| 
                 
              
Analytic Structure: Canadian Criminal Code  
              
I. Definition: Criminality ("Offense")  
	Does the behavior constitute criminal conduct? (was a (penal) law violated?)
              		A.	in general:  Does the penal code apply (jurisdiction)?  
		B.	in particular:  Does the behavior meet the definition of a particular criminal offense defined in the penal 	
			code?  
			1.	What are the elements of the offense as defined? 
				 				(a)	Actus Reus
					(i) Conduct 
					- required  
					(ii) Circumstances  
					- only required in result offences (e.g. homicide [s.222])
					- e.g. nature of offender (peace officer [s.69]) or victim (statutory rape [s.151], assaulting peace officer [s.270(1)(a)]); 
					legality (s.279(1)(b));
					time (s.230 [repealed]; trespass at night [s.177]);
					place [s.431.2(2)];
					(absence of) consent [s.265(1)];
					justification ("without lawful excuse" [s.177])
					(iii) Result
					- only required in result offenses (e.g. homicide [s.222], causing death by criminal negligence [s.220]) 
				 				(b)	Mens Rea: Mode of Culpability, Mental State (w/ respect to each element) 
					- may be required (e.g. wilful promotion of hatred [s.319(2)] 
					- [rules of interpretation]
					- e.g. intent(ion), knowledge, wilful blindness, recklessness, criminal negligence (due diligence defence), wilfulness.  
					(see comparative chart)
			 			2.	Does the behavior satisfy each element of the offense? 
				 				(a) Conduct 
					- act  
					- voluntariness 
					- omission (criminal negligence [s.219]) 
					- imputation/derivative liability (party liability [s.21]) 
					- instruments  
					- complicity [s.21]
					- corporate actors [s.22.1-2] 
				 				(b)	Circumstances (e.g. (absence of) consent [s.193(1), s.465])  
				(c)	Result 
					- causation [ss.222(6), 224 to 226 and 228]
						- factual 
						- legal 	 				 (d)	Mode of Culpability (w/ respect to each element) 
					(i) mistake "of fact" (i.e. as to satisfaction of offense element)  
					(ii) intoxication [s.33.1] 
					(iii) diminished capacity
  
              II. Justification: Illegality/Unlawfulness/Wrongness ("Defense")
  
               
                          Is
                    the criminal conduct unlawful generally speaking?
                    (was the law violated?)  
               
              		A.	in general (nature of justification; justification vs. excuse)
		 		B.	specific defenses 			1.	law administration and enforcement [s.25] 
			2.	authority [s.43]
			3.	defense (person [s.34]; property [s.35]) 
			[4.	consent (cf. s.14 (no consent to death)]
			[5.	necessity (duress of circumstances) (cf. "public good" defense: ss.162(6), 162.1(3), 163(3))  		 C.	reasonable mistake re: satisfaction of justification element [s.34(2)]
 
  
              III. Excuse: Inculpation/Responsibility/Accountability/Blameworthiness ("Defense") 
 	Can the accused be held culpable for the facially criminal conduct? 
  
              		A.	Did the accused lack the capacity for conduct (incapacity)?  			1.	insanity  [s.16]
				- (exculpatory) intoxication (not available; but see I. (intoxication)) 
			2.	infancy [s.13]  		 B.	Was the accused incapable of exercising his capacity for culpable conduct? (inability/impossibility/unavoidability)  			1.	duress 
				(a)	personal [s.17] 
				(b)	circumstantial (see II.B.5 (necessity) 
			2.	provocation (homicide only) [s.232] 
			3.	superior orders [s.32(2)] 
			4.	entrapment 
			5.	abandonment 
				- complicity
				- inchoate crimes
			6.	mistake (ignorance) "of law" [s.19]
				(a)	reliance on official misstatement  
				(b)	unreasonable mistake re: satisfaction of justification element
 
 
             |