

Special Wishes to 25000++ Malaysian Guests of ALLAH
Who will be performing the Pilgrimage or Hajj especially for
Mr. Yusof, my caring classmate, Mr. Rahman, Who had made
my Salary updated monthly With Best Wishes and to
attain al-hajj al-mabrur...ameen.

Rasulullullah Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam bersabda tentang haji mabrur: Ertinya; ‘Umrah ke umrah menghapus dosa antara keduanya, dan tidak ada balasan bagi haji mabrur kecuali syurga. (Al-Bukhari 1773, Muslim 1350).

Dan dalam hadis yang lain yang diriwayatkan oleh Abu Hurairah, bahwa Rasulullullah Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam pernah ditanya tentang amalan apa yang paling utama? Beliau menjawab : ‘Iman kepada Allah dan Rasul-Nya.’ Kemudian beliau ditanya kembali, ‘Setelah itu apa lagi?’ Beliau menjawab, ‘Jihad fi Sabilillah.’ Kemudian ditanya lagi, ‘Lalu apa lagi? Beliau menjawab, ‘Haji mabrur.’ (HR. Al-Bukhari 1519, Muslim 83).

Makna ‘Haji Mabrur’

Ulama berselisih pendapat dalam memberi makna haji mabrur. Sebahagian mereka berpendapat bahwa haji mabrur adalah amalan haji yang tidak tercampur dengan perbuatan dosa (dan ini yang digariskankan oleh Imam An-Nawawie), sebahagian yang lain pula berpendapat bahawa ia adalah amalan haji yang diterima di sisi Allah, dan sebahagiannya lagi berpendapat yakni haji yang hasilnya kelihatan pada pelakunya dengan petunjuk keadaannya setelah menunaikan haji jauh lebih baik dari sebelumnya.

Syarat Mencapai Mabrur

Untuk meraih martabat Haji Mabrur, mesti mengambilkira hal-hal berikut:

1. Hendaknya haji yang ia lakukan benar-benar ikhlas kerana Allah, dan memotivasikan dalam menunaikan haji tidak lain hanya kerana mencari redha Allah dan bertaqarrub kepada-Nya. Ia berhaji bukan kerana riya’ dan sum’ah, dan bukan pula kerana ingin di gelar dengan sebutan haji tetapi semata-mata mencari keredhaanNYA.

2. Haji yang lakukan mesti serupa dengan sifat haji Nabi Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam. Maksudnya dalam melakukan proses ibadah haji, tetamu ALLAH ini melakukannya dengan seluruh kemampuannya mengikuti cara yang diajarkan Nabi Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam.

3. Sumber Perbelanjaan yang ia gunapakai untuk haji adalah harta yang mubah bukan yang haram. Bukan diperoleh dari hasil transaksi riba, tipu, judi dan bentuk-bentuk lainnya yang diharamkan. Tapi, didapati dari usaha halal.

4. Hendaknya ia menjauhi rafas (mengeluarkan perkataan yang menimbulkan birahi/bersetubuh), berbuat fasik, dan berbantah-bantahan ( berbalah ) . Allah berfirman:

فَمَن فَرَضَ فِيهِنَّ الْحَجَّ فَلاَ رَفَثَ وَلاَ فُسُوقَ وَلاَ جِدَالَ فِي الْحَجِّ

Yang bermaksud: ‘Barangsiapa yang menetapkan niatnya dalam bulan itu akan mengerjakan haji, Maka tidak boleh rafas, berbuat fasik dan berbantah-bantahan di dalam masa mengerjakan haji. (Al-Baqarah 197).

Menjaga Amal

Seperti yang dikatakan oleh Al-Munâwi, diantara penentu diterima amal haji seseorang adalah dia kembali melakukan kebaikan yang pernah dilakukan dan tidak kembali melakukan maksiat. Itulah tugas seorang hamba ALLAH, bukan hanya sekadar beramal soleh saja, tetapi yang lebih berat dari itu adalah menjaga amal itu dari apa saja yang merosaknya. Riya’, dapat merosak amal biarpun sangat tersembunyi, dan ini banyak sekali dan dilakukan tanpa kita sedar. perkara yang tidak menurut sunnah merosakkan amal.

Merasa berjasa kepada Allah juga merosak amal. Mengganggu sesama makhluk juga membatalkan amal , dan sengaja menentang dan meremehkan perintah Allah juga membatalkannya dsb.

Petikan: Ensiklopedi Islam Al-Kâmil

P/s: Doakan kami juga di tanahair nanti...Semoga mendapat kejayaan dunia dan akhirat...Wahai tetamu ALLAH.

Case Reviews (MLS)...(2)

2008-11-03T02:18:00.009+08:00

LEMBAGA KEMAJUAN TANAH PERSEKUTUAN V TENAGA NASIONAL BHD

[1997] 2 MLJ 783

SUIT NO P 1408 OF 1984

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)

DECIDED-DATE-1: 24 MARCH 1997

KC VOHRAH J

Bahasa Malaysia summary

Dalam bulan Mac 1983, sebahagian besar kawasan pokok getah dalam beberapa blok skim penanaman pokok getah ('skim tersebut') kepunyaan plaintif dimusnahkan oleh lima kebakaran. Plaintif mendakwa bahawa kesemua kebakaran bermula dari sejaluran tanah yang dimiliki oleh defendan ('rizab LLN'). Rizab LLN memotong melalui hutan simpan yang mana sebahagian besarnya, di mana ia merentasi skim tersebut, bersempadan dengan skim tersebut. Plaintif [*785] selanjutnya mendakwa bahawa kelima-lima kebakaran itu merebak atau terlepas dari rizab LLN akibat kecuaian defendan. Berkenaan dengan kebakaran pertama dan keempat, adalah ditunjukkan bahawa tumbuh-tumbuhan yang terbakar di rizab LLN adalah tumbuh-tumbuhan yang telah dipotong oleh pekerja atau ejen defendan dan dibiarkan di situ di bawah keadaan cuaca kering dan panas pada masa itu. Berkenaan dengan kebakaran ketiga, bukti dikemukakan untuk menunjukkan bahawa ia dimulakan atas rizab LLN oleh seorang atau lebih daripada seorang pekerja defendan. Berkenaan dengan kebakaran kelima, adalah dihujahkan bahawa api mungkin telah merebak ke tanah plaintif melalui percikan yang dibawa oleh angin daripada pokok-pokok mati yang terbakar di hutan simpan.

Diputuskan, memberikan penghakiman kepada plaintif berkaitan dengan kebakaran yang pertama, ketiga dan keempat:

(1) Tanggapan common law bahawa sesuatu kebakaran yang telah bermula di atas harta seseorang adalah berbangkit dari sesuatu perbuatan atau keingkaran yang mana ia adalah dipertanggungjawabkan tidak terpakai di Malaysia; plaintif mesti membuktikan tanpa bantuan tanggapan tersebut bahawa: (a) defendan sendiri atau orang lain yang perilakunya ia bertanggungjawab telah bersalah kerana suatu tindakan atau peninggalan yang cuai yang menjadi punca permulaan kebakaran itu ataupun perebakannya kepada premis plaintif; atau (b) defendan telah menyebabkan atau membenarkan wujudnya atas premis suatu sumber bahaya kebakaran yang menjadi suatu kecederaan material kepada harta plaintif (lihat ms 791E-I); Leong Bee & Co v Ling Nam Rubber Works [1970] 2 MLJ 45 diikut.

(2) Seseorang penghuni rumah atau tanah yang memulakan kebakaran sama ada secara sengaja atau secara cuai adalah wajib dengan risikonya sendiri untuk menjauhkannya dari menyebabkan kerosakan kepada orang lain tertakluk kepada kekecualian tertentu, dan adalah bertanggungjawab atas pelepasan kebakaran yang berpunca daripada bukan sahaja kecuaian pekerjanya tetapi juga kontraktor bebas dan oleh tetamunya dan sesiapa yang berada di tempat itu dengan kebenaran atau lesennya (lihat ms 791D-E dan 792B-C); Mulholland & Ted v Baker [1939] 3 All ER 253 dan H & N Emanuel Ltd v Greater London Council & Anor [1971] 2 All ER 835 diikut.

(3) Di mana tiada pelepasan apa-apa yang dibawa ke tanah defendan, plaintif mesti membuktikan: (i) defendan telah membawa ke tanahnya benda yang mungkin akan terbakar dan menyimpannya dalam keadaaan yang sedemikian hinggakan jika mereka benar-benar menyala, kebakaran berkemungkinan merebak ke tanah plaintif; (ii) dia berbuat demikian semasa kegunaan tanah yang tidak semula jadi; dan (iii) benda-benda itu telah menyala dan kebakaran merebak ke tanah plaintif (lihat ms 793D-H); Mason v Levy Auto Parts of England Ltd [1967] 2 QB 530 diikut.

[*786]

(4) Dengan memakai prinsip-prinsip di atas dan selepas mempertimbangkan fakta-fakta kes, adalah jelas bahawa defendan bertanggungjawab atas kebakaran pertama, ketiga dan keempat.

Berkenaan dengan kebakaran-kebakaran pertama dan keempat, defendan sepatutnya tahu bahawa kebakaran boleh merebak daripada tumbuh-tumbuhan yang dipotong yang mudah terbakar dan jika ia menyala kebakaran semestinya akan merebak, seperti mana yang berlaku, kepada skim plaintif. Kegunaan tanah oleh defendan di kedua-dua lokasi ini adalah tidak semula jadi dan oleh itu defendan adalah bertanggungjawab atas kebakaran-kebakaran pertama dan keempat menurut rukun dalam Rylands v Fletcher. Namun demikian, defendan tidak bertanggungjawab atas kebakaran kedua kerana tiada keterangan tentang sesiapa yang telah dilihat memulakan kebakaran. Juga, tiada tumbuhan kering atau tumbuhan terpotong yang sedang kering telah dijumpai di lokasi itu dan ini juga tidak merupakan kes di mana prinsip dalam Rylands v Fletcher adalah terpakai. Mengenai kebakaran ketiga pula, fakta-fakta menunjukkan bahawa ia dimulakan oleh seorang atau lebih pekerja defendan. Defendan bertanggungjawab atas kecuaian akibat tindakan pekerjanya dalam kebakaran ketiga. Berkenaan dengan kebakaran kelima, ia mungkin telah merebak melalui percikan yang dibawa oleh angin daripada pokok-pokok mati yang masih berdiri yang terbakar dalam hutan simpan. Walau bagaimanapun, defendan tidak boleh disalahkan untuk kebakaran yang menyusul yang merebak ke hutan simpanan dan yang akhirnya merebak ke tanah plaintif yang bersempadan dengan hutan simpan; defendan tidak menyebabkan kebakaran merebak ke hutan simpan. Oleh itu, defendan tidak boleh bertanggungjawab atas kebakaran kelima (lihat ms 792A, E-H dan 794B-E).

Case Reviews (MLS)...

2008-11-03T02:05:00.007+08:00

SYARIKAT BATU SINAR SDN BHD & ORS V UMBC FINANCE BHD & ORS

[1990] 3 MLJ 468

CIVIL SUIT NO 22-177-86

HIGH COURT (IPOH)

DECIDED-DATE-1: 7 JULY 1990

PEH SWEE CHIN J

CATCHWORDS:
Civil Law Act - Application of common law of England - Local circumstances - Registration of motor vehicles - Ownership claims - Fraudulent sale - Whether common law of England applicable - Civil Law Act 1956, s 3 - Road Traffic Ordinance 1958, ss 6 & 10

HEADNOTES:
A leasing company (second plaintiff) had bought a tractor from a tractor dealer (the third defendant), and then leased it to the first plaintiff, a finance company. In the registration card, the dealer was stated to be the registered first owner, the leasing company is the second owner and the third owner was the finance company. The card carried an endorsement to the effect that the right of ownership was claimed by the leasing company.

Unknown to the plaintiffs, the dealer had earlier (in February 1984) sold the tractor to another finance company who then hired it to the second defendant pursuant to a hire-purchase agreement. The finance company purported to repossess the tractor following default by the second defendant in making the payments due under the agreement.

At the time that the finance company bought the tractor from the dealer, there was no registration card for the tractor. An application was made through the dealer for the issue of the registration card by the Registrar and Inspector of Motor Vehicles. The finance company also made a claim to ownership in the form of a letter sent to the dealer for registration with the registrar. The registration card was left with the dealer. Possession of the tractor too was left with the dealer.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that all the defendants were 'not entitled' to the tractor.

Held, allowing the plaintiffs' application:

(1) The failure to carry out the practice of registering an ownership
claim on the registration card would create the necessary expectation in the
mind of a subsequent unknowing buyer of the vehicle or the necessary
representation to him with regard to the status of the vehicle. Such
consequence cannot be lost on any finance company acquiring a vehicle to have
it let on hire to any hirer. It is inconceivable that it cannot be reasonably
foreseen.

(2) All buyers of second-hand cars in West Malaysia have always depended
on the absence of any registered endorsement of claim to ownership in the
registration card as a 'green light' to deal with sellers whose names are
registered as owners on the registration cards or their mercantile agents.

(3) The practice in West Malaysia combined with local statutory provisions
in regard to the registration of ownership claims would constitute such a
distinctive local circumstance of the inhabitants of West Malaysia that the
decisions in English cases on the point of failure to have an ownership claim
registered should not be followed.

MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM

2008-11-03T01:28:00.009+08:00

* Video hiasan. Sumber: Youtube.com
Special dedication to all SPM Candidates Nov 2008
All the best and Good Luck !!!

1.History and Development of the MLS

- Malacca Sultanate
- Portuguese and Dutch in Malacca
- British in Penang and the Charter of Justice 1807

2.History and Development (2)
- Straits settlement and the Charters of 1826 and 1855
- Residential System in the Federal Malay States
- Unfederated Malay States and the British Advisors

3.English Law and the Civil Law Act, 1956
-s.3:conditions for application

4.English Law and The Civil Law Act 1956 (2)
- views of Prof GW Batholomew, Prof Ahmad Ibrahim and Joseph Chia regarding application of English statutes in West Malaysia
- s.5: Commercial law
- conclusion

5.Adat and Customary Laws
Ancient Malay Adat
- Adat Perpatih
- Adat Temenggong

6.Hindu and Chinese Customary Laws

Native Laws of Sabah and Sarawak
- Native Courts of Sabah
- Native Courts of Sarawak

7.Islamic Law
- sources of law
- application of Islamic law in Malaysia
- Islamic law under the Federal Constitution
- Roles and functions of the Mufti, Majlis Agama and the Syariah Courts

8.Federal Constitution
- State and Federal Constitution
- Basic features of FC

9.Legislation
- Legislative bodies in Malaysia
- Legislative process in Parliament

10.Rules of Statutory Interpretation
- Literal rule
- Golden rule

11.Rules of Statutory Interpretation (2)
- Mischief rule
- Purposive Approach

12.Secondary Rules
- rules of language
- extrinsic and intrinsic aids
- presumptions

13.Delegated Legislation
- Justification
- Advantages and Disadvantages
- Methods of control

14.Doctrine of Judicial Precedent
- definition of stare decisis
- application of doctrine in Malaysia

15.Doctrine of Judicial Precedent (2)
- exceptions
- advantages and disadvantages

16.Court System
- Superior Courts
- Subordinate Courts
- Juvenile Courts
- Special Courts

Bila Berakhir ?...

2008-11-01T19:58:00.007+08:00

* Video Hiasan

Apabila aku terkenangkan janjiMu
Terasa gerunnya di hatiku
Betapa fakirnya fitrahku padaMu
Betapa jauhnya diriku dariMu
Sepanjang aku dibuai mimpi
Telah kulupakan janjiMu oh Ilahi
Lenaku masih belum terjaga lagi
Ya Allah sedarkanlah daku
Oh Tuhan kini ku telah jaga
JanjiMu takkan mungkir
Pada hamba yang ingkar
Diriku tidak kan terlepas
Kesalku makin menekan
Insafku kian meningkat
Apakah masih tersisakah titisan rahmat
Moga diriku dikurniakan berkat
Tidak tertahan diriku oh Ya Allah
Menanggung azab siksaanMu
Tidak sanggup merasa diriku Ya Allah
Menanggung kemurkaanMu
Ya Allah ampunlah kesalahanku
Ya Allah ampun keterlanjuranku
Ku memohon rahmat daripadaMu
Semoga dihazafkan dosaku

P/s: Setiap yang bernafas pasti melakukan dosa dan sebaik-baik yang berdosa ialah mereka segera bertaubat kepada ALLAH...Bila berakhir episod dosa-dosa ini?...Pasti Al-Quran dan As-Sunnah ada jawapannya...Atau ada penerang yang lebih specific dari keduanya...Jangan sekali ditinggalkan merujukNYA...Dialah teman sejati iaitu amal dengan keduanya.

Mutiara Kehidupan...

2008-10-31T17:06:00.006+08:00

Anak-anak soleh dan solehah adalah permata hati ibubapa...
Berbaktilah kepada mereka selagi masih berkesempatan...
sumber Video: Youtube.

Berpesan-pesanlah...

Jika tiba-tiba kau dapat melihat jejak-jejak harapan... sebenarnya Allah sedang berbisik kepadamu...

Ketika kau memiliki tujuan untuk dipenuhi dan mimpi untuk digenapi...Allah sudah membuka matamu dan memanggilmu dengan namamu..

Ketika segalanya menjadi sesuatu yang tidak masuk akal dan kau merasa tertekan... Allah bersamamu untuk menenangkanmu...

Ketika segala sesuatu berjalan lancar dan kau merasa ingin mengucap syukur... Allah telah pun memberkatimu...

Jika kau fikir bahawa hidupmu sedang menunggu sesuatu dan waktu terasa berlalu begitu saja... Allah sedang menunggu bersama-samamu...

Ketika kau fikir bahwa kau sudah berusaha sesungguhnya dan tidak tahu hendak berbuat apa lagi... Allah mempunyai jawapannya...

Ketika sesuatu yang indah terjadi dan kau dipenuhi ketakjuban... Allah akan tersenyum kepadamu...

Nukilan: Al-Ustaz

P/s: Visual ini hanyalah sekadar hiasan...

Hubbul Kholiq Wal Makhluq

2008-10-31T10:52:00.006+08:00

cinta yang sejati
hanya cintakan illahi
cinta ayah bonda
tulus suci selamanya
cintakan saudara

hanya sementara
serta sesama insan
suburkan dengan ketakwaan...

Islam Itu Indah...Iman Itu Manis...Ihsan itu Nafas kedua-duanya...Peluklah ketiga-tiganya...

Hubbullah Wa Rasuluh ( 3 )

2008-10-30T23:05:00.005+08:00

Tauhidiyyah Al-Wahdah...Halawatuhu haqq...Wa'duhu haqq...Jannatuhu haqq

Manisnya Iman...
Bila mengerti hebat nilainya bila disana...
Manisnya biarlah berpanjangan...
Jangan hilang baru dikesalkan...
Jangan dirobekkan dek dosa yang disengajakan...
Lumrah insan...
Ya Rabb,
Berikankan ku hidayah...
Berikanlah setitis harapan..
Berikanlah secebis keinsafan...
Menuju bahagia yang kekal abadi...
Kan kuserahkan padaMU...Tuhan...

Learn To Be Thankful To ALLAH

2008-10-30T02:15:00.004+08:00

Thank You ALLAH...Alhamdulillah...
For the Iman to be cherished...
For the Islam to be spread...
For the Ihsan to be figured...
Thank YOU for everything YOU'RE always giving me...
ALHAMDULILLAH...
Say it out loud...everybody.