Question

joe decided to murder his wife by stabbing her. some days before he put his plan into action, she died in a car crash while he was driving her to work. joe’s murderous intent was realized, but the police registered the death as accidental. in this scenario, joe was not charged for murder because:
a. of the lack of distinction between mala in se and mala prohibita.
b. of the m’naghten rule.
c. there was no concurrence between the actus reus and the mens rea.
d. the crime was an infraction.

Explanation:

For a murder conviction, two core elements must coincide: the guilty act (actus reus) and the guilty mind (mens rea). Joe had the intent to murder (mens rea) but never carried out the planned stabbing act. His wife's death was an accidental car crash, not the act he intended, so there is no overlap between his murderous intent and the actual cause of death. The other options are irrelevant: mala in se/mala prohibita refers to inherently vs. statutorily wrongful acts, the M'Naghten rule relates to insanity defenses, and murder is a felony not an infraction.

Answer:

c. there was no concurrence between the actus reus and the mens rea.