Law And Order Criminal Intent - Season 9

In 2009, Law & Order: Criminal Intent made a surprise hire in Jeff Goldblum to replace Chris Noth after his departure at the end of the seventh season. Goldblum came on as Detective Zack Nichols, and was meant to bring some of the investigational savant flavor of Vincent D'Onofrio's brilliant but troubled Robert Goren to the other half of the two different week-to-week cast perspectives. He hadn't been seen on television since the spring of 2007, where he'd starred on NBC's short-lived crime drama Raines; it had only seven episodes as a mid-season replacement for ER and was passed over for a full season order.

The show first premiered on September 30, 2001 and aired on Syndication for six seasons before moving to the USA Network due to declining ratings & in order to share costs. On the USA Network, the show aired for four more seasons before ending on June 26, 2011 after 195 episodes.

Convicted of hunting by spotlight or artificial light contrary to 53-2-37, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, 1962, pt. 1), defendants appeal asserting: (1) the statute is unconstitutional; and, (2) the state failed to prove criminal intent.

Defendants concede that the legislature may forbid the doing of an act and make its commission criminal without requiring criminal intent but in so doing it must clearly appear, either by language or clear inference, that such was the legislative intent. State v. Craig, 70 N.M. 176, 372 P.2d 128 (1962); State v. Shedoudy, 45 N.M. 516, 118 P.2d 280 (1941); see State v. Vickery, 85 N.M. 389, 512 P.2d 962 (Ct.App. 1973).

Several of our statutes have been held not to require criminal intent. See Territory v. Harwood, 15 N.M. 424, 110 P. 556 (1910); State v. Vickery, supra; State v. Gunter, 87 N.M. 71, 529 P.2d 297 (Ct.App. 1974); State v. Lucero, supra. The emphasis of those statutes was usually upon achievement of a social betterment rather than the punishment of a crime. United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 42 S. Ct. 301, 66 L. Ed. 604 (1922). Thus, the policy of the law may, in order to stimulate proper care, require the punishment of the negligent person though he be ignorant of the character of his act. Harring, Liability Without Fault: Logic and Potential of a Developing Concept, 1970 Wis.L.Rev. 1201; Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Columbia L.Rev. 55 (1933).

*30 It is apparent that neither the title of the act nor the act itself requires any criminal intent. Given the foregoing public interest involved and further given the difficulties involved in the protection of big game animals and livestock together with the apparent general public attitude we hold that it clearly appears that the legislature intended to eliminate the element of criminal intent. The doing of the act is what is prohibited. See State v. Lassiter, 13 N.C. App. 292, 185 S.E.2d 478 (1971). This does not violate due process. United States v. Balint, supra. The act is not void for uncertainty. 59ce067264

https://www.blueinstinct.club/en/forum/outdoor-fitness/where-to-buy-major-appliances