Cases

Question 1

Owens v. State

Answer 1

Facts: Owens (appellant) was sitting in his car asleep in the driveway of a house. There were two empty cans of beer, an open can between his legs, and alcohol on his breath.
Rule: If the evidence points to one thing being more likely than not, the conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence.

Question 2

State v. Ragland

Answer 2

Facts: Judge did not inform jury of the power to nullify
Rule: The power of a jury to nullify the law is not essential to a criminal defendant’s right to trial by jury

Question 3

United States v. Brewer

Answer 3

Facts: 6 million dollar scam done by elderly couple
Rule: Deterrence should be considered, but general and specific should be taken into account

Takeaway: Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, a sentencing judge should consider various factors, including (1) the nature of the crime and the characteristics of the individual defendant; (2) proportionality of the gravity of the offense and the punishment; (3) whether the punishment will effectively deter both the defendant and the general public from committing the offense in the future; (4) the need to protect the public from the defendant’s potential future crimes; and (5) effective educational, vocational, or medical rehabilitation of the defendant.

Question 4

United States v. Madoff

Answer 4

Facts: Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme ruined the life of essentially all involved with billions in losses. This is the sentencing for that crime. He attempted to present mitigating factors to no avail.
Rule: In determining an appropriate sentence for a federal crime, a sentencing judge may take into account whether the punishment under consideration constitutes sufficient retribution for the gravity of the defendant’s actions.

Question 5

United States v. Gementera

Answer 5

Facts: Sandwich board for mail fraud
Rule: Conditions of supervised release, including those that cause shame or embarrassment, imposed upon offenders by a district court do not violate the Sentencing Reform Act if they are reasonably related to the statutory purposes of deterrence, protection of the public, and the legitimate purpose of rehabilitation.

Question 6

Street v. State

Answer 6

Facts: Taxi driver keeps lady in car for not having the right amount of money
Rule: If the judge has exercised reasonable discretion and the punishment is not cruel and unusual

Question 7

Rogers v. Tennessee

Answer 7

Facts: At the time of this case, Tennessee followed the common law rule under which a defendant could not be convicted of murder if his victim did not die within a year and a day following the defendant’s act. Rogers (defendant) stabbed Bowdery, who died fifteen months later from complications resulting from the attack.
Rule: Retroactive application by the judiciary of a change in the common law of crimes does not violate either the Ex Post Facto or Due Process Clause unless the application is “unexpected and indefensible.”

Question 8

Lewis v. Superior Court

Answer 8

Rule: A court can look to the common law meaning of statutory terms to determine legislative intent

Question 9

City of Chicago v. Morales

Question 10

State v. Utter

Answer 10

Facts: Son stabbed by father
Rule: A defendant’s act occurring during an unconscious or automatistic state is not a basis for criminal liability.

Question 11

Commonwealth v. Pestinikas

Answer 11

Facts: Mistreatment of patient, taking $30,000 in payment for no care.
Rule: A failure to perform a duty imposed by a private contract may be the basis for a criminal charge.

Question 12

State v. Davis

Answer 12

Facts: Father does not stop son from sexually assaulting family friend.
Rule: A bystander present during a crime can be found criminally liable as a principal perpetrator if the bystander is found to have contributed to the crime by facilitating or encouraging the direct perpetrator’s actions.

Question 13

Cunningham

Answer 13

Facts: gham Case
Man wants to remove gas meter in order to get money, but instead, the gas escapes and causes the people in the building to get sick. So, he is charged with an endangerment statute.
Rule: they are saying that he must be acting with some sort of consciousness. They need to be aware that their actions could cause that sort of harm and choose to ignore it.

Question 14

Young v. State

Answer 14

Facts: Child abuse case
Rule: The trial court erred in the initial jury instructions because they relied on the definition for technical malice. They should have utilized the common law statute for actual malice or malice in fact

Question 15

United States v. Bailey

Answer 15

Facts: prison escape case, argue that the conditions in the prison made it to where their only option was to escape.
Rule: All they had to have done is knowingly left the institution without any authority.

Question 16

Rehaif v. United States

Answer 16

Facts: Hamid Rehaif (defendant) entered the United States on a student visa, but he earned poor grades. The university expelled Rehaif and said he would lose his immigration status unless he attended a different university or left the country. Rehaif did neither, remaining in the country illegally. Then Rehaif shot two guns at a firing range.
Rule: Courts apply scienter requirements to each statutory element of a crime.

Question 17

United States v. Jewell

Answer 17

Facts: Jewell was convicted of knowingly transporting 110 pounds of marijuana worth $6,250 in a secret compartment between the trunk and the rear seat of an automobile
Rule: “Knowingly” includes positive knowledge as well as a defendant’s awareness of the high probability of an illegal act but purposely fails to investigate the presence of the illegal act in order to remain ignorant.

Question 18

State v. Olsen

Answer 18

Facts: Tractor driver charged with second-degree manslaughter. Looked both ways
Rule: A person acts in reckless disregard of a substantial risk only if he is actually aware of the substantial risk he has created.

Question 19

Staples v. United States

Answer 19

Facts: Harold Staples (defendant) possessed a semiautomatic rifle that was manufactured with a metal piece preventing modification for automatic firing. However, the metal piece had been filed down and the rifle modified.
Rule: Federal criminal statutes are construed to include a mens rea requirement absent clear congressional intent to the contrary.

Question 20

People v. Weiss

Answer 20

Facts: Kidnapping of Lindbergh baby, men acted under what they believed was authority of the law
Rule: In New York, a defendant is permitted to prove that he believed he was acting under good faith and with authority as a defense to a charge of kidnapping. This does not, however, mean the jury will necessarily believe it, this just allows it to be presented.

Question 21

People v. Marrero

Answer 21

Facts: federal corrections officer misunderstood statute.
Rule: If you violate a statute and want to use mistake, you would need to show that the statute relied on actually permitted the conduct in question and was later found to be erroneous. Otherwise, the violator may not raise a good faith mistaken belief regarding the meaning of the law as a defense.

Question 22

Sexton

Answer 22

Facts: Gun case where he believed it was not loaded
Rule: A defendant’s mistake of fact relates to whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the culpable mental state required to establish liability for the charged offense.

Question 23

Navarro

Answer 23

The problem has to do with the jury instructions: the trial court said you had to look at reasonableness of the mistake, but the reality is you just need to look at whether or not it was a good faith mistake. Subjective. Objective standard: was it reasonably held, and was it genuinely held in good faith that it was a mistake.