Legal Question in Criminal Law in Pennsylvania

Hypothetical food drugging question

A hypothtical question arose between myself and an aquaintance of mine.

A man working at an office building with a community refridgerator notices his food is being repeatedly stolen. Through whatever means, he discovers which specific co-worker has been doing it. Enraged, the man puts some sort of drug - for the sake of this situation we'll make te stakes high and say arsenic - into the food, puts his name on the box, and places the food in the refridgerator with the intent that his co-worker eat it.

Is the man criminally responsible? I believe he is, because he placed the poison in the food with the intention someone else eat it. My friend believes that since the food was clearly labeled, the man is excused from criminal liability because the co-worker commited theft and had no right to expect the food be safe. Which is correct?


Asked on 12/04/06, 7:15 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys
Brian Zeiger Levin & Zeiger LLP

Re: Hypothetical food drugging question

In criminal law, the basics under the common law require two elements: mens rea, the intent, and actus rea, the act. That means if you intend to commit a crime and carry out an act that brings the crime to fruition, you are responsible for that criminal act. In the instant case, your intent is to poison the eater, and your act of poisoning the food carries out the criminal act. You are responsible.

The only remaining issue is whether you would have an affirmative defense available to you at trial? Defensive of property? Nope.

You are responsible for the criminal act and can be found guilty.

Read more
Answered on 12/04/06, 9:03 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in Pennsylvania