Legal Case Analysis: Penal Code & Acts

This document presents a legal case analysis covering several key areas of law. It begins with an examination of the New York Penal Code, specifically addressing the elements required to prove burglary and defenses against such charges. The analysis then moves to the Universal Military Training and Service Act, focusing on conscientious objector status and the criteria for exemption from combatant service. The document also explores the concept of parental privilege under law, discussing the limits of corporal punishment and defenses against charges of assault or child abuse. Finally, it addresses the Heart Balm statute, examining the elements required to prove alienation of affection. The analysis includes references to relevant case law and statutes, providing a comprehensive overview of each legal issue.

1. New York Penal Code
In order to prove a case of burglary, Section 140 of the New York Penal code, prescribes two
elements, namely: a) unlawful entry or trespass and (b) specific intent to commit crime.1 In the
present case while there has been a case of trespass; there was lack of intent to commit a crime.
The circumstantial evidence such as absence of any weapons carried, harsh weather further
corroborates the intent of the defendant.
In his defense, the client can rely on People v Gaines, 74 N.Y. 2d 358 (1989), where the court
held that “intent to commit a crime is required”. Since there was no mens rea or possession of
any harmful weapons will serve as a good defense by itself. Secondly, he knew very well that the
house was vacant as it was listed for sale and hence there was no one dwelling within the
premises.
2. Universal Military Training and Service Act
The rights regarding Conscientious objections are provided both under Article 18 of the
Universal Declaration on Human rights2 as well as under S 6(j) of the Universal Military
Training and Service Act. The rule exempts a person from combatant service in the armed forces
who are conscientiously opposed to participation in the war by the reason of their “religious
beliefs and training”. In the case of United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) the court , it has
been held that where the objection was made in good faith and his conscientious objection is
based upon individual training and belief, such exemption may be granted 3.
Hence, the client in this case can take immunity under the above mentioned 6(j) provision of the
Act, which gives exemption to religious objectors, not essentially with political, sociological or
philosophical views.
3. Parental Privilege under Law
Corporal punishment has largely been accepted as parental privilege and has been expressly
incorporated in the New York statute under New York Penal Code` 35.10(1) (2000). However,
excessive punishment on their children may lead to prosecution for crimes such as assault, child
abuse etc. Hence, primarily, there is a need to address the fact that spanking is “reasonable and
appropriate physical force”4, without there being any substantial harm caused to the person. In
case the father is charged for the said action of spanking, he should assert a defense of parental
1 (Snape, 110, 2015)
2 (Jennifer Carr,L.J. 183 (2014).
3 United States v. Seeger 380 U.S. 163(Uni.Sta.Ct.App. 1965
4 Johnson, U. III.L.Rev

privilege when force is used for disciplinary purpose. In the case of Commonwealth v Rubeck,
(MASS.APP.CT.2005)5 the court opined that the use of physical force by parent is privileged
only when it is used for the training or education of child or for the preservation of discipline.
The client therefore, can rely upon this judgment in his defense.
In this case, since the act of the father is reasonable and just, he can claim his exemption under
parental privilege.
4. The Heart Balm statute was originally passed to abolish the common law actions for
alienation of affection, criminal conversation and breach of contract to marry. The facts of the
case are similar to that of Wildey v. springs 6 where the court upheld the action of plaintiff
against the defendant under Breach of promise Act, stating that, the break engagement caused
pain and suffering.
Since the immediate case concerns alienation of affection claim, the following factors have to be
proven:
 That love existed between the spouses prior to the onset of extra-marital relation
 The marital love was alienated as a result of the relation with the third party and that
 The act of the defendant caused such loss of affection.
REFERENCES
JOHN SNAPE, 1 NEW YORK STATE PENAL CODE 2015 (Second ed. 2015).
Section 140 mentioned in page 110
KRISTIN HENRARD, DEVISING AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM OF MINORITY PROTECTION: INDIVIDUAL HUMAN
RIGHTS, MINORITY RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION (2000).
Jennifer Carr, Complicity and Collection: Religious Freedom and Tax, 11 U. St. Thomas L.J. 183 (2014).
United States v Seeger, Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/163/#annotation
Kandice K. Johnson, Crime or Punishment: The Parental Corporal Punishment Defense-Reasonable and
Necessary or excused abuse HeinOnline -- 1998 U. Ill. L. Rev. 413 1998
Commonwealth v. Rubeck, 64 Mass.App.CT.396 ( Mass.App.CT.2005)
Wildey v Springs, 840 F.Supp.1259 (1994)
5 Mass.App.CT.396
6 840 F.Supp.1259 (1994)