Extract
[...] Regarding the material element, the offense requires the demonstration of a behavior, a result, and a causal link. Regarding the behavior, Article 222-13 of the Penal Code incriminates the fact of positively committing violence against another person. In this case, the maThe interest of Paul was struck since it inflicted a slap on him. It is without any debate an act of positive violence. As for the result, Article 222-13 of the Penal Code punishes the violence that has not resulted in total inability to work or has resulted in a total inability to work of less than or equal to eight days. [...]
[...] The refusal of child presentation Marie and Olivier are in the process of divorce. By his decision, the Judge recognized a right of visitation to Olivier. His situation is particular since he has just come frombeing imprisoned in a holding cell. Considering this situation, Marie refuses to take their son Paul to visit him. Can Marie see her criminal responsibility engaged? Initially, it is necessary to consider for which offense Marie could be prosecuted and in a second time, it is necessary to consider the objective cause of criminal irresponsibility constituted by the state of necessity A. [...]
[...] In a districtOn 14 March 2012, the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, which, in order to rule out the state of necessity in a case of non-representation of a child, notably held that the mother, prosecuted for this offense, had not requested, as she was entitled to do, the suspension of the provisional execution attached to the decision. The Court of Appeal had also concluded to the disproportion of the mother's action in view of her absolute opposition. In this case, according to the facts, Marie did not exercise any appeal against the decision of the Judge. Furthermore, it appears that the condition of necessity cannot be retained. [...]
[...] » The criminal liability of Paul can be engaged in the context of his insults? Article R 621-2 of the Penal Code incriminates non-public insult towards a person, when it has not been preceded by provocation. It is a contravention of 1st class. The material element of the non-public insult is the fact of pronouncing an insult in a non-public manner. According to Article 29, paragraph of the 1881 law, an insult corresponds to 'any outrageous expression, terms of contempt or invective'. [...]
[...] In fact, the author of the violence must have had the will to commit them, and the consciousness of violating penal law. On the other hand, it is necessary to demonstrate the indeterminate malice, that is to say that the moral element is constituted, regardless of whether the author desired the damage resulting from the violence. In this case, the teacher had the will to slap Paul, and this in order to punish him for his behavior. No one is supposed to be unaware of the law, his consciousness of violating penal law is therefore presumed. [...]
