Mike Krailo
Well-known member
- Local time
- Yesterday, 22:25
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 1,344
From the jury instructions:
If this is true, then there has to be someone or the state itself that was defrauded. There is no way the circumstances in this case show anyone was defrauded. That would mean monetarily, money was lost, or stolen. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Imagined crimes without victims.
Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, that person:
INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so. Intent does not require premeditation. In other words, intent does not require advance planning. Nor is it necessary that the intent be in a person's mind for any particular period of time. The intent can be formed, and need only exist, at the very moment the person engages in prohibited conduct or acts to cause the prohibited result, and not at any earlier time. The question naturally arises as to how to determine whether a defendant had the intent required for the commission of a crime. To make that determination in this case, you must decide if the required intent can be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt from the proven facts. In doing so, you may consider the person's conduct and all of the circumstances surrounding that conduct, including, but not limited to, the following: what, if anything, did the person do or say; what result, if any, followed the person’s conduct; and was that result the natural, necessary and probable consequence of that conduct. Therefore, in this case, from the facts you find to have been proven, decide whether you can infer beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intent required for the commission of this crime.
Page | 29 INTENT TO DEFRAUD As I previously explained, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so. In order to prove an intent to defraud, the People need not prove that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud any particular person or entity. A general intent to defraud any person or entity suffices. Intent to defraud is also not constricted to an intent to deprive another of property or money and can extend beyond economic concerns. INTENT TO COMMIT OR CONCEAL ANOTHER CRIME For the crime of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Under our law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.
If this is true, then there has to be someone or the state itself that was defrauded. There is no way the circumstances in this case show anyone was defrauded. That would mean monetarily, money was lost, or stolen. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Imagined crimes without victims.