De Minimis - Revision history

Durankar: /* United States */

2010-12-06T15:04:27Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:04, 6 December 2010
Line 14:		Line 14:
	C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime. <ref> 17-A Me. Rev. Stat. § 12 </ref> </blockquote>		C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime. <ref> 17-A Me. Rev. Stat. § 12 </ref> </blockquote>

	In State v. Karger <ref>State v. Kargar, 679 A.2d 81 (Me. 1996)</ref> a court in Maine reversed a conviction of an Afghan immigrant for two counts of gross sexual assault. The defendant had kissed his 18-month old son's penis in a sign of affection that ~~was not uncommon~~ in his culture. The court determined that there was no harm to the infant and that the defendant's act was not intended for sexual gratification, therefore the harm was de minimis.		In State v. Karger <ref>State v. Kargar, 679 A.2d 81 (Me. 1996)</ref> a court in Maine reversed a conviction of an Afghan immigrant for two counts of gross sexual assault. The defendant had kissed his 18-month old son's penis in a sign of affection that is common in his culture. The court determined that there was no harm to the infant and that the defendant's act was not intended for sexual gratification, therefore, the harm was de minimis.

	----		----

Durankar: /* United States */

2010-12-06T15:01:47Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 6 December 2010
Line 12:		Line 12:
	B. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the crime or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or		B. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the crime or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or

	C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime. <ref> ~~Maine Revised Statutes Title~~ 17-A ~~section~~ 12 </ref> </blockquote>		C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime. <ref> 17-A Me. Rev. Stat. § 12 </ref> </blockquote>

	In State v. Karger <ref>State v. Kargar, 679 A.2d 81 (Me. 1996)</ref> a court in Maine reversed a conviction of an Afghan immigrant for two counts of gross sexual assault. The defendant had kissed his 18-month old son's penis in a sign of affection that was not uncommon in his culture. The court determined that there was no harm to the infant and that the defendant's act was not intended for sexual gratification, therefore the harm was de minimis.		In State v. Karger <ref>State v. Kargar, 679 A.2d 81 (Me. 1996)</ref> a court in Maine reversed a conviction of an Afghan immigrant for two counts of gross sexual assault. The defendant had kissed his 18-month old son's penis in a sign of affection that was not uncommon in his culture. The court determined that there was no harm to the infant and that the defendant's act was not intended for sexual gratification, therefore the harm was de minimis.

Durankar: /* United States */

2010-12-06T14:57:47Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:57, 6 December 2010
Line 12:		Line 12:
	B. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the crime or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or		B. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the crime or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or

	C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime.~~</blockquote>~~ <ref> Maine Revised Statutes Title 17-A section 12 </ref>		C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime. <ref> Maine Revised Statutes Title 17-A section 12 </ref> </blockquote>

	In State v. Karger <ref>State v. Kargar, 679 A.2d 81 (Me. 1996)</ref> a court in Maine reversed a conviction of an Afghan immigrant for two counts of gross sexual assault. The defendant had kissed his 18-month old son's penis in a sign of affection that was not uncommon in his culture. The court determined that there was no harm to the infant and that the defendant's act was not intended for sexual gratification, therefore the harm was de minimis.		In State v. Karger <ref>State v. Kargar, 679 A.2d 81 (Me. 1996)</ref> a court in Maine reversed a conviction of an Afghan immigrant for two counts of gross sexual assault. The defendant had kissed his 18-month old son's penis in a sign of affection that was not uncommon in his culture. The court determined that there was no harm to the infant and that the defendant's act was not intended for sexual gratification, therefore the harm was de minimis.

Durankar: /* United States */

2010-12-06T14:56:38Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, 6 December 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:

	<blockquote>A. Was within a customary license or tolerance, which was not expressly refused by the person whose interest was infringed and which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the crime; or		<blockquote>A. Was within a customary license or tolerance, which was not expressly refused by the person whose interest was infringed and which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the crime; or

	B. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the crime or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or		B. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the crime or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or
	C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime.</blockquote>
			C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime.</blockquote> <ref> Maine Revised Statutes Title 17-A section 12 </ref>

	In State v. Karger <ref>State v. Kargar, 679 A.2d 81 (Me. 1996)</ref> a court in Maine reversed a conviction of an Afghan immigrant for two counts of gross sexual assault. The defendant had kissed his 18-month old son's penis in a sign of affection that was not uncommon in his culture. The court determined that there was no harm to the infant and that the defendant's act was not intended for sexual gratification, therefore the harm was de minimis.		In State v. Karger <ref>State v. Kargar, 679 A.2d 81 (Me. 1996)</ref> a court in Maine reversed a conviction of an Afghan immigrant for two counts of gross sexual assault. The defendant had kissed his 18-month old son's penis in a sign of affection that was not uncommon in his culture. The court determined that there was no harm to the infant and that the defendant's act was not intended for sexual gratification, therefore the harm was de minimis.

Durankar: /* United States */

2010-12-06T14:46:42Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:46, 6 December 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:
	=Country Specific Applications=		=Country Specific Applications=
	==United States==		==United States==
	Several states recognize the de minimis defense either by statute or at common law. ~~Main~~ has codified the defense as having three requirements:		Several states recognize the de minimis defense either by statute or at common law. Maine has codified the defense as having three requirements:

	<blockquote>A. Was within a customary license or tolerance, which was not expressly refused by the person whose interest was infringed and which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the crime; or		<blockquote>A. Was within a customary license or tolerance, which was not expressly refused by the person whose interest was infringed and which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the crime; or

Ibjadmin: /* United States */

2010-11-02T22:53:02Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:53, 3 November 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:
	=Country Specific Applications=		=Country Specific Applications=
	==United States==		==United States==
	Several states recognize the de minimis defense either by statute or at common law. Main has codified the defense as ~~follows~~:		Several states recognize the de minimis defense either by statute or at common law. Main has codified the defense as having three requirements:

	<blockquote>A. Was within a customary license or tolerance, which was not expressly refused by the person whose interest was infringed and which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the crime; or		<blockquote>A. Was within a customary license or tolerance, which was not expressly refused by the person whose interest was infringed and which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the crime; or

Ibjadmin: /* United States */

2010-11-02T22:52:35Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:52, 3 November 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:
	=Country Specific Applications=		=Country Specific Applications=
	==United States==		==United States==
	Several states recognize the de minimis defense either by statute or at common law. Main has codified the		Several states recognize the de minimis defense either by statute or at common law. Main has codified the defense as follows:

	<blockquote>A. Was within a customary license or tolerance, which was not expressly refused by the person whose interest was infringed and which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the crime; or		<blockquote>A. Was within a customary license or tolerance, which was not expressly refused by the person whose interest was infringed and which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the crime; or

Ibjadmin: /* United States */

2010-11-02T22:48:34Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 3 November 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:
	B. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the crime or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or		B. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the crime or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or
	C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime.</blockquote>		C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime.</blockquote>


	In State v. Karger <ref>State v. Kargar, 679 A.2d 81 (Me. 1996)</ref> a court in Maine reversed a conviction of an Afghan immigrant for two counts of gross sexual assault. The defendant had kissed his 18-month old son's penis in a sign of affection that was not uncommon in his culture. The court determined that there was no harm to the infant and that the defendant's act was not intended for sexual gratification, therefore the harm was de minimis.		In State v. Karger <ref>State v. Kargar, 679 A.2d 81 (Me. 1996)</ref> a court in Maine reversed a conviction of an Afghan immigrant for two counts of gross sexual assault. The defendant had kissed his 18-month old son's penis in a sign of affection that was not uncommon in his culture. The court determined that there was no harm to the infant and that the defendant's act was not intended for sexual gratification, therefore the harm was de minimis.

Ibjadmin: /* United States */

2010-11-02T22:48:18Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 3 November 2010
Line 10:		Line 10:
	<blockquote>A. Was within a customary license or tolerance, which was not expressly refused by the person whose interest was infringed and which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the crime; or		<blockquote>A. Was within a customary license or tolerance, which was not expressly refused by the person whose interest was infringed and which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the crime; or
	B. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the crime or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or		B. Did not actually cause or threaten the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the crime or did so only to an extent too trivial to warrant the condemnation of conviction; or
	C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime.<blockquote/>		C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime.</blockquote>

Ibjadmin: /* United States */

2010-11-02T22:48:02Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 3 November 2010
Line 12:		Line 12:
	C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime.<blockquote/>		C. Presents such other extenuations that it cannot reasonably be regarded as envisaged by the Legislature in defining the crime.<blockquote/>

	In State v. Karger <ref>State v. Kargar, 679 A.2d 81 (Me. 1996)</ref> A court in Maine reversed a conviction of an Afghan immigrant for two counts of gross sexual assault. The defendant had kissed his 18-month old son's penis in a sign of affection that was not uncommon in his culture.
			In State v. Karger <ref>State v. Kargar, 679 A.2d 81 (Me. 1996)</ref> a court in Maine reversed a conviction of an Afghan immigrant for two counts of gross sexual assault. The defendant had kissed his 18-month old son's penis in a sign of affection that was not uncommon in his culture. The court determined that there was no harm to the infant and that the defendant's act was not intended for sexual gratification, therefore the harm was de minimis.

	----		----