Case Brief Journal

CASE BRIEF JOURNAL

Case caption: Duest V. State: Broward County Court 1982

Facts

Facts of the case

The defendant wasearlier seen by with a knife in the waistband of his pants andinformed one witness that he was heading to a gay bar where he waswith John Pope and both later left in the victim’s gold Camaro. When Pope’s roommate came back home, he was shocked with what heencountered in their house disordered and blood on the bed. Hecontacted the deputy sheriff who came and saw the victim in thebathroom on the floor with several stab on his body. There was a poolof blood at the spot where the defendant was lying. The defendant wasarrested

Procedural facts

The decision isin the Florida trial court. The Supreme Court of Florida agreed withthe judgement of the trial court. The defendant disagreed with thetrial court’s ruling. The Supreme Court approved the trial court’sfindings.

Issues

Legal issues

The legal issuesthat was referred to in this case are the violations of sections921.141 (5)(b), 921.141 (5)(d), (f), (h) &amp (i) of Florida penalcode.

Procedural issues

Did the trailcourt err by considering the murder heinous, atrocious or cruel?

Did the SupremeCourt err by affirming the trail court’s findings?

Reasoning

The courtreferred to the above sections of Florida penal code. The evidencethe court had gave a substantive proof that the defendant was guiltyof the crime. The sections convicted the defendant of armed robberyand assault with intent to commit murder since he committed capitalfelony. According to section 921.141 (5)(f), the felony wascommissioned for monetary gain. The offense was committed with nofaking of moral or legal jurisdiction.

Analysis

The trail court’sruling seems reasonable since the evidence produced at trialindicated that the victim was stabbed severally in the bedroom andbathroom. The evidence reflects that the defendant said that he earnsby robbing and killing gay guys. He had the intention to rob that daywhen the murder took place. The defendant was the last person seenwith Pope who they left the bar with before the incident. Since thedefendant was seen with a knife and the victim’s body had severalknife stabs, he was the probable offender. The victim’s jewelrycase seen with the defendant and the blood stains on his jogging suitconfirms that he was responsible.

Conclusion

The trial courtdecision was appropriate since the evidence presented at the court isproof the defendant’s guilt.

Case caption:People v. Hudson Circuit Court July 30, 1998

Facts

Facts of the case

On July 30, 1998,Chrispin Thomas and Lavelle picked up the defendant to rob the Freshbarbershop. There were 8 or 9 people in the shop with Ricky bean,off-duty police officer, beings one of the customers. When Thomascommanded that all people to throw their money on the floor, Beannever complied since it had his badge. Bean got an opportunity andtold the Thomas to surrender but did not comply. Bean shot himseveral times and died since he was trying to shoot back. Thedefendant who was collecting money on the floor was fired in the legand attempted to escape. He was later arrested.

Procedural facts

The decision wasin the Circuit Court and the defendant was charged with first degreemurder. The defendant appealed.

Issues

Legal issues

The legal issuethat presents here is cited in the IPJI. Criminal, No. 7.01 (4thedition 2000)

Procedural issues

Did he commitfirst degree felony murder?

Did the AppellateCourt err by affirming the appeal?

Reasoning

According to APIcriminal 4th, a person is charged with first degree murderwhen he is responsible for commission or attempt of armed robbery andduring the offense he results in conditions or situations that leadto the death of an individual. The defendant appealed because hecontended that the trial court erred in instructing the juryconcerning the cause of the death. He further claimed that the courtviolated his due process rights.

Analysis

The ruling ofcircuit court was appropriate since is followed the law whichconsider the defendant responsible for the series of events that leadto the death at the crimes scene. The jury was properly instructedconcerning the cause of the murder since the killing by a third partyobjecting the act is a proximate cause.

Conclusion

The trail courtruling was appropriate as it followed the law and did not violate thedefendant’s rights in any way..

Case caption:People v. O’Neil Appellate Court June 14, 1985

Facts

Facts of the case

One morning asStefan Golab was working on a pump production area at Film Recovery,he became dizzy and faint. He moved to the lunchroom in theproduction area where the plant workers saw him tremble and foamingat the mouth. Golab was pronounced dead upon reaching the hospital.Toxicology report indicated that the victim died from acute cyanidepoisoning. Defendants, who were in the top management of the company,did not disclose the condition of the environment Golab was workingin.

Procedural facts

The defendantswere indicted by a Cook County grand jury and charged withinvoluntary manslaughter. The proceedings commenced in circuit courtand continued through a courseof 24-day trial and evidence from 59witnesses. The decision was in the trial judge who found thedefendants guilty.

Issues

Legal issues

The legal issuethat presents itself here is the violation of the Criminal Code of1961

Procedural issues

Did the trialJudge err by pronouncing the defendants guilty of involuntarymanslaughter?

Reasoning

The abovementioned penal code states that an individual is responsible for thedeath of another without lawful justification if he/she engages inactions that result in the death, or he is informed that such actionsresult in a great probability of the death or injury to the person. Aindividual is charged with involuntary manslaughter if he/she isresponsible for killing and individual unintentionally. Theindividual is guilty of his/her lawful or unlawful actions results todeath or great bodily injury on another individual. Reckless actionsis also considered here.

Analysis

The defendantswere in the top management of the corporation and they wereresponsible for the development of company policy or the supervisionemployees. The policies formulated should not ensure safety of theemployees at the workplace at all times from all kinds of harm.However, the employees had no information that the production areahad fumes of cyanide, and its danger to human beings when inhaled.The victim did not put on protective gears which is theresponsibility of the management to ensure that every person whoenters the production area have them on. There was poor ventilationin the production area.

Conclusion

The trial judgewas appropriate in ruling that the defendants were responsible forthe death of the victim.

Case caption:People v. Thomas Trial Court 1978

Facts

Facts of the case

The victim, a19-year-old male catatonic schizophrenic was under treatment in OakHaven when the offense was committed. When the victim rejected thetreatment, the defendant sought permission from the parents todiscipline the victim. The discipline involved removing the pants,tying hands and spanking the victim with a rubber hose. This wasfollowed by improvement in the health of the victim but later startedto deteriorate. The defendant sought permission again to disciplinethe victim and this time round it was severe since it lasted longerand resulting in bruises from the waist to his feet, and bleeding ofthe patient. The victim died later following stomach upset andnausea. The autopsy results indicated that the victim died of traumaresulted by pulmonary edema.

Procedural facts

The decision wasin the trial court which charged the defendant with involuntarymanslaughter. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’sruling.

Issues

Legal issues

The legal issuehere is whether the defendant’s discipline could be the result ofthe victim’s death and if the offence can be treated as seconddegree murder.

Procedural issue

Did theprosecution err in treating the offense as second degree murder?

Did the trialcourt err by presenting evidence of the first beating?

Reasoning

Malice or intentto cause death of an individual can be employed when the offenderactually intended to cause bodily harm or has a conduct that naturalmay lead to death or great harm on the body. This is evident in thiscase. The defendant argued that the court was unable to identify themalice element that presented itself in the incident.

Analysis

The beating thatthe victim was subject was not in any case disciplinary since itresulted to bodily harm that led to deterioration of the victim’shealth. His action led to the death of the victim because the bruiseswere connected with the trauma and tubular necrosis which wereconcluded to be the cause of the death. The defendant’s brutalbeatings are sufficient to establish malice. The evidence of theinitial beating was appropriate presented since strengthened thecharges against the defendant.

Conclusion

Malice element ofsecond degree murder was successfully established and the trial courtdid not err by allowing the evidence of the first beating to beadmitted.

Case caption:Hamilton v. Cameron Hamilton Municipal Court 1996

Facts

Facts of the case

Cameron and hiswife Darlene had argument concerning the discussion on the mattersinvolving their twelve year old son which he was not interested in.During the argument, he told his wife that he would blow her head offfor her to keep quiet. Darlene called her mother after the argumentto inform her about the argument. Police officers were contacted andarrived at the incident. It was reported that the defendantthreatened to shoot his wife. The police confiscated two shotgunsfrom the house.

Procedural facts

The complaintfiled by Darlene indicated that the defendant threatened to fire hiswife with a gun. The municipal court convicted the defendant ofcommission of domestic violence and fined him. The Court of Appealreversed the judgment of the Municipal Court.

Issues

Legal issues

The legal issuehere is whether Cameron committed domestic violence by telling hiswife he would blow her head off to make her be quiet. The Municipalcourt held that the defendant violated R.C. 2919.25(A).

Procedural issues

Did HamiltonMunicipal Court err by ruling that Cameron committed domesticviolence?

Reasoning

The cited penalcode states that an individual is guilty of domestic violence if heor she intentionally resulted or made an attempt to inflict physicalharm to a member of his/her family.

Analysis

The court was unable to find evidence indicating that Cameroninflicted physical harm to his wife or any allegations by his wifethat she was harmed. The evidence produced shows that Cameron onlymade a statement that did not present any violence in it in any way(George F. C., E. Smith C. &amp DeJong C. 2016). Since Darlenetestified that the defendant did not make any move towards thedirection where the shotgun was.

Conclusion

HamiltonMunicipal Court erred in ruling that the defendant committed domesticviolence

Case caption:People v. Allen Superior court of San Francisco 1995

Facts

Facts of the case

On august 7, 1995morning, May SunYoung before started the journey to summer camp totake her daughter her 7-year old daughter, Kirstie stopped to closeher garage door but left the engine running. The defendant, Allen,took the opportunity to get into May’s car and then lock the cardoors. Kirstie who was in the car started to cry. May struggled withAllen to stop him from leaving with the car and was successful. Allenescaped May and neighbors attempted to stop him but he threatenedthem that he had a gun and they left him.

Procedural facts

Allen arraignedin the Superior Court of San Francisco and charged with kidnappingthe daughter who was under the age of 14. The defendant appealed andwas affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Issues

Legal issues

The juryinstruction given concerning this case was CALJIC. No. 952.

Procedural issues

Did the defendant move the victim by a substantial distance?

Did the Superior Court err in convicting Allen of offense ofkidnapping?

Reasoning

According toCALJIC.No. 952, a person is guilty of the crime of kidnapping if heor she unlawfully and with physical force or instill fear in a personbelow 14 years old move the victim for a substantial distance withouthis/her permission. Allen argued that the conviction lacked evidencebecause the least distance requirement was not evident in theincident.

Analysis

Allen argumentwas correct since the distance move during the incident could notmeet the minimum requirement distance referred to as substantialdistance. The distance moved could not allow the defendant commitfurther crime. Despite that the distance moved was short, thebehavior of the defendant at the crime scene was sufficient tojustify the ruling of jury. The displacement of the car with thevictim increased the risk of harm.

Conclusion

The distancetraveled is sufficient to justify the conviction of the defendant ofkidnapping

Case caption:State in the interest of MTS New Jersey Supreme Court 1990

Facts

Facts of the case

MTS, 17 year old,was living with GG’s family with the permission of GG’s mother.On Monday, May 21, 1990 at 1:15 am, MTS entered GG’s room and foundher, 15 years old, heading to the bathroom and on her way back theystarted kissing and eventually having sexual intercourse on the bed.In the process of the intercourse, GG pushed MTS off her and orderher to get out and started crying claiming that MTS took advantage ofher. MTS left and went to sleep on a couch downstairs as usual. Shereported the issue to her mother at about 7:00 a.m. when MTS went outfor jogging. He returned only to find his belongings outside and toldto get off the house.

Procedural facts

MTS was latercharged with second degree sexual assault against N.J.S.A 2C:142(1).The court ruled that the victim had agreed to engage in a session ofkissing and heavy petting with MTS and was not asleep at the time ofintercourse as she claimed. However, she did not consent to theactual sexual act. The defendant appealed and the court of appealaffirmed due to lack of force during the act.

Issues

Legal issues

The legal issueis whether the defendant engaged in sexual penetration using forceN.J.S.A 2C:142(1) is cited in this case.

Procedural issues

Did MTS use forceto engage in sexual penetration?

Did the AppellateCourt err by reversing the judgement of the juvenile court?

Reasoning

The New Jerseylaw states that a person is guilty of second degree sexual assault hehe or she performs the act of sexual penetration using physicalforce. Any act of sexual penetration without the permission of aperson to the particular act of sexual penetration is treated assexual assault crime.

Analysis

GG agreed to thekissing and heavy petting with the defendant. The defendant did notuse any force to have sexual intercourse with the victim but he wasnot given permission to engage in sexual penetration. Therefore, thedefendant was guilty of offense of committing second degree sexualassault.

Conclusion

It wasappropriate to reverse the ruling of the Appellate Court andreinstating the ruling of the juvenile court.

Case caption:State v. Hoying: Court of Common Pleas 2003

Facts

Facts of the case

The defendant andvictim both worked in a local restaurant and he, Hoying, askedCriswell, victim, for a date but she decline and he became angry. Thedefendant persisted, a condition which made Criswell leave her job.The victim sought a civil protection order against the defendant andhe sent several mails to victim against the protection order. Thedefendant continued to send several mails full of threats. Later on,Criswell changed all her details that the defendant could use totrace her. All this events affected the victim psychologically.

Procedural facts

The Court ofCommon Pleas found Allen guilty of stalking and intimidatingCriswell. The defendant appealed and was affirmed by Ohio Court ofAppeal.

Issues

Legal issues

The legal issuesin this case are cited in R.C. 2909.11

Procedural issues

Did the court ofappeal err by convicting the defendant of stalking and intimidatingthe victim

Reasoning

According to thecited law, the law does not allow any person to intentionally engagein actions that make another person believe that the offender willcause them physical harm or affect them psychologically. Any personwho violated this law is guilty of stalking

Analysis

The victimconsidered the emails as threat to her physical safety or that of herfamily member. Criswell was scared all the time. The messages alsoresulted in mental distress since they were sent every week and hetold her that he won’t stop until she complied. Criswell was afraidto the extent of obtaining civil protection order. The trial courtwas able to connect its reasoning concerning passing a maximumsentence since it found out that the defendant had the tendency ofrepeatedly stalking and intimidating the victim. The defendant wasnot cooperative during the court proceedings and this tells moreabout his character.

Conclusion

The ruling of thecourt was appropriate in convicting the defendant of stalking andintimidating the victim.

References

Forsythe, D. P. (2009).&nbspEncyclopedia of human rights: Vol. 5.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

George F. C., E. Smith C. &amp DeJong C. (2016), The AmericanSystem of Criminal Justice, Cengage Learning

George F. C., E. Smith C. &amp DeJong C. (2015), Criminal Justicein America, Cengage Learning

Case Brief Journal

CaseBrief Journal

CaseBrief Journal

CaseCaption: Brown V. State Texas Court of Appeal 1991

Facts

Factsof the case

Theappellant, Alfred Brown, was arguing with James McLean on the eveningof 17th July 1992. The two had earlier on confronted each other.During the earlier confrontation, McLean and his counterparts beatenthe appellant and caused debilitating injury to his right hands.Brown accidentally shot and fatally wounded one of his allies, JosephCaraballo. Brown had acquired the 25-caliber handgun, which shotJoseph Caraballo, for personal protection. The appellant testifiedthat he accidentally shot the victim because he was holding the gunon the left hand, given he was right-handed after Coleman bumped onhim.

ProceduralFacts

TheCourt of Criminal Appeal affirmed the decision of the Court ofAppeals. The defendant was first convicted of murder by the 268thJudicial District Court. The defendant appealed the ruling in theHouston Court of Appeals, and the decision was reversed. The statethen petitioned for review of the ruling in the Court of CriminalAppeals.

Issues

Legalissues

Thelegal issue that presents itself here is whether there was anyviolation of the Section 6.01 (a) of the Texas Penal Code.

Proceduralissues

The268th Judicial District Court err by imposing the sentence the courtdid not grant Brown’s request. The Houston Court of Appeal did noterr by reversing the decision of the Judicial District court, ongrounds of voluntariness of the defendant’s acts.

Reasoning

Thecourt cited Section 6.01 (a) that treats an action as an offense onlyif a person engages in voluntary conduct. In this case, the conductof the actor was found to be involuntary.

Analysis

Thecourt argued that the appellant did not intend to shot the victim.The appellant was bumped on to from behind by someone else whileholding the gun with his left hand, the weaker hand. The appellant,therefore, did not voluntarily shot the victim. The trial court,therefore, ought to have granted the appellant’s request.

Conclusion

Themain issue in the case was whether Brown voluntarily committed theoffense. The Criminal Court of Appeals, Overstreet, J., made a rightdecision to affirm the court of appeals ruling by granting theappellant’s request.

CaseCaption: City of Chicago V. Morales U.S Supreme Court 1999

Facts

Factsof the case

TheChicago City Council had enacted a law (Gang Congregation Ordinance)prohibiting gang members from loitering in the streets. In threeyears of its operation, the police issued several orders ofdispersal, and many gang members were arrested. The city recorded adecline in gang-related homicides during this period. Morales hadbeen charged in three cases. Gang-related homicides first rose byeleven percent before falling by nineteen percent.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the U.S Supreme Court. Morales and other accused werefirst convicted of the offense of loitering in the Circuit Court ofCook County. The accused in the first case moved to dismiss theactions against them. The court successfully granted the motion, andthe ruling was affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court. The secondcase was dismissed, but the Appellate Court granted for leave ofappeal after a petition by the city. In the third case, the AppellateCourt reversed the ruling. The city successfully got the petitions toappeal in all the three case they were consolidated into a singlehearing. The U.S Supreme Court affirmed the ruling.

Issues

Legalissues

Thelegal issue, in this case, is whether there is a violation of thefreedom to loiter for innocent part of liberty as granted by theconstitution. The constitutionality of the ordinance is in question.

Proceduralissues

Didthe trial Circuit Court err in dismissing the cases in question?

Wasthe ruling unusual or was is within the constitution?

Reasoning

Thecourt reasoned that the ordinance was not constitutional. Theordinance extensively covers a significant amount of additionalactivity. There is uncertainty about the scope of additionalcoverage it provides that the ordinance is too vague.

Analysis

Thedecision of the court makes sense in that the ordinance doesinfringes on the freedom of movement or loitering for an innocentpurpose. The ordinance was put in place to prevent gang members fromloitering. However, what is perceived to be loitering by theordinance is not clear, making it vague.

Conclusion

Theordinance might have been a good move, but it was not wellconstructed so as to cover or the loopholes that exist. Thelegislation should be amended to define clearly what is loitering andwhat is not.

Casecaption: Gresham V. Peterson 7Th U.S Circuit Court 2000

Facts

Factsof the case

JimmyGresham being homeless lives on social disability benefits of $417/month. He supplements his income through begging. He begs bothday and night and has never been cited for panhandling under the newordinance. However, he fears being cited for panhandling at night orin case an officer interprets his request of money to be aggressive.

ProceduralFacts

Thedecision is in the U.S Circuit Court. Gresham had challenged theIndianapolis ordinance in the U.S. District Court. The court grantedthe city summary judgment on Gresham’s request for permanentinjunction. The U.S Circuit Court affirmed the ruling.

Issues

Legalissues

Thesubstantive legal issue, in this case, is whether Indiana polisordinance violated the rights granted by the constitution.

Proceduralissues

Didthe District Court err in not granting the request for permanentinjunction?

Didthe US Circuit Court err in affirming the ruling of the DistrictCourt?

Reasoning

TheCourt held that as per the constitution, the Indiana polis ordinancepromoted the substantial interest of the government that would beachieved less effectively in case the regulation is absent. Theordinance is very clear and is limited to only those times andlocations where citizens naturally feel most secure. Therefore, theregulation promotes its legitimate interest.

Analysis

Theruling makes sense the ordinance allows many feasible alternativesfor Gresham to communicate with people at night concerning paragraphd (5). The ordinance directs beggars like Gresham not to make aperson feel dangers as they communicate with him/her.

Conclusion

Thelaw is very clear on aggressive panhandling it prohibits one fromfollowing behind, alongside, or ahead of panhandling aftersolicitation.

Casecaption: Jewel V. State Indiana Court of Appeals 1996

Facts

Factsof the case

BridgetJewell (Barry Jewell’s wife) purchased a home in her maiden namefrom her relatives. Bridget and Barry were experiencing maritaldifficulties, and they initiated dissolution proceedings. Bridgetwanted a divorce and did not want Barry to keep dropping by thehouse. Bridget later resumed a romantic relationship with her formerboyfriend, Jones. Barry was not happy and had occasionally toldpeople of his plans of killing Jones if he did not end therelationship. He even confronted Jones at his workplace, one time.Jewell broke into the house and attacked Jones while they weresleeping, and the board used in the attack was recovered while theknife was missing.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in Indiana Court of Appeals. Barry Jewell was firstconvicted of burglary – class A felony and battery – Class Cfelony after a jury trial. He appealed the ruling, but the IndianaCourt of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the jury trial.

Issues

Legalissues

Thesubstantive issue in front of the court is whether the ruling wascruel the court held that Jewell’s entry into the house wasunauthorized, and, therefore, supported the conviction for burglary.

Proceduralissues

Didthe trial jury err?

Didthe trial jury err by charging Jewell with burglary and battery?

Reasoning

Thecourt cited Ind. Code 354321 that perceives one to be guilty ofburglary if he/she enters another person’s building or structurewith the main objective of committing a felony in the said premise.It is for this reason that the court found him guilty of burglaryhaving gone into the house with the sole purpose of harming Jones.

Analysis

Thecourt’s ruling of the case seems reasonable Bridget had earlier onsaid that she did not want Jewell to come by the house. The act ofentering the house through the window only proves the fact that hisvisit was not authorized.

Conclusion

Inthis case, the sentencing seems appropriate since the evidencebrought forward fully supports the conviction of burglary.

Casecaption: Koppersmith V. State Alabama Court of Appeal 1999.

Facts

Factsof the case

Gregoryand his wife (Cindy) were arguing in their yard. So as to stop theargument, Cindy opted to go into the house, but Gregory stopped herevery time. It is through this act of stopping Cindy, throughphysical confrontation that led to her death. Cindy died as a resultof the injury she got on the skull on the back of her head.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the Alabama Court of Appeal. First, Gregory was chargedwith reckless murder. He appealed and the Alabama Court of Appealreversed and remanded.

Issues

Legalissues

Theissue is whether the offense was as a result of negligence ornegligence, as stipulated in Section 13A.6.3 (a) (1), Ala. Code 1975.

Proceduralissues

Didthe trial court err by treating the offense as reckless murder andsentencing the offender to twenty years?

Didthe court of appeal err by reversing the decision of the trial court?

Reasoning

Whatlaws the court cited Section 13A.6.3 (a) (1), Ala. Code 1975. Thecourt held that the evidence brought before the court gavesubstantive proof that Gregory did not intend to kill his wife. Inhis testimony, he said he had a reflex reaction after being bit byhis wife on the hand, and this made him throw her to the ground. Thecourt believes that indeed he was not aware there was a brick in theyard, on which his wife hit her head.

Analysis

Theruling makes sense this was not a case of recklessness and should betreated as so. The offender on several occasions tried to stop hiswife from entering the house but did not through her down each time,at least not until he was a bit on the hand causing him have a reflexaction.

Conclusion

Indeed,the trial court erred in treating the case as negligence murder, andthe ruling by the appellate court seem appropriate by reversing theruling, and reminding.

Casecaption: Oliver V. State Nevada Supreme Court 1985

Facts

Factsof the case

Onthe night of Oliver’s arrest, one of the officers was pretending tobe intoxicated and slumped himself on the tree while the other twoofficers hide. Oliver came to help the decoy but realized he was notresponding. However, as he turned to walk away, he saw a $ 10 bill inthe decoy’s chest pocket and took it that was when he wasarrested.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the Nevada Supreme Court. He was first convicted ofrobbery in the 8th Judicial District Court. He appealed the ruling tothe Supreme Court, and the court reversed the ruling.

Issues

Legalissues

Thesubstantive legal issue before the court was whether punishment cruelgiven the offender was entrapped into committing the offense. Was itmoral for the officers to entrap the offender into committing anoffence only to arrest him?

Proceduralissues

Didthe Judicial district court err?

Didthe Nevada Supreme Court err by reversing the ruling?

Reasoning

Thecourt held that it was unethical for the officers to entrap theoffender into committing an offence. The offender approached thedecoy with the aim of helping him he did not have larceny in mind.The court believed that the victim did not proceed to check thepockets of the officer but only took the money and started walkingaway.

Analysis

Theruling of the Supreme Court seems sensible the offender was a needyperson and was entrapped into committing the offence. Even though heneeded the money so much, he only saw it when walking away. He didnot proceed to check the pockets of the decoy. To me, he seemsinnocent and someone who respects the rule of law.

Conclusion

Itis not constitutional for the officers to employ extraordinaryinducements to capture criminals. In this case, the officersmanufactured the said crime. The Supreme Court, therefore, made anappropriate ruling by reversing the sentence.

Casecaption: State V. Curley New Mexico Court of Appeal 1997.

Facts

Factsof the case

Thevictim was walking out of the mall when the offender grabbed thepurse she was carrying and ran away. During the incident, the victimwas pushed to one side, and she saw the offender grab her purse. Shewas caught by surprise.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the Court of Appeal. Curley was first convicted in theDistrict Court, of robbery. He appealed the ruling, and the Court ofAppeal reversed the ruling and remanded for trial.

Issues

Legalissues

Thelegal issue, in this case, is whether the offender grabbed the purseby force so that the offence can be treated as robbery.

Proceduralissues

Didthe trial court err by treating the offence as robbery?

Didthe Court of Appeal err by reversing the ruling, and remanding for anew ruling?

Reasoning

Thecourt cited NMSA 1978, Section 30.16.12 (Repl.pamp.1994). The courtfelt that the offender did not intentionally assault the victimphysically. The court felt that the offender used enough force totake the purse from the victim’s hands. The court holds that theshove was as a result of incidental touching because the offender wasdrunk. At the same time, there were no witnesses and the victim alsodid not testify that the shove was part of the robbery.

Analysis

Theruling is not appropriate the fact that the victim was shovedtowards one side should be treated as enough evidence to charge theoffender with robbery, even if the victim failed to testify that itwas part of the robbery.

Conclusion

Theoffender should not be excused just because he was drunk since it isnot clear to what level he was drunk. If it’s true the offender wasdrunk then he shouldn’t have been able to run. The offender shouldbe treated just like any robber who decides to grab a person’shandbag.

Casecaption: State V. Tomaino Ohio Court of Appeal 1991

Facts

Factsof the case

PeterTomaino owns a VIP Video store that sells and rents sexually orientedvideotapes and other materials. Mark (aged 17) managed to rentsuccessfully video tapes on two occasions. In the first occasion, heused his father’s driving license as an identity document. In thesecond occasion, he did not produce any identification document butmanaged to convince the clerk that he had previously rented a videoand that he was qualified to rent the videos.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in Ohio Court of Appeal. First, Peter Tomaino was convictedof distributing harmful matter to juveniles by the Court of CommonPleas. He appealed the ruling to the Court of appeal, and the rulingwas reversed and remanded.

Issues

Legalissues

Thelegal issue, in this case, is whether there was the owner (Peter) wasliable for the actions of his clerk and therefore, ought to becharged with distributing harmful matter to juveniles.

Proceduralissues

Didthe Court of Common Pleas err in its instructions to the jury ratherthan denying the motion for acquittal?

Didthe Court of Appeal err by reversing the ruling?

Reasoning

Thecourt cited R.C. 2907.31 in the ruling. The court held that the ownerof the premise was absent at the time of the transaction. Theappellant was, therefore, did not perform any direct personal actionas defined in the law, R.C. 2907.31.

Analysis

Theruling does not make sense it was the recklessness of the owner ofnot putting up signs that might prompt an underage to enter the shopin the first place. The owner was not available at the time of theoffense, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a role to playgiven he has the greatest authority over the business.

Conclusion

Theruling should not have been reversed since the owner should bear thesame punishment as that of his workers given it was his duty tomonitor his workers.

Casecaption: State V. Stark Washington Court of Appeal 1992

Facts

Factsof the case

CalvinStark tested HIV positive on 25th March 1988. He underwent anextensive counseling, through which he was taught about the risks ofspreading the disease, and the need to inform the partners of hisstatus. Calvin never informed any of the three victims that he waspositive before having unprotected sex with them.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the Washington Court of Appeal. He was convicted on twocounts of assault in the second degree, in the superior court. Heappealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal, but the Court affirmedthe earlier ruling.

Issues

Legalissues

Thelegal issue presenting itself here is whether the offenderintentionally infected the victims with the disease (HIV).

Proceduralissues

Didthe Superior Court err by imposing the sentence and charging theoffender with assault in the second degree?

Didthe Court of Appeal err in affirming the decision of the superiorcourt?

Reasoning

Thecourt cited RCW 9A.36.021. (1) (e) which stipulates that anindividual is guilty in the second degree if the individual exposesor transmits HIV with the intention of inflicting bodily harm. Thecourt reasoned that the individual was aware of what his actionswould do, but remarked that he did not care. The offender waswell-informed having attended extensive counselling.

Analysis

Theruling makes sense the appellant had intended to inflict bodily harmon the victims by engaging in unprotected sex even though he knew hewas positive. He also did not inform the victims of his status beforehaving sexual intercourse with them.

Conclusion

Theruling was appropriate, and the appellant needed to be punishedhaving failed to honor and respect the cease order presented to himearlier.

Casecaption: State V. Ulvinen Minnesota Supreme Court 1981

Facts

Factsof the case

DavidHoffman murdered and dismembered his wife. He dumped the body in thelake, and both he and his mother tried to cover up the evidence. Theoffender had previously told people, among them his mother andcoworker, that he will kill his wife. The mother sat on the couch theentire time the son was dismembering his wife.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the Minnesota Supreme Court. David’s mother (Helen)was first convicted of first-degree murder. Helen appealed theruling, and the Supreme Court reversed the ruling.

Issues

Legalissues

Thelegal issue, in this case, is whether the appellant aided orconspired in the killing of her daughter-in-law.

Proceduralissues

Didthe trial court err by treating the offence as first-degree murder?Was the ruling cruel?

Didthe Supreme Court err by reversing the trial court’s ruling?

Reasoning

TheCourt reasoned that there was no sufficient evidence to prove thatthe actions of the Helen facilitated the murder of herdaughter-in-law. The court cited Minn. Stat. Section 609.05, Subd. 1(1980). The court held that there was no criminal liability to beimposed on Helen since she did not conspire in the killing.

Analysis

Theruling makes sense the appellant only aided in the cover up of themurder but did not, in any way, facilitated the killing. She did notencourage his son to kill his wife nor did she take part in theactual killing of her daughter-in-law.

Conclusion

TheSupreme Court reversal of the trial court’s ruling is appropriatesince the appellant was not the only person who David had told of hisplans to kill his wife. The appellant’s action of keeping quiet wasmore of a personal choice and does not qualify to be a criminal act.

CaseCaption: Young V. State Maryland’s Highest Court of Appeals1985.

Facts

Factsof the case

Younghad previously driven in front of the bank and parked in the rear ofit for a short time. All, this time, the police was watching himevery move. At around 2.00 p.m. he came to the rear of the bank gainand got out of the car. He walked hurriedly towards the bank and uponrealizing the door to the bank was closed he got back to the vehicleand drove away, almost immediately. When the officers stopped him, hedropped his jacket as he was removing it and the officers saw aloaded 22-caliber revolver sticking out of it. The officers alsorecovered other items such as the surgical gloves, black eye patch,blue knit stocking cap, and sunglasses. Young identified himself tothe police as Morris P. Cunningham.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in Maryland’s highest court of appeal first, Young wasconvicted of attempted robbery before the Circuit Court of PrinceGeorge’s County. He was sentenced to 20 years but appealed theruling. Unfortunately, the court of appeal affirmed the ruling of thetrial court.

Issues

Legalissues

Thesubstantive issue, in this case, is whether Young’s acts fall underthe Law’s definition of the elements of offense.

Proceduralissues

Didthe trial court err in treating Young’s acts as elements ofoffense?

Wasthe sentencing unusual?

Reasoning

Thecourt held that the fact that one has thoughts of committing anoffense does not make the person guilty, but the person is guilty ifhe acts on these thoughts. The court further held that the acts ofYoung were sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime.

Analysis

Theruling is sensible Young’s acts truly show that he was going torob the bank. If only he executed his plan before the bank closed,then he would have successfully committed the crime. Previous recordsalso show that he was a very violent person, and had even served ajail term.

Conclusion

Thecourt appropriately interpreted the law by treating the acts of Youngas elements of offense.

Casecaption: US. V. Madoff US. District Court 2009

Facts

Factsof the case

Madoffpromised investors that he was going to invest their funds in abasket of 35- 50 common stocks. Instead, he used investors’ fundsto create several accounts at BLMIS. He withheld information fromregulators and repeatedly lied to SEC.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the U.S. District Court. He was taken to the court afterhe turned himself to the FBI.

Issues

Legalissues

Theissue present here is whether the court should consider the accused’slife expectancy while giving the ruling.

Proceduralissues

Didthe trial court err by sentencing Madoff to 150 years ofimprisonment?

Wasthe ruling cruel?

Reasoning

Thecourt argued that the sentencing was symbolic, and the nature of itssymbolism is important because of three reasons retribution,deterrence, and justice for the victims. The court held that thedegree of the offense required a substantial punishment regardless ofthe life expectancy of the accused.

Analysis

Theruling seems sensible there is no way an individual can be pardonedjust because he/she is old at the time of delivering the judgment.

Conclusion

Eventhough the ruling does not compensate the losses of the victims, itgoes a long way in providing closure to many victims.

Casecaption: State V. Phipps Court of Criminal Appeals 1994

Facts

Factsof the case

DavidPhipps was a soldier and had recently returned home from anassignment in Saudi Arabia. His wife informed him that she had beenliving with another man (Presson) for one, and she wanted to divorceDavid. The neighbors had sounds of a struggle on that day. Theofficer who arrived at the scene found the appellant in the vehicletogether with the body of the victim. The appellant lied to theofficer that he was a Good Samaritan. However, he later confessed tokilling the victim.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the Court of Criminal Appeals the appellant wasconvicted of first-degree murder in the Circuit Court. David appealedthe ruling, and the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remandedfor new trial.

Issues

Legalissues

Theissue is whether post-traumatic stress disorder and depressionqualify to be tools of criminal charge defense.

Proceduralissues

Didthe Circuit Court err by charging the appellant with first-degreemurder?

Wasthe punishment cruel?

Reasoning

TheCourt of Appeal argued that the appellant never relied on insanitydefense or any affirmative defense. The court also argued that theappellant never had the requisite to commit first-degree murder.

Analysis

Theruling doesn’t make sense the evidence substantially establishes abrutal and atrocious homicide. The appellant had the intention andhad premeditated killing Pressson.

Conclusion

Thetrial court’s ruling was appropriate, and the court of appealshouldn’t have reversed it.

Casecaption: State V. K.LR Washington Court of Appeal 1992

Facts

Factsof the case

K.R.Lhad entered Alders house without her permission and chopped her livegoldfish into small pieces. When confronted by the mother, headmitted to committing the offense. He was eight years and two monthsold. K.L.R admitted that he knew it was wrong to do what he did.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling id in Washington Court of Appeal. First, K.R.L was chargedwith residential burglary in the Superior Court. He appealed and theruling was reversed by the court of appeal.

Issues

Legalissues

Thelegal issue, in this case, is whether the appellant met the thresholdof committing the offense he was charged.

Proceduralissues

Didthe superior court err by concluding the K.L.R had the capacity tocommit the crime?

Reasoning

Thecourt cited the definition of residential burglary as defined in RWC9A.52.025. The court also cited RWC 9A.04.05 that speaks of thecapability of children to commit a crime. The court presumed thatK.L.R was incapable of committing a crime

Analysis

Theruling doesn’t make sense the court bought to have considered thefact that the appellant was well aware of the wrongdoing.

Conclusion

Moreevidence of K.L.R’s confessions, of knowing that what he was doingwas wrong, should have been presented to the court by the state.

Casecaption: State V. Cotton New Mexico Court of Appeal 1990.

Facts

Factsof the case

Cottonsexually assaulted his stepdaughter. While awaiting trial in jail, hewrote letters to his wife telling of the plans he had for winning thecase. On one of the letters, he asked his wife to persuade hisstepdaughter not to testify. Unfortunately, the letter never reachedhis wife but instead the officers got hold of it. He composed anotherletter in which he told the wife to forget about the earlierdirectives since he had new plans.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the New Mexico Court of Appeal. He was first convictedcriminal solicitation in the District Court. The New Mexico Court ofAppeal reversed the decision and remanded.

Issues

Legalissues

Thelegal issue in front of the court is whether the appellant solicitedhis wife to intimidate her stepdaughter.

Proceduralissues

Didthe District Court blunder by ruling that the offense of solicitationrequired actual communication?

Reasoning

Thecourt cited section 30.28.3 of the legislature. The court reasonedthat the legislature of New Mexico omits the Model Penal Codesubsection that declares that uncommunicated solicitation is alsotreated as a crime.

Analysis

Theruling makes sense it is not fair to charge someone for solicitationif the actual communication never took place.

Conclusion

Thesolicitation requires actual communication through which oneintimidates or use someone else to intimidate or bribe anotherperson.

Casecaption: State V. Jantzi Oregon Court of Appeal 1982

Facts

Factsof the case

Jantziwas letting out the air of the wheels of the victim’s vehicle. Hehad a pen knife and was aware of what how the knife looked. He had afirm grip on the knife as he was running and hiding from the victim.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the Court of Appeal. He was first convicted in theCircuit Court. He appealed the ruling, and the Court affirmed asmodified, and recommended for resentencing

Issues

Legalissues

Thesubstantive issue is whether the offense was done knowingly orrecklessly.

Proceduralissues

Didthe court err by charging Jantzi with assault in the second degree?

Didthe court of appeal err by modifying the ruling?

Reasoning

Thecourt believed that Jantzi did not intend to stab the victim.However, the person was aware that an injury may occur, andtherefore, he acted knowingly. The court cited the Oregon CriminalCode, which was also based on the New York criminal code (CommentarySection 15.05, New York. Revised Penal Law).

Analysis

Theruling seems reasonable even to me while the appellant was hiding hewas aware of that the pen knife he was holding was a dangerous weaponthat could injure someone.

Conclusion

Thereis a big difference between committing to an offense knowingly andrecklessly.

Casecaption: State V. Damms Wisconsin Court of Appeal 1960

Facts

Factsof the case

Dammspicked his wife and took her to her mom’s house instead of droppingher off to work. The move was intended to resolve the differencesbetween his daughter and her mother. As they drove towards MenomoneeFalls, a heated argument between him and his wife. He pursued hiswife with a pistol.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the Wisconsin Court of Appeal. Damms was first chargedwith first-degree murder. He appealed the ruling, but the court ofappeal affirmed the previous ruling.

Issues

Legalissues

Theissue is whether the impossibility of accomplishment of the murdershould be treated as an offense.

Proceduralissues

Didthe court of appeal err by disregarding Damm’s testimony?

Reasoning

Thecourt cited section 939.32(2), stats, in determining the ruling. Thecourt reasoned that the offender had an intent to commit a crime andthat he expected the gun to fire when he pulled the trigger.

Analysis

Theruling seems sensible given the offender already threatened to killhis wife.

Conclusion

Theoffender did not say why he pulled the trigger if he knew it was notloaded and this is enough reason to disregard his testimony.

Casecaption: Joyce V. City and State N.D. Cal 1994

Facts

Factsof the case

Theprogram (Matrix Program) was established. The programs main objectiveis to address quality of life. The homeless perceived the program tobe targeting them.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the US. District Court. The plaintiffs went to obtain amotion for preliminary injunction against the program.

Issues

Legalissues

Thelegal issue before the District Court is whether the matrix programviolates the human rights protected by the constitution.

Proceduralissues

Didthe District Court blunder by failing to grant the motion forpreliminary injunction against the program?

Reasoning

Thecourt reasoned that the proposed injunction lacks the necessaryspecialty to enforce. Therefore, it would give rise to enforcementproblems sufficiently. The court also reasoned that the legaltheories upon which plaintiffs rely are not plainly applicable to thegrievances sought to be vindicated.

Analysis

Theruling seems sensible the program does not entirely infringe on therights of anybody.

Conclusion

Theruling was appropriate since the plaintiffs did not providesufficient evidence to show any existing constitutional barriers.

Casecaption: Kopersmith V. State Alabama Court of Appeal 1999

Facts

Factsof the case

Terryand his colleagues had concealed weapons. An officer (Martin McLean)was observing the men as they were suspiciously conductingthemselves. After some time he approached them and ordered a searchin which he seized weapons.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the court of appeal the appellant had been convicted ofcarrying a concealed weapon. He appealed the ruling, but the court ofappealed affirmed the ruling.

Issues

Legalissues

Thesubstantive issue is whether the officer observed sufficiently toestablish probable cause of arrest. Was the seizing done within themeaning of the Fourth Amendment?

Proceduralissues

Didthe court of appeal err by affirming the ruling of the trial court?

Reasoning

Thecourt cited the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that it wasacceptable to bring the items seized from the appellant as evidenceagainst him. The court believed that the acts of the frisking by theofficer fell within the law.

Analysis

Theruling is sensible the fact that the guns were recovered is evidenceenough to prove that the victims were anticipating something. It wasappropriate for the officer to frisk them so as to neutralize thedanger.

Conclusion

Itis within the constitution for an officer to conduct a search whenhe/she believes that a crime has been committed, is still beingcommitted or will be committed.

Casecaption: Name of the case name of the court date

Facts

Factsof the case

Goetzpossessed an unlicensed gun. During the incident, he was shooting thefour victims to cause them severe injury. The four victims hadapproached him with the intention of robbing him.

ProceduralFacts

Theruling is in the New York Court of Appeal. The appellant was firstindicted for possession of a weapon, assault, attempted murder, andrecklessness engagement. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, andthe people appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed, andfurther reinstated all the counts of the indictment.

Issues

Legalissues

Theissue is whether the force used by Goetz was justifiable for defense.

Proceduralissues

Didthe court of appeal err by reversing the order?

Reasoning

Thecourt cited Penal Law Section 35.15 which grants permission for oneto use force under certain circumstances. In citing this section, thecourt held that the legislature retained reasonableness requirementto avoid giving license to such actions. The court directed the juryto consider past experiences in weighing the defendant’s actions.

Analysis

Theruling is reasonable the shooting was reasonable, however, hispossession of an illegal weapon was his offense.

Conclusion

Thepeople are authorized to use force under various circumstances whenthe person believes that the other attacker is using or is about touse deadly physical force, and when the person believes the attackerwill commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery.

Reference

Mason,Alpheus Thomas, and Grier Stephenson.&nbspAmericanconstitutional law: introductory essays and selected cases.Routledge, 2015.