A knows that B is lying in wait to kill A. A convinces C to enter the area; B kills C. Has A committed a crime? This is a scene in Fargo Season One, so stop reading if you don't want spoilers. The facts as I describe them in the body are not exactly as I've summarized in the post title. Lester is afraid that Lorne is waiting in Lester's office. Lester knows that Lorne has killed others and will likely kill him. Lester has his wife Linda go into the office and even convinces her to wear his signature big puffy orange coat with the hood up. Linda goes into the office and is killed by Lorne. Assume Lester is pursued by police for a number of crimes, some potentially in conspiracy with Lorne. What crimes might be charged against Lester for sending his wife to be killed by Lorne?
Possibly negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. Really dependson the state where this happens and the exact elements that need to be proven. Lester has asked his wife to do something that he knows might result in her death and does not warn her. He probably has a duty to warn her.
"If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you." (said while grabbing the handle of sword) This is a famous conditional threat where the speaker/actor was not found to express intent to do harm; perhaps better called a negative condition. This probably confuses matters but if you are to search for more answers this could be a good place to start. One of the elements of common law assault is that the threat must be able to be carried out immediately; it must be imminent. I do not have a cite for this but I recall that this means that conditional threats are excluded from assault. So calling a politician on the phone and telling them that if they do not drop out of a race you will hurt them is not assault. So, "You cut that out now or you’ll go home in an ambulance" sounds a lot like, "stop or you will get hurt." The victim has the opportunity to avoid the danger; the threat is not imminent. But the facts here are interesting because the speaker touched the victim while speaking which might mean fear of imminent was real. But they were in a crowded room in front of cameras - could the victim really feel that threat was imminent? Plus, the "you will go home" implies a future harm. Oh, and the speaker does not say "I will hurt you," maybe she was actually trying to protect the victim from someone else's actions. Like when my teacher knew someone was waiting outside the classroom to fight me and she told me, "if you go out there you will get hurt!" I would hope that a jury would consider this hard bargaining.
It is the job of the judge to instruct the jury about the law. If Texas had pattern instructions I'd look up what the instruction is for this matter, but you don't, so I don't know what the judge would say. But it is the judge's sole prerogative to instruct the jury in the law. If the question is a "commitment question", then it is an improper question and should be disallowed, see Stendefer v. State. The question "Would you presume someone guilty if he or she refused a breath test on their refusal alone?" is such a commitment question, and is disallowed. Similarly, "If the evidence, in a hypothetical case, showed that a person was arrested and they had a crack pipe in their pocket, and they had a residue amount in it, and it could be measured, and it could be seen, is there anyone who could not convict a person, based on that" (Atkins v. State, 951 S.W.2d 787). An improper commitment question could be of the type "could you refrain...": Let us assume that you are considering in the penalty phase of any capital murder case, okay? And some of the evidence that has come in shows that the victim's family was greatly impacted and terribly grieved and greatly harmed by the facts․Can you assure us that the knowledge of those facts would not prevent you or substantially impair you in considering a life sentence in such a case (Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715). One way in which a commitment question can be legal is if it asks basically "can you uphold the law?", for example "can you consider probation in a murder case?", or "are you willing to consider mitigating circumstances". The wrong answer to those questions will lead to a for-cause dismissal. The third question is flagrantly improper, the first is rather improper, and the second probably is. If the question can be framed in terms of a candidate's willingness to follow the law, then it should be legal.
Hank would certainly have a case that Walter White was the &quot;Heisenburg&quot; cook as Walter had the motive (he needed lots of cash fast), means(Access to chemicals, strong chemistry knowledge, and connections to distribution networks) and opportunity (Walter had time to do the steps required of the operation). Notably, the money doesn't need to be there to show evidence of the crime (Possession with Intent to Sell being the driving one). Hank was, from early in the series, well aware of a list of crimes attributable to &quot;Heisenberg,&quot; but didn't have a person to charge with these crimes. What blows Walter's cover to Hank was the book of poetry Leaves of the Grass by Walt Whitman. The Handwritten dedication inside the cover is &quot;To my other favorite W.W. It's an honour working with you. Fondly, G.B.&quot; written by Gale, who's death had previously led to a raid on the Meth Lab where Walter White and Gale had worked together and was no known to have been run by Gus Fringe (also deceased). Other evidence in Gale's office were notes regarding the cook operation at the Fringe Lab, with the quotes attributed to then unknown to Hank, &quot;W.W.&quot; and his own notes attributed to him as &quot;G.B.&quot; (I believe Gale did have Whitman books in his home). Walter had previously told Hank he had no idea who Gale was, so seeing a book that Gale personally dedicated to Walter and attributing him as the other favorite W.W. would be as easy as comparing handwriting samples from Gale's notes to the snippet from the book, thus linking Walter White to the Heisenberg ring. Hank also discusses that he believes Gale is not Heisenberg as Gale was taking extensive notes from another source in meth production and did not have any ties to the known distribution chain outside of Gus Fringe. What complicated Hank's ability to prosecute was that Marie (aka Jesus Christ-Marie) had knowingly accepted dirty money from Hank and Skylar, believing it was from illegal high stakes poker and not drug money... but reporting Walt's source of income meant implicating them in the crime, which Walter and Skylar use as blackmail against them by creating a confession tape that would implicate Hank as the Mastermind of the operation who forced them to perform their illegal actions. This would have cost Hank his career and would have netted the Whites a not guilty plea as too much doubt would have existed to convict (The Schraders would not be convicted by the same reasoning, but Hank was the primary breadwinner and out of a job... and likely not hireable by other LEO organizations as the controversy of the matter would make him untrustworthy to have on, and the inability to realize a close family member was a drug lord made him look incompetent. I call this last part &quot;The Spycatcher's Dilemma&quot; as if there is no evidence of a Spy, the spy catcher is criticized for not finding spies. When a spy is caught, the spy catcher is criticized for not catching the spy sooner.).
The statute reads (emphasis mine): A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse. Suppose Alvin has sex with Betty while Betty is married to Charlie. Does Alvin's conduct satisfy the elements of the crime? Alvin engaged in sexual intercourse with another person (namely Betty) at a time when the other person (Betty again) had a living spouse (namely Charlie). So yes, Alvin has violated this law. Betty has also violated the law (the first clause instead of the second). Betty engaged in sexual intercourse with another person (Alvin) at a time when he (Betty; the pronoun "he" is meant to be gender-neutral in the statute's style of writing) had a living spouse (Charlie). However, this law is effectively unenforced in modern times. According to https://www.dbnylaw.com/adultery-is-still-a-crime-in-new-york-state/: It is extremely rare for anyone to be arrested just for adultery. Indeed, since 1972, only 13 persons have been charged with adultery. Of those 13 persons, only five actually were convicted of the crime. In virtually every one of those cases, there was some other crime that was committed and the prosecuting attorney added adultery as just one of many crimes committed. If Charlie files a complaint regarding the affair, it is almost certain that the police and prosecutors will ignore it, and that nobody will actually be charged with anything.
It's called police and prosecutorial discretion to discern when to arrest and prosecute; and that situation in particular is also the result of a decision of the jury of the court of public opinion. Permits are required to sell on the street in Oakland. But not everyone who sells has a permit, and not everyone who is confronted about not having a permit is arrested and prosecuted. There are simply too many potential cases to prosecute. And, the police officer has the discretion to ticket or not. When you get pulled over while driving or riding a bike, you don't always get a ticket, since the officer has the option of discretion. When the officer responded and found an eight year-old selling water, he obviously was aware of the fact that it was a violation. But he was also aware of the court of public opinion. What is it going to look like if he arrests an eight year old and their parent? Allison Ettel was right, in a purely legal sense, to make the report. And technically, the child (and adult) needed a permit. And could have been ticketed and prosecuted. But it was Ettel was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, and she lost her case. Happens a lot.
We don't have enough facts to know. What Bob said about having violated the injunction, which could expose him to criminal contempt of court liability, was not true. But, the precise details of what he said, to whom he said it, and his relationship to the case, are not clear. Saying something that isn't true isn't always against the law, and even when it is against the law, the consequences depend upon the context. An intentionally false statement of fact to a police officer or to the court under oath would probably be a crime (but, unlike U.S. practice, criminal defendants who testify are not generally required to testify under oath). An unintentionally false statement of fact to the same persons (e.g. because Bob misheard the question or was drunk at the time and assumed that the statement of fact he was making was true or had dementia) would probably not have legal consequences for him. A mere confession - I am guilty of violating the civil injunction - would probably not be perjury or fraud because guilt of a civil injunction includes opinions and legal conclusions which are not actionable, as well as implied statements of fact, which might be actionable. But, if he confessed in the form of a plea, there probably wouldn't have been a trial at all. Once he made his plea, his factual guilty or innocence might be irrelevant in the face of a judicial admission. Courts can sometimes sanction parties to lawsuits for wasting everyone's time under quite specific circumstances, but we don't know precisely what relationship Bob has to the case in which the injunction was entered.
There are several elements working in your friend's favor. The first is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." In an entrapment case, the police have recordings or documents claiming that the "girl" was underaged. If there is no such smoking gun from the (real) girl, the case (probably) would not be prosecuted in the U.S. He doesn't have to prove that she told him she was 18; "she" (or the police) has to prove that she told him she was "not." The second factor is "remoteness" in time, and distance. Two years after a U.S. state sent me a "nasty letter," I asked my lawyer if the state would ever come after me. He answered, "If they were going to do this, you would have heard further by now." The other factor, distance and cross border, (three countries: Turkey, the U.S., his home country) further militates against prosecution except for highly aggravating circumstances such as drug dealing, gambling, or sex for pay. A third factor is that your friend would not come close to qualifying as a "serious offender." This would be someone like a drug dealer, or the head of a "call girl" ring. The cops concentrate their effects on big "busts" like this that make their careers, not "small fry" like your friend. But of course they use the publicity from the big catches to scare everyone else. While there is no "guarantee" against "the worst possible consequences," the chances of them happening are similar to his getting hit by lightening, and less than his chances of being hit by a car crossing the street. No one stresses out about those chances. He shouldn't either. I am not a lawyer but I have done paralegal work in a law office.