Hull Lothian Deal case brief

Hull Lothian Deal case brief summary
(1948)

FACTS
-US Sec of State and the UK broker a deal to trade ships for army bases, but made it look like it wasn’t a quid pro quo.
-They couldn’t break international law (the US was at peace with the UK’s enemies and thus, could not sell it warships).
-They argued that belligerents were estopped from raising questions about their possible breaking of the Hague Convention.

(This is not a treaty because the executive branch can not make a treaty itself.)

ISSUE?
Was the US bound since this wasn't sent to the Senate? 
-Yes, even if the agreement is illegal under US law, the US is still bound.
See Article 46 of the Vienna Convention .

ANALYSIS:
How to know the difference in an executive agreement and a treaty:
-Treaty—requires implementation in American law.
-This was an executive agreement. (President power is plenary).
-Executive agreements can be secret if they involve national security. 
-You just have to inform the intelligence committees on in both houses of the legislature.



---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

The Golder Case case brief

The Golder Case (case brief summary)
(European Court of Human Rights, 1975)

FACTS:
-Prisoner in Great Britain accused in a riot.
-He attempted to contact his legislator by mail to explain his wrongful accusation, but the letter was
not allowed to leave the prison.
-It came to light that he hadn’t been a part of the riot. Although never charged, his prison record reflected his being on the list.
-He attempted to petition the Secretary of State to request a transfer and to request he be allowed to contact a civil lawyer.
-The prison also stopped this letter.
-The prisoner brought a cause of action for violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which the UK had signed.

HOLDING 1: The prison violated the treaty b/c Article 6, sec. 1 said “everyone
is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable amount of time.”

ANALYSIS (Holding 1):
-The right to access constitutes an inherent element of Art 6, §1.
-It was not for the prison or Secretary to decide on the prisoner’s possible case against the prison.

HOLDING 2: The prison violated Article 8, §§1 and 2 that “everyone has a right to respect for…his correspondence” and “there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right.

ANALYSIS (Holding 2):
-Impeding correspondence is interference.
-Court looked to express sources (was more objective)

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

People v. Unger case brief

People v. Unger case brief summary
362 N.E.2d 319

SYNOPSIS: The State appealed the judgment of the Appellate Court for the Third District (Illinois), which reversed defendant's conviction for escape, holding that the trial court committed reversible error in instructing the jury that it had to disregard the reasons given for defendant's escape.

FACTS:
-Defendant was charged with escape.
-At trial, defendant testified that he had been threatened by a fellow inmate.
-The inmate brandished a knife in an attempt to force defendant to engage in homosexual activities. -Defendant was subsequently transferred to an honor farm and was assaulted and sexually molested by three inmates.
-Five days after the assault, defendant was threatened because it was believed that defendant reported the assault to authorities.
-Defendant claimed he left the honor farm to save his life and planned to return once he found someone that could help him.
-The trial court instructed the jury to disregard defendant's reasons for escape and refused to instruct the jury on the statutory defenses of compulsion and necessity.
-Defendant was convicted, and he appealed.
-The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the instruction was reversible error.
-The State appealed.

HOLDING:
The court held that defendant was entitled to submit his defense of necessity to the jury. The appellate court's judgment was affirmed.

RULES:
-The defense of necessity is available to prison escape situations where the prisoner is choosing to break the law to avoid a greater evil.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the appellate court's judgment reversing defendant's conviction for escape and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

United States v. Contento-Pachon case brief

U.S. v. Contento-Pachon case brief summary
723 F.2d 691


SYNOPSIS: Defendant challenged a judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which convicted defendant of unlawful possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance.

FACTS:
-Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. -Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in excluding evidence of duress and necessity defenses.
-On appeal, the court reversed the decision of the district court.

HOLDING:
The court ruled that defendant had presented sufficient evidence of duress to present a triable issue of fact.

ANALYSIS:
-The court concluded that defendant agreed to attempt to smuggle the cocaine into the United States in his body under a well-grounded fear of immediate harm to his family with no opportunity to escape, and that a triable issue existed as to whether defendant took the opportunity to escape by submitting to authorities at the first reasonable opportunity.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the conviction of defendant. The court ruled that defendant had presented sufficient evidence of duress to present a triable issue of fact, and the district court erred in excluding such evidence.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Nelson v. State case brief

Nelson v. State case brief summary
597 P.2d 977

SYNOPSIS: Defendant sought review of a decision of the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District that affirmed his conviction, by a trial court, for reckless destruction of personal property in violation of Alaska Stat. § 11.20.515(b), and joyriding in violation of Alaska Stat. § 28.35.010. The trial court declined to give the requested instruction on the defense of necessity.

FACTS:
-Defendant's truck became bogged down in a marshy area off a highway.
-After unsuccessfully attempting to free the truck and after waiting hours for assistance, defendant and his companions took a front-end loader and a dump truck from a highway department yard where heavy equipment was parked.
-While being used by defendant, both the dump truck and the front-end loader sustained considerable damage.

ISSUE:
The sole question on appeal, was whether the jury was properly instructed on the defense of necessity.

ARGUMENT:
Defendant argued that the instruction given was erroneous because it allowed the jury to apply an "objective, after-the-fact" test of need and emergency, rather than a "subjective, reasonable man" test.

HOLDING:
The court found, however, that any error in the wording of the instruction was harmless because defendant failed to make out a case for the necessity defense, which could be raised only if defendant's actions although violative of the law, were necessary to prevent an even greater harm.

ANALYSIS:
Here, the "greater harm," was potential damage to defendant's truck and the court found no justification for the appropriation of sophisticated and expensive equipment.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed defendant's convictions for reckless destruction of personal property and for joyriding.

---
Interested in learning how to get the TOP GRADES and RANK in your law school classes? Want to learn how to literally OWN your competition, and WIN at law school? Interested in transferring to a top law school?

People v. Ceballos case brief

People v. Ceballos case brief summary
12 Cal. 3d 470

SYNOPSIS: Defendant appealed his conviction by the Superior Court of Marin County (California) for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 245.

FACTS:
-Defendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 245 when a trap gun mounted in his garage discharged a bullet and hit a teenager in the face.
-Defendant contended that the teen was a burglar and he was lawfully defending his property.
-He further contended that he had the right to do indirectly what he could have done directly.

HOLDING:
The appellate court affirmed his conviction holding that the character and manner of the alleged burglary did not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm and therefore there was no cause for the use of deadly force.

ANALYSIS:
-Deadly force could not be used solely for the protection of property.
-The court discouraged defendant's use of a trap gun to protect his property saying that deadly mechanical devices are without mercy and discretion.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed defendant's conviction for assault with a deadly weapon holding that the character and manner of the alleged burglary did not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm and therefore there was no cause for the use of deadly force.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

People v. Kurr case brief

People v. Kurr case brief summary
253 Mich. App. 317

SYNOPSIS: Defendant was convicted in the Kalamazoo Circuit Court (Michigan) of voluntary manslaughter. She challenged her conviction.

OVERVIEW:
-Defendant claimed that she stabbed the victim, her boyfriend, in defense of her unborn children.
-The trial court disallowed a defense of others instruction, noting that the fetuses were not viable. Defendant claimed that she was denied her right to present a defense.
-The court agreed and reversed and remanded.

HOLDING:
The court held that, in Michigan, the defense of others extended to the protection of a nonviable fetus from an assault against the mother.

ANALYSIS:
-The court emphasized that the defense was available solely in this context, and the court based its decision on the public policy as stated in the Fetal Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.90a et seq.
-The court further held that a mother, under certain circumstances, was entitled to use deadly force to protect her fetus, even if she did not fear for her own life.
-Because the trial court did not allow defendant the defense of others instruction, defendant was deprived of her right to present a defense pursuant to Mich. Const. art. I, § 13 and U.S. Constitution: VI, XIV.
-Thus, a new trial was required.

OUTCOME: The court reversed defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

State v. Wanrow case brief

State v. Wanrow case brief summary
88 Wn.2d 221

SYNOPSIS: Appellant state challenged a decision of the Court of Appeals (Washington), which reversed respondent's murder and assault convictions due to allegedly improper admission of a recording of an emergency phone call to the police department.

FACTS:
-The victim, Wesler, had been suspected of molesting the children of Ms. Hooper, a friend of the Defendant, among others in the neighborhood.
-Ms. Hooper attempted to receive police assistance, however they refused to arrest Wesler until Monday morning (when Ms. Hooper was instructed to go to the police station to get a warrant).
-Ms. Hooper therefore asked the Defendant and some other adults to spend the weekend at her home for added protection.
-At around 5:00 a.m. on the date in question, one of the adults, Chuck Michel, went to Wesler’s house to bring him to Ms. Hooper’s residence to straighten things out.
-Wesler entered the house while Michel and another man, David Kelly, remained outside.
-Wesler, who was visibly intoxicated, refused to leave when asked to do so. A good deal of shouting and confusion soon arose.
-Eventually, the Defendant went to the front door to enlist the aid of Chuck Michel and when she turned to reenter the living room, Wesler was standing directly behind her.
-Since he was startled by this situation, the Defendant shot Wesler in what amounted to a reflex action.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
-Respondent was convicted of murder.
-The court of appeals reversed, holding that a tape recording of an emergency phone call to the police had been erroneously admitted.
-The supreme court affirmed.

HOLDING:
The supreme court held that Wash. Rev. Code §§ 9.73.030(1) and § 9.73.050, prohibiting the secret recording of private communications and the use of those recordings in judicial proceedings, clearly applied to incoming calls to a police station.

ANALYSIS:
-The court also concluded that Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.090(1) permitted the recording of emergency calls by police departments only for the purpose of verifying emergency information.
-In addition, the trial court's self-defense instruction was prejudicial to respondent.
-First, the instruction improperly precluded consideration of circumstances known to respondent substantially before the killing.
-Second, the instruction was gender-biased and violated respondent's equal protection rights, since it suggested consideration of a male altercation, not consideration of the female appellee's perceptions when she faced a large intoxicated male.

OUTCOME: Reversal of convictions affirmed, since statutes prohibiting use of recorded private communications in judicial proceedings clearly applied to emergency phone call to police. Also, trial court's self-defense instruction was prejudicial, as it was gender-biased and violated female respondent's equal protection rights.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

People v. Goetz case brief

People v. Goetz case brief summary
68 N.Y.2d 96

SYNOPSIS: Prosecutor appealed from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (New York), which affirmed the dismissal of an indictment charging criminal defendant with attempted murder, assault, and criminal possession of a weapon, with leave to resubmit the charges to another Grand Jury.

FACTS: A Grand Jury indicted defendant on attempted murder, assault, and criminal possession of a weapon for having shot and wounded four youths on a subway train after one or two of the youths approached him and asked for money. The lower courts, concluding that the prosecutor's charge to the Grand Jury on the defense of justification was erroneous, dismissed the charges.

HOLDING:
The reviewing court held that although N. Y. Penal Law § 35.15, and its predecessors, never required that an actor's belief as to the intention of another person to inflict serious injury be correct in order for the use of deadly force to be justified, the provisions had uniformly required that the belief comport with an objective notion of reasonableness.

ANALYSIS:
The court concluded that although the prosecutor's instructions were not as complete as the court's charge on justification should be, they sufficiently apprised the Grand Jury of the defense.

RULES:
A person may use deadly force in self-defense if they reasonably believe that such force is necessary to protect oneself.

OUTCOME: Dismissal of the indictment was reversed, and the indictment reinstated because the prosecutor sufficiently apprised the Grand Jury of the requirements of the defense of justification to allow it to intelligently decide that there was sufficient evidence tending to disprove justification and necessitating a trial.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

United States v. Peterson case brief

United States v. Peterson case brief summary
483 F.2d 1222

SYNOPSIS: Appeal by defendant from a sentence of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia following a jury conviction for manslaughter in an altercation that resulted in a fatal shooting.

FACTS: Defendant appealed his conviction of manslaughter, claiming the trial court erred in instructing the jury to consider whether he was the aggressor in the altercation and whether he was justified in using deadly force despite his failure to retreat. Defendant shot and killed a man whom he accosted removing parts from defendant's junked car. An altercation ensued and defendant went into his home and returned with a loaded gun. The victim advanced with a lug wrench when he was shot. Defendant contended he was not required to retreat because he was within the curtilage of his dwelling. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the conviction.

HOLDING:
The court held the right of self-defense was unavailable to an aggressor, and the no-retreat rule if attacked at home was available only to those who were without fault in causing the conflict.

RULES:
Self-defense is not an available defense to either (1) one who provokes conflict or is the aggressor in it or (2) one who does not retreat if he can safely do so.

OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed on the grounds that the right of self-defense was unavailable to an aggressor, and the "no retreat in the home rule" was also unavailable to one who caused the conflict.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Patterson v. New York case brief

Patterson v. New York case brief summary
432 U.S. 197
SYNOPSIS: Defendant sought certiorari review of a judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York, which affirmed his trial court murder conviction and which held that New York's murder statute, N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25 (1975), was consistent with due process.

FACTS: Defendant was charged with second-degree murder under N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25 (1975) for killing his estranged wife's friend. After defendant was convicted of murder, he appealed the verdict on the basis that the need to prove the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

HOLDING:
Affirming the appeals court and the trial court, the Court held that there was no violation of defendant's due process rights.

ANALYSIS:
Defendant had the burden of proving the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance by a preponderance of the evidence. Under prior cases, this was not a constitutional violation. The Court concluded first that facts constituting a crime had to be established by the State beyond a reasonable doubt, based on all the evidence including the evidence of defendant's mental state. Then, the State was permitted to refuse to sustain the affirmative defense of insanity, or in this case emotional disturbance, unless defendant established the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

OUTCOME: The Court affirmed the judgment.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Diamond v. Oreamuno case brief

Diamond v. Oreamuno case brief summary
24 N.Y.2d 494

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant corporate officers appealed a judgment from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (New York), which modified and affirmed a judgment of the trial court that denied their motion to dismiss a derivative complaint.

OVERVIEW: On appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss a derivative complaint as insufficient on its face, the question certified was whether defendant corporate officers could be held accountable to their corporation for gains realized by them from transactions in the company's stock as a result of their use of material inside information. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of defendants' motion to dismiss.

HOLDING:
The court held that a person who acquired special knowledge by virtue of a fiduciary relationship with another was not free to exploit that knowledge for his own personal benefit but had to account to his principal for any profits derived therefrom.

ANALYSIS:
-An allegation of corporate damages was not required.
-In view of the practical difficulties inherent in an action under federal law, the desirability of creating an effective common-law remedy through the medium of the derivative action brought in the name of the corporation was manifest.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Pacific Investment Co. LLC v. Mayer Brown LLP case brief

Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co. LLC v. Mayer Brown LLP case brief summary
603 F.3d 144

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff investors appealed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's dismissal of their 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, claims against defendants, a law firm and one of its attorneys, arguing the alleged false statements did not have to be attributed to defendants when disseminated, and the "scheme" rendered the public disclosures misleading and thus distinguishable from Stoneridge.

HOLDING: Defendants, as "secondary actors," could only be held liable for false statements in a private securities fraud action if the statements were attributed to them when the statements were disseminated.

ANALYSIS:
A "creator" standard, that would hold a defendant liable for creating a false statement that investors relied on, regardless of whether that statement was attributed to the defendant at the time of dissemination, was rejected as being indistinguishable from the rejected "substantial participation" test. A secondary actor was not liable for merely assisting in drafting and filing allegedly false statements. None of the alleged statements were attributed to defendants, and the mere mention of the firm's representation could not be considered an "articulated statement" by defendants adopting the company's statements as their own. Absent such attribution, no reliance could be shown. The fact that the sham transactions (or "scheme") allegedly facilitated by defendants rendered the company's public financial disclosures false or misleading did not materially distinguish the case from Stoneridge. Since no primary violation was stated, the § 78t(a) controlling person claims necessarily failed.

OUTCOME: The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Gallagher v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. case brief

Gallagher v. Abbott Labs. case brief summary
269 F.3d 806

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs appealed from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissing their claims under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.S. § 78j(b), and the Securities Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

OVERVIEW: Plaintiffs contended that defendant committed fraud by deferring public revelation that it was engaged with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in settlement talks regarding deficiencies the FDA found in the defendant's manufacturing quality control. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal.

HOLDING:
The appellate court found that plaintiffs' claims were defeated by their inability to identify any false statement, or any truthful statement made misleading by the omission of news about the FDA's demands made of the defendant to correct deficiencies found in its manufacturing quality control. Specifically, the appeals court found the plaintiffs had not met the requirements for pleading fraud.

OUTCOME: The district court's judgment was affirmed dismissing plaintiff's Rule 10b-5 class action against defendant, drug manufacturer, concerning defendant's public disclosure that it was engaged in settlement talks with the FDA regarding deficiencies in its manufacturing quality control.  

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Revlon, Inc. v. Macandrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. case brief

Revlon, Inc. v. Macandrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc. case brief summary
506 A.2d 173

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant directors appealed the grant of a preliminary injunction to plaintiff shareholders from the Court of Chancery, New Castle (Delaware), which held that defendants had breached their duty of care in making concessions during a corporate auction during a takeover.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff shareholders brought an action against defendant directors due to irregularities of a corporate auction. Essentially, plaintiffs moved for an injunction to bar a third-party corporation from engaging in deals with defendants in the form of options, the sale of assets, and exclusive dealing provisions. The trial court granted the injunction on the grounds that defendants had breached their duty of care by entering into such transactions, thus ending an active auction for the company. Essentially, the breach occurred because defendants made concessions to the third-party corporation, rather than maximizing the sale price of the company for the stockholders' benefit. On appeal, defendants claimed that they did not breach the business judgment rule.

HOLDING:
The supreme court affirmed the trial court, holding that defendants allowed considerations other than maximizing shareholder profit to affect their judgment. Accordingly, the injunction was upheld.

OUTCOME: The supreme court affirmed the trial court's grant of a preliminary injunction where defendant directors did not act in the shareholders' best interest in ending a corporate auction. This decision amounted to a breach of the business judgment rule.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Quickturn Design Systems. v. Shapiro case brief

Quickturn Design Systems. v. Shapiro case brief summary
721 A.2d 1281

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant corporation challenged a ruling by the Court of Chancery, New Castle County (Delaware), favoring appellee hostile bidder, and which declared appellant's amended rights plan invalid, which plan included a delayed redemptive provision. Appellant contended that the provision was proper.

OVERVIEW: Appellee hostile bidder sought a declaratory judgment that appellant corporation's adopted takeover defenses were invalid, and sought an injunction requiring appellant's board to dismantle those defenses. In response to a take-over bid initiated by appellee, appellant board had voted to amend its by-laws pertaining to the requirements and time for holding any special meeting requested by shareholders. The board also amended appellant's shareholder plan and replaced it with a deferred redemption provision. The lower court found that the amended by-law was valid, but that the deferred redemption provision was invalid. Appellant challenged the ruling.

HOLDING:
The court affirmed, holding that the delayed redemption provision was invalid under 8 Del. Laws § 141(a), because it prevented a newly elected board of directors from completely discharging its fundamental management duties to the corporation and its stockholders for six months.

ANALYSIS:
The provision improperly and illegally restricted the board's exercise of fiduciary duties on matters of management policy, including the ability to negotiate a possible sale of the corporation, which was a matter of fundamental importance to shareholders.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of appellee hostile bidder, that the deferred redemption provision enacted by appellant corporation was invalid. The court found that the provision restricted appellant board's exercise of its fiduciary duties and curbed its statutory right to manage and direct the affairs of the business.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design Systems case brief

Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design Systems case brief summary
728 A.2d 25

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff hostile bidder sought a declaratory judgment that defendant target company's newly adopted takeover defenses were invalid and an injunction that required defendant's board to dismantle those defenses. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied, and both parties submitted briefs.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff hostile bidder sought a declaratory judgment against defendant target company and injunctive relief, challenging the validity of two defensive measures defendant adopted in response to plaintiff's hostile takeover bid. The effect of the by-law amendment would have been to delay a shareholder-called special meeting for at least three months and the effect of the deferred redemption plan (DRP) would have been to delay the ability of a newly-elected plaintiff-nominated board to redeem the poison pill for six months and thus the combined effect of the two defenses would be to delay acquisition for at least nine months.

HOLDING:
The court ordered that final judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants finding that the DRP was invalid on fiduciary duty grounds, but that judgment be entered in favor of defendants against plaintiffs with respect to the by-law amendment because it was valid.

OUTCOME: The court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff hostile bidder and against defendant target company and declared that the deferred redemption plan defense employed by defendant was invalid on fiduciary duty grounds, but that the by-law amendment governing timing of special stockholders meetings was valid.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Garnett v. State case brief

Garnett v. State case brief summary
332 Md. 571

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Maryland) convicted defendant for second-degree rape of a victim in violation of Md. Code Ann. art. 27, § 463(1957, 1992 repl. vol.) and excluded as immaterial evidence that defendant was told the victim was at the age of consent. Defendant appealed.

OVERVIEW:
-Defendant was a 20-year old young retarded male who previously met the victim, who was 13 years old, and talked with her occasionally by telephone.
-He approached the victim's house, and she opened her bedroom window and directed him to use a ladder to climb up the window.
-The two talked, engaged in sexual intercourse, and remained in the bedroom for more than seven hours before defendant departed therefrom.
-Defendant alleged that the victim previously represented that she was 16 years old and that he had acted with such belief, and there was no mens rea and reasonable mistake of fact; the state alleged that Md. Code Ann. art. 27, § 463(a)(3) was a strict liability offense.

HOLDING:
The court held (1) the second degree rape statute, § 463(a)(3), was a strict liability offense that did not require the state to prove mens rea; (2) as such, defendant was guilty of the second degree rape by engaging in sexual intercourse with the victim, who was under fourteen years of age and four years his junior; and (3) the mistake-of-age defense was not allowable under § 463(a)(3), which made no reference to defendant's knowledge, belief, or other state of mind.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment of conviction because defendant could not make a mistake of fact defense to a strict liability offense.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

People v. Wilhelm case brief

People v. Wilhelm case brief summary
190 Mich. App. 574

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed a judgment from the trial court (Michigan), which entered judgment on a jury verdict that convicted defendant of third degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520d(1)(b) (Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.788(4)(1)(b)). Defendant received a sentence of three years and nine months to 10 years' imprisonment.

OVERVIEW:
-Wilhelm (D) was at a bar where he observed the victim lift her shirt for her two male companions. -Wilhelm also saw that she allowed one of her companions to touch her breasts.
-Later that night, the victim went home with him and they engaged in sexual intercourse, which she later claimed was nonconsensual.
-Wilhelm was subsequently convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.
-At trial, Wilhelm sought to introduce evidence of the victim’s public behavior at the bar.
-The prosecutor moved to exclude the evidence, arguing that the state’s rape shield statute prohibited evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct with others.
-After defendant was charged with first degree criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping, a jury convicted defendant of third degree criminal sexual conduct.
-The court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence.

HOLDING:
Where the victim testified that penetration, rather than sexual contact, occurred, and where defendant testified that consensual sexual contact and penetration had occurred, the trial court properly denied defendant's request to instruct the jury regarding second degree criminal sexual contact.

ANALYSIS:
-The trial court also did not err in prohibiting defendant from introducing certain testimony concerning alleged sexual acts of the victim directed toward two other men in a bar that defendant claimed to have observed. Defendant had failed to comply with the notice requirement of the rape-shield statute, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520j (Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.788(10)).
-The public nature of the victim's alleged acts did not remove those acts from the protection of the rape-shield statute.
-Moreover, although defendant observed the victim's alleged conduct with third parties, it was not relevant to the issue whether she consented to sexual intercourse with defendant later that evening.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for third degree criminal sexual conduct.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

State v. Herndon case brief

State v. Herndon case brief summary
145 Wis. 2d 91

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant sought review of the decision of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County (Wisconsin), which denied defendant's right to cross-examine juvenile complaining witness about prior arrests for prostitution, and which convicted defendant of third-degree sexual assault, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 940.225(3).

OVERVIEW:
-Defendant claimed that the juvenile propositioned him.
-The juvenile accused defendant of rape.
-At the trial, defendant was denied the right to cross-examine the juvenile on her prior arrests for prostitution, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 972.11(2), the rape shield law.
-The trial court convicted defendant of third-degree sexual assault pursuant to § 940.225(3) and sentenced defendant to four years incarceration to be served consecutively with the term he was serving as result of parole revocation.

HOLDING:
On defendant's appeal, the court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the case to the trial court with directions.

ANALYSIS:
The court determined that U.S. Const. amend. VI and Wis. Const. art. I, § 7 guarantee a defendant the right to confront adverse witnesses, that Wis. Stat. 972.11(2) provided only limited exceptions to the rape shield law, that the absolution nature of the rape shield law violated defendant's right to confrontation because it precluded the balancing test mandated in Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974), and that, therefore, § 972.11(2)(c), which precluded admission or reference to evidence unless expressly permitted under other sections, was unconstitutional.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the decision of the trial court, which had denied defendant's right to cross-examine juvenile complaining witness and had convicted defendant of sexual assault. The court ruled that the rape shield law unconstitutionally denied defendant his right to confrontation. The court remanded the action to the trial court with directions for a new trial.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Boro v. Superior Court case brief

Boro v. Superior Court case brief summary
163 Cal. App. 3d 1224

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant sought a writ of prohibition to prevent respondent superior court (California) from continuing with the prosecution of him on the charge of rape, in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 261(4), on the basis that the evidence at the preliminary hearing established that the victim was conscious of the nature of the sexual act.

FACTS:
-Appellant was arrested on charges that he deceived the victim that she needed to have sexual intercourse with him in order to cure an infectious disease she had allegedly contracted.
-Appellant moved to dismiss the charge under Cal. Penal Code § 261(4), on the grounds that the victim was conscious of the nature of the act.
-The trial court denied the motion, and appellant sought a writ of prohibition.
-The appeal court granted the writ.

HOLDING:
The court ruled that, under the clear language of § 261(4), appellant was not guilty of this crime because the victim was aware of the nature of the act when she agreed to have intercourse with him.

ANALYSIS:
-While the court noted that appellant deceived her into believing that intercourse was the only way she could cure her illness, the fact remained she was aware that she was agreeing to have intercourse with appellant.
-In so ruling, the court distinguished between other cases involving situations where the victims' mental capacity made it unlikely that they were aware they were engaging in intercourse.
-Moreover, the court observed that appellant's misconduct may have violated some other statute, but held it did not meet the requirements of § 261(4).

OUTCOME: The court granted a peremptory writ to prohibit the prosecution of appellant on the charge of rape where the person is unconscious of the nature of the act because the evidence established that the victim was aware that she was engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with appellant.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

People v. Williams case brief

People v. Williams case brief summary
63 Cal. 2d 452

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: A jury found defendants guilty of second degree murder in connection with the stabbing of a man known as a methedrine supplier. Defendants claimed self-defense, alleging the victim pulled out a knife first. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) instructed the jury that it must find defendants guilty of second degree murder if the killing occurred during a conspiracy to obtain methedrine. Defendants appealed.

FACTS:
-On 11/4/1989, the victim stood outside a homeless shelter where she was staying.
-According to the victim, a resident at the shelter named Williams (D) approached her and asked her to get coffee.
-After spending the morning together, Williams asked her if she wanted to watch television.
-She agreed and he took her to a nearby hotel.
-The victim did not realize it was a hotel until Williams rented a room and requested a bed sheet. -They went into the room, which had no television set.
-The victim confronted Williams but he did not respond.
-He instead asked her to join him on the bed.
-The victim attempted to leave, but Williams physically blocked the door.
-He yelled at her, hit her in the eye, and threatened to hurt her if she did not cooperate.
-The victim cooperated and they engaged in sexual intercourse.
-Williams had an entirely different account from the victim.
-He said he did not go to the hotel room intending to have sex with her.
-However, when they got into the room, the victim began kissing him and taking off her clothes.
-He stated that the victim fondled him and initiated sexual intercourse.
-Afterwards, the victim left and reported the incident to police
-Defendants claimed that the evidence established, as a matter of law, that they acted in self-defense. -The court overturned the convictions.

HOLDING:
First, courts may sometimes say the prosecution is "bound by" the extrajudicial statements of a defendant which are introduced by the prosecution and which are irreconcilable with guilt, but this concept is applicable only when there is no competent and substantial evidence which could establish guilt.

ANALYSIS:
-Here, other competent and substantial evidence tended to prove that defendants did not act in self-defense.
-Second, a homicide that is a direct causal result of the commission of a felony inherently dangerous to human life, other than the six felonies enumerated in Cal. Penal Code § 189, constitutes at least second degree murder.
-The felony involved here, conspiracy to possess methedrine, was not inherently dangerous.
-The trial court erred, therefore, in instructing the jury it might convict defendants of second degree murder on the basis of the felony.
-The error was prejudicial since the jury might have found defendants guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment of conviction of second degree murder and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Moran v. Household International case brief

Moran v. Household Int'l case brief summary
500 A.2d 1346

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant dissenting director sought review of a ruling of the Court of Chancery (Delaware) that appellee corporation's preferred share purchase rights plan, a tool to defend against corporate takeover, was a legitimate exercise of appellee directors' business judgment.

FACTS:
-The Board of Directors of Appellees adopted the Preferred Share Purchase Rights Plan as a preventative measure against future takeover attempts.
-Subsequently, Appellants brought suit.
-The Plan provides that Appellee’s common stockholders are entitled to the issuance of one Right per common share under two triggering conditions.
-The triggers are, first, a tender offer for 30% of the shares and second, the acquisition of 20% of the shares by any single entity or group.
-Once triggered, the Right authorizes the holder to purchase $200 of common stock of the offeror or purchaser for $100 thereby causing massive dilution of the value of the aggressor’s shares.
-Prior to the triggering event, the right is automatically fixed to the shares and can’t be traded separately form the shares.
-The directors voted to institute a preferred share purchase rights plan designed to defend the corporation from any hostile takeover. The dissenting director brought suit. The lower court ruled in favor of appellees. On appeal, the court affirmed.

HOLDING:
-Sufficient authority for the plan existed in Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 157.
-The plan did not prevent stockholders from receiving tender offers, and the change to the corporation's structure was less than that resulting from the implementation of other permissible defensive mechanisms.

ANALYSIS:
-The plan's effect on proxy contests would be minimal. The directors were informed about the plan and adopted it in the good faith belief that it was necessary to protect the corporation.
-The plan was reasonable in relation to the threat posed. Therefore, the directors were entitled to receive the benefit of the business judgment rule.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that the adoption of the plan was within the directors' authority and was a reasonable defensive mechanism adopted in the good faith belief that it was necessary to protect the corporation from coercive acquisition techniques.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. case brief

Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. case brief summary
493 A.2d 946

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant corporation appealed from decision of the Court of Chancery (Delaware) granting a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs and enjoining an exchange offer of defendant for its own stock.

FACTS:
-Mesa Petroleum had made a front-end loaded two-tiered hostile bid for Unocal in which the front end was $54 in cash, and the back end of the deal was $54 in junk bonds.
-Because most shareholders would prefer to receive the cash instead of the bonds, shareholders were expected to tender their shares into the deal, even if they did not think $54 was a fair price.
-If a shareholder declined to tender, that shareholder risked being cashed-out for $54 dollars in risky debt instruments instead of cash.
-In response to the Mesa tender offer, Unocal made a self-tender at $72 for all but the Mesa shares. -The Unocal board attempted to launch a self-tender offer to combat an unsolicited tender offer by Mesa Petroleum (Mesa).[2] The self-tender offer would be triggered upon Mesa acquiring sixty-four million shares of Unocal, and would mean that Unocal itself would buy-back 49% of the outstanding shares of Unocal - but none of the shares to be bought-back could be shares held by Mesa.

OVERVIEW: The lower court granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs, enjoining an exchange offer of the defendant for its own stock, concluding that such an offer was legally impermissible. The court on appeal was faced with the issue of whether defendant board of directors had the power and duty to oppose a takeover threat it reasonably perceived as being harmful to the corporate enterprise, and, if so, whether the action taken was entitled to protection of business judgment rule.

HOLDING:
The court held that there was directorial power to oppose plaintiffs' tender offer and to undertake a selective stock exchange made in good faith and upon a reasonable investigation pursuant to a clear duty to protect the corporate enterprise.

ANALYSIS:
The court further held that the repurchase plan chosen by defendant was reasonable in relation to the perceived threat and was entitled to be measured by business judgment rule.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment and vacated the preliminary injunction vacated.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

People v. John Z case brief

People v. John Z case brief summary
29 Cal. 4th 756


PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The juvenile court, after holding a contested jurisdictional hearing on a unitary petition filed on behalf of defendant juvenile, found that he committed forcible rape, in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 261(a)(2), that his previous juvenile court disposition had been ineffective, and committed him to a boys ranch. Defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeal (California) affirmed. Defendant sought further review.

FACTS:
-The victim may have consented to an initial penetration by defendant, but she withdrew her consent during the act of intercourse, and defendant continued forcibly against her will. -The California Supreme Court granted a hearing to settle a conflict in court of appeal decisions under this fact situation. The defendant contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the finding that he committed forcible rape.

HOLDING:
The California Supreme Court held that: (1) a withdrawal of consent by the victim effectively nullified any earlier consent and subjected the male to forcible rape charges when he persisted in what had become nonconsensual intercourse; (2) the offense of forcible rape occurred when, during apparently consensual intercourse, the victim expressed an objection and attempted to stop the act, and the defendant forcibly continued despite the objection; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to show that the victim withdrew her consent, communicated that fact to defendant, and defendant used force to resist the victim's attempt to stop the act, in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 261(a)(2).

RULES:
-Cal. Penal Code § 261(a)(2), defines rape as an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another. Nothing in § 261 conditions the act of rape on the degree of outrage of the victim. Cal. Penal Code § 263 states that the essential guilt of rape consists in the outrage to the person and feelings of the victim of the rape.
-Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime. But no California case holds that the victim's outrage is an element of the crime of rape

OUTCOME: The judgment of the court of appeal was affirmed.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

State of New Jersey in the Interest of M.T.S. case brief

State of New Jersey in the Interest of M.T.S. case brief summary
129 N.J. 422

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The state petitioned for review of a decision of the Superior Court, Appellate Division (New Jersey), which reversed a disposition of delinquency of a juvenile for committing a sexual assault. The appellate court concluded that the absence of evidence of force beyond that required in the act of sexual penetration precluded a finding of second-degree sexual assault.

OVERVIEW:
-The trial court determined that defendant juvenile was delinquent for committing a sexual assault. -The trial court's decision was based on evidence that defendant and a fifteen-year-old girl engaged in consensual kissing and thereafter in actual sexual penetration of the girl to which she had not consented.
-The appellate court reversed, concluding that the nonconsensual penetration did not constitute sexual assault because it was not accompanied by some level of force more than that necessary to accomplish the penetration.
-The court reversed and reinstated the disposition of juvenile delinquency.

HOLDING:
The court held that any act of sexual penetration engaged in by defendant without the affirmative and freely given permission of the victim to the specific act of penetration constituted the offense of sexual assault.

ANALYSIS:
-Permission could be inferred either from acts or statements reasonably viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances.
-The court found that the record reasonably supported the trial court's conclusion that the victim had not expressed consent to the act of intercourse, either through her words or actions.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and reinstated the trial court's disposition of juvenile delinquency for the commission of second-degree sexual assault. The court held that the element of physical force was satisfied by any use of force in the absence of affirmative and freely given permission to the act of sexual penetration.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Commonwealth v. Berkowitz case brief

Commonwealth v. Berkowitz case brief summary
415 Pa. Super. 505

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed from judgment of sentence imposed following convictions of rape and indecent assault in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Criminal (Pennsylvania).

OVERVIEW: Defendant was convicted of rape and indecent assault and sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of one to four years on the rape and a concurrent term of six to twelve months for indecent assault.

HOLDING:
The court reversed defendant's conviction for rape because it found that the incident between defendant and victim did not meet the statutory definition of rape, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3121.

ANALYSIS:
-Specifically, the court found that even in the light most favorable to the commonwealth, the victim's testimony as to the physical aspects of the encounter could not serve as a basis to prove "forcible compulsion."
-No evidence was adduced which established that mental coercion, or a threat, or force inherently inconsistent with consensual intercourse was used to complete the act of intercourse.
-The court further found that a new trial was warranted on the indecent assault charge because the trial court erroneously applied the Rape Shield Law to exclude evidence which tended to show that the charges may have been fabricated, thus the evidence should have been deemed relevant.

OUTCOME: The court discharged defendant on the rape conviction because it found that the commonwealth did not establish that mental coercion, or a threat, or force inherently inconsistent with consensual intercourse was used to complete the act of intercourse. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the indecent assault conviction because it determined that the exclusion of evidence of victim's motive to fabricate the charge was improper.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

State v. Rusk case brief

State v. Rusk case brief summary
289 Md. 230

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant was convicted of rape in the second degree. Defendant appealed his conviction to the Court of Special Appeals, Criminal Court of Baltimore (Maryland), which reversed his conviction finding that the evidence was legally insufficient to warrant a conclusion that defendant's words or actions created a reasonable fear in the victim's mind that defendant would have harmed her. The State appealed.

OVERVIEW: The victim and a friend were drinking in a bar. Defendant approached the victim and they talked. When the victim decided to leave, defendant asked for a ride home. The victim drove defendant home. Defendant took the victim's car keys and would not return them until after they had intercourse. The victim stated that she feared the look in defendant's eyes and that he choked her lightly when she protested having intercourse. After intercourse, he returned her keys and she left. The court determined that the appellate court substituted its judgment for that of the jury instead of applying an appropriate standard of review.

HOLDING:
The court found that, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements rape in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt.

ANALYSIS:
The reasonableness of the victim's fear was a question for the jury to resolve. A rationale jury could have found that the victim was in fear and so did not consent to the intercourse and that defendant's conduct was reasonably calculated to induce fear in the victim such that there was force.

OUTCOME: The judgment of the appellate court was reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment of the lower court. Based upon the evidence presented, a reasonable jury could have found that all the elements of rape in the second degree were present.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Rusk v. State case brief

Rusk v. State case brief summary
43 Md. App. 476

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant sought review of a judgment of the Criminal Court of Baltimore (Maryland), which convicted him of rape. Defendant was also convicted of assault.

FACTS: Defendant was convicted of rape and assault. He sought review and asserted that the evidence was insufficient to support the rape conviction. Defendant did not appeal the assault conviction.

HOLDING:
The court held that the prosecution failed to show that defendant's words or actions created a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resisted, he would have harmed her or used force to overcome the resistance.

OUTCOME: The rape conviction was reversed. The assault conviction was affirmed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

State v. Alston case brief

State v. Alston case brief summary
310 N.C. 399

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Criminal defendant appealed the affirmation by the Court of Appeals (North Carolina) of his conviction in the trial court of kidnapping and second degree rape.

OVERVIEW: Defendant was convicted of second-degree rape and kidnapping. Defendant appealed and argued evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Court agreed.

HOLDING:
Although victim's general fear of defendant may have been justified by his conduct on prior occasions, absent evidence that defendant used force or threats to overcome will of victim to resist sexual intercourse alleged to have been rape, such general fear was not sufficient to show defendant used force required to support conviction of rape.

ANALYSIS:
Court held prosecution's evidence was sufficient to show act of sexual intercourse in question was against victim's will but it was insufficient to show act was accomplished by actual force or by threat to use force unless she submitted to sexual intercourse. In order to establish kidnapping, prosecution had to prove defendant removed victim for purpose of committing rape. Court held evidence was insufficient to show defendant removed victim for such a purpose.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the affirmance of defendant's conviction for kidnapping and second-degree rape and remanded action for the entry of directed verdicts in favor of defendant holding that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of either crime.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

State v. Sophophone case brief

State v. Sophophone case brief summary
270 Kan. 703

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed a judgment of the Lyon District Court (Kansas), which convicted him of felony murder for the death of his co-felon during flight from an aggravated burglary in which both defendant and the co-felon participated.

FACTS: The instant court considered whether defendant could be convicted of felony murder for the killing of a co-felon not caused by defendant's acts but by the lawful acts of a police officer acting in self-defense in the course and scope of his duties in apprehending the co-felon fleeing from the aggravated burglary. Defendant's principal argument centered on his being in custody at the time the co-felon was killed by the police officer's lawful act, which defendant contended was a break in circumstances sufficient to insulate him from further criminal responsibility.

HOLDING:
The court overturned defendant's conviction for felony murder, holding that under the facts of the case where the killing of the co-felon resulted from the lawful acts of the police officer in attempting to apprehend the co-felon, defendant was not criminally responsible for the resulting death of the co-felon.

ANALYSIS:
Making defendant criminally responsible for the police officer's lawful acts was not the intent of the felony murder statute as it was written.

OUTCOME: Judgment reversed. Because the killing of the co-felon resulted from a police officer's lawful acts in attempting to apprehend the co-felon, defendant was not criminally responsible for the co-felon's death.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

People v. Smith case brief

People v. Smith case brief summary
35 Cal. 3d 798

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County (California), in which she was convicted of second-degree murder, under Cal. Penal Code § 187, on a felony-murder theory in which the underlying felony was felony child abuse under Cal. Penal Code § 273a(1).

OVERVIEW: Defendant was convicted of felony child abuse under Cal. Penal Code § 273a(1), and of second-degree murder under Cal. Penal Code § 187. The murder conviction was based on a felony-murder theory in which the underlying felony was the felony child abuse. Defendant appealed, and the court reversed the judgment insofar as it convicted defendant of second-degree murder.

HOLDING:
The court held that because the homicide was the result of assaultive child abuse, the underlying felony in the felony-murder theory was unquestionably an integral part of the homicide.

ANALYSIS:
-Thus, the court held that the offense merged into the homicide and it was error to give the jury a felony-murder instruction.
-The court held that because the people could not show that no juror relied on the erroneous instruction as the sole basis for finding defendant guilty of murder, the error was prejudicial.
-The court held also that the felony child abuse statute, § 273a(1), was not void as unconstitutionally vague.

OUTCOME: Defendant's conviction for second-degree murder was reversed because defendant's commission of felony child abuse merged into the homicide for which defendant was convicted, and thus, could not be the underlying felony in a felony-murder theory.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

People v. Howard case brief

People v. Howard case brief summary
34 Cal. 4th 1129

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed a judgment from the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (California), which affirmed defendant's conviction for murder under Cal. Penal Code § 187.

OVERVIEW: While fleeing from a police officer at high speed, defendant ran a red light, causing a fatal collision. During the chase, defendant also ran stop signs and drove on the wrong side of the road. The trial court instructed the jury to find defendant guilty of murder if it found that the death occurred during defendant's commission of a violation of Cal. Veh. Code § 2800.2, which prohibited driving in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property while fleeing from a pursuing police officer.

HOLDING:
The court, in reversing, held that the second degree felony-murder rule, which applied to felonies that were inherently dangerous to life, did not apply to violations of § 2800.2 because it was possible to commit such violations without endangering others' lives.

ANALYSIS:
Section 2800.2(b) broadly defined "willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property," as used in § 2800.2(a), to include any flight from an officer during which a driver committed three traffic violations that were assigned a point count under Cal. Veh. Code § 12810, or which resulted in damage to property. Some traffic violations with a point count could be committed without endangering human life.

OUTCOME: The court reversed and remanded to the court of appeal for further proceedings.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

People v. Fuller case brief

People v. Fuller case brief summary
86 Cal. App. 3d 618

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant prosecution sought review of the order of the Superior Court of Fresno County (California), which amended an information by dismissing felony murder charges against respondent criminal defendants and substituting vehicular manslaughter charge. Respondents caused a fatal traffic accident while fleeing a burglary.

OVERVIEW: A fatal traffic accident occurred during a high-speed chase following respondent criminal defendants' commission of a nonviolent, daylight burglary of an unattended motor vehicle. Respondents were charged with burglary and felony murder under Cal. Penal Code § 189. The trial court granted respondents' Cal. Penal Code § 995, motion to set aside the information, dismissed the murder charge, and amended the information to substitute a vehicular manslaughter charge. Appellant sought further review. On appeal, the court reversed.

HOLDING:
The court questioned whether the legislature intended to include an automobile burglary within the felony-murder rule, but held respondents could be prosecuted for first degree felony murder because burglary fell expressly within the purview of Cal. Penal Code §189.

ANALYSIS:
The court noted that under judicial precedent, any burglary within Cal. Penal Code § 459, was sufficient to invoke the rule. The court concluded that respondents could also be prosecuted for ordinary second-degree murder because the conduct clearly presented an issue of fact as to whether respondents exhibited a wanton and reckless disregard for human life.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the trial court's judgment dismissing the felony murder charge against respondent criminal defendants, because the felony-murder rule was applicable to any burglary, and the rule applied whether the killing was caused intentionally, negligently, or merely accidentally.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

State v. Williams case brief

State v. Williams case brief summary
4 Wn. App. 908 (Washington)

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants appealed from a Superior Court for King County (Washington) judgment convicting them of statutory manslaughter after the court found that they were negligent in failing to support their minor child with necessary medical attention.

FACTS:
-The trial court convicted defendants of manslaughter after finding that they were negligent by failing to provide their minor child with reasonably necessary medical attention even though defendants were ignorant as to the seriousness of the child's illness.

HOLDING:
The appellate court affirmed defendants' convictions, holding that defendants were properly convicted of manslaughter even absent a finding that their misconduct was willful because defendants breached the statutory duty set forth in Wash. Rev. Code § 26.20.030 without lawful excuse or justification.

ANALYSIS:
-Applying the standard of ordinary caution, defendants were put on sufficient notice of their child's illness to have required them to obtain medical care for the child, that their failure to do so was ordinary or simple negligence, and that such negligence was sufficient to support their manslaughter convictions.

OUTCOME: The appellate court affirmed defendants' manslaughter convictions and held that defendants were put on sufficient notice of their minor child's illness and accordingly their failure to seek medical attention for their child was simple or ordinary negligence and such negligence was enough to sustain defendants' statutory manslaughter convictions.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

United States v. Williams case brief

United States v. Williams case brief summary
553 U.S. 285

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant was charged with one count of pandering child pornography under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) and one count of possessing child pornography under § 2252A(a)(5)(B). He pleaded guilty to both counts but reserved the right to challenge the constitutionality of the pandering conviction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was both overbroad and impermissibly vague. Certiorari was granted.

OVERVIEW: 18 U.S.C.S. § 2252A(a)(3) included a scienter requirement, specifically, "knowingly." The statute's string of operative verbs--"advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits"--was reasonably read to have a transactional connotation. That is to say, the statute penalized speech that accompanied or sought to induce a transfer of child pornography from one person to another. The phrase, "in a manner that reflects the belief," § 2252A(a)(3)(B), included both subjective and objective components.
-The phrase, "in a manner. that is intended to cause another to believe," § 2252A(a)(3)(B), contained only a subjective element. The definition of "sexually explicit conduct" was very similar to a definition of "sexual conduct" in a New York statute that had been upheld against an overbreadth challenge.

HOLDING:
The Court held that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography were categorically excluded from the First Amendment and that the Eleventh Circuit had erroneously concluded otherwise. The Court held that the Eleventh Circuit's contention that § 2252A(a)(3)(B) gave law enforcement officials virtually unfettered discretion had no merit; the statute was not vague.

RULES:
The Court stated that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means 'a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,' post, at 13. Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever."

OUTCOME: The judgment of the Eleventh Circuit was reversed. 7-2 Decision; 1 concurrence; 1 dissent.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

State v. Hernandez case brief

State v. Hernandez case brief summary
815 S.W.2d 67

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed a judgment of the Circuit Court of Webster County (Missouri), which convicted him of involuntary manslaughter, and of the offense of armed criminal action, and which denied his motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Mo. R. Crim. P. 29.15.

OVERVIEW: The victims were driving, and they were hit by a van operated by defendant. One of the victims was killed and the other two were injured. Defendant exhibited signs of intoxication immediately after the accident, and he admitted to having been drinking heavily before the accident. Defendant also had several signs, stickers, and pins which contained statements containing drinking slogans, and which were found in the van. Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and of armed criminal action. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and remanded the case for a new trial for the offense of involuntary manslaughter only.

HOLDING:
The court held that the subject signs, stickers, and pins were irrelevant and should not have been admitted into evidence.

ANALYSIS:
The court found that (1) defendant's knowledge of the effect of alcohol on him was not an issue, (2) the drinking slogans were not relevant to the issue of whether defendant acted with criminal negligence, and (3) defendant's reputation was not in issue. The court held that the admission of the drinking slogans into evidence was prejudicial because the prosecuting attorney made extensive references to them.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment of the circuit court inasmuch as it convicted defendant of involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action. The court remanded the case to the circuit court for a new trial for the offense of involuntary manslaughter only. The court dismissed defendant's appeal of the dismissal of his motion for post conviction relief.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

People v. Knoller case brief

People v. Knoller case brief summary
41 Cal. 4th 139

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two, reversed an order granting defendant a new trial on a second degree murder charge and remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration of the new trial motion in light of the intermediate appellate court's holding that implied malice can be based simply on a defendant's conscious disregard of the risk of serious bodily injury to another. Defendant petitioned for review.

FACTS:
-Two dogs owned by defendant and her husband attacked and killed a female victim in the hallway of an apartment building.
-The instant court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant a new trial.

HOLDING:
-The trial court erroneously concluded both that defendant could not be guilty of murder, based on a theory of implied malice, unless she appreciated that her conduct created a high probability of someone's death, and that a new trial was justified because the People did not charge her husband with murder.

ANALYSIS:
-Even assuming a new trial could be granted based on differential treatment of defendants, it was not justified here.
-Defendant and her husband were not similarly situated with regard to the fatal mauling.
-The immediate cause of the victim's death was defendant's own conscious decision to take one of the dogs unmuzzled through the apartment building, where they were likely to encounter other people, knowing that the dog was aggressive and highly dangerous and that she could not control him.
-The intermediate appellate court also erred in concluding that implied malice required only a showing that defendant appreciated the risk of serious bodily injury.

OUTCOME: The intermediate appellate court's judgment was reversed, and the matter was remanded to that court with directions to return the case to the trial court for reconsideration of defendant's new trial motion in accord with the views expressed in the instant court's opinion.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

People v. Casassa case brief

People v. Casassa case brief summary
49 N.Y.2d 668

SYNOPSIS: Defendant challenged a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (New York) that affirmed his conviction of murder in the second degree following a non-jury trial.

OVERVIEW: Defendant's former girlfriend was murdered. Defendant agreed to be interviewed by the police. He was advised of his Miranda rights, which he waived, and in the course of the interview, he confessed to the killing. At the time of the interview, his mother was trying to locate him, and when she learned that he was at the police station, she sent an attorney to speak to him. At trial, defendant raised the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance under N.Y. Penal Law § 125(1)(a).

ANALYSIS:
The court found that defendant's emotional reaction at the time of the commission of the crime was so peculiar to him that under the statute, it could not be considered reasonable so as to reduce the conviction to manslaughter in the first degree. Accordingly, the trial court found him guilty of murder in the second degree. The appellate division affirmed. Upon further review, the court also affirmed.

HOLDING:
The court held that the statute was properly applied, that the confessions were voluntary, and that his mother's unsuccessful attempts to contact him did not deny defendant his right to counsel.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed defendant's conviction of murder in the second degree because defendant's reaction to the circumstances of the case were not reasonable and did not justify a reduction of the charge to manslaughter in the first degree. The court also held that defendant's right to counsel was not violated merely because his mother attempted to send an attorney to speak with him during his interview with the police.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Girouard v. State case brief

Girouard v. State case brief summary
321 Md. 532

SYNOPSIS: Defendant challenged his conviction from the Montgomery County Circuit Court (Maryland), which was affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals (Maryland), for second degree murder, asking the court to consider whether the provocation sufficient to mitigate murder to manslaughter should be decided by the factfinder on a case-by-case basis and, specifically, whether words alone were adequate provocation under the circumstances.

OVERVIEW:
-The ultimate issue in this case was whether the provocation of defendant's wife was enough in the eyes of the law so that defendant's murder charge should have been mitigated to voluntary manslaughter. Specifically, the issue was whether the wife's taunting words were enough so that a reasonable man would be sufficiently infuriated to strike out in hot-blooded blind passion and kill her. The trial judge decided that although the wife's provocation was needless, it was not adequate to mitigate second degree murder to voluntary manslaughter and, on review, the court agreed.

HOLDING:
The court found that the provocation, no matter how insulting, was certainly not enough to justify a reasonable man stabbing his provoker 19 times.

ANALYSIS:
The court acknowledged that defendant had mental problems, but reiterated that the standard was one of reasonableness and should not focus on the peculiar frailties of defendant. Asserting that domestic arguments easily escalate into furious fights, the court held that there was no reason to favor those who found the murder of an offending spouse to be the easiest way to end a dispute. The judgment was affirmed.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the facts of this case did not warrant broadening the recognized categories of adequate provocation to mitigate murder to manslaughter.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

State v. Forrest case brief

State v. Forrest case brief summary
321 N.C. 186
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed as a matter of right from a judgment of the Special Criminal Session of Superior Court, Moore County (North Carolina), convicting defendant of first-degree murder and imposing a sentence of life imprisonment.

OVERVIEW: Defendant was convicted of the first-degree murder of his father. Defendant admitted to shooting his critically ill father after admitting him to a hospital but contended that the facts negated the element of malice.

HOLDING:
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. The court found that the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the element of malice and did not instruct the jury that malice could be presumed.

ANALYSIS:
-The court found that the trial court properly instructed the jury that it should consider defendant's belief that his father was terminally ill or in danger of immediate death in deciding whether the state had proven malice beyond a reasonable doubt.
-The court held that a heat of passion jury instruction was not warranted.
-The court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the murder charge because there was substantial evidence that the killing was premeditated and deliberate.
-The court also found, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, that the trial court's inquiry and instructions about deliberating toward a verdict were not coercive and did not deny defendant a fair trial.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed defendant's conviction for first-degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

People v. Hall case brief

People v. Hall case brief summary
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner appealed from a decision of the District Court, Eagle County (Colorado), affirming the county court's decision that respondent skier's conduct did not rise to the level of dangerousness required under Colorado law to uphold a conviction for manslaughter and dismissed the charges.

FACTS: Respondent, an experienced skier skiing too fast, collided with the victim who sustained traumatic brain injuries and died. At a preliminary hearing, the county court found respondent's conduct did not involve a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death to sustain a manslaughter charge.
The district court affirmed the no probable cause finding. Granting certiorari, the court reversed and remanded.

HOLDING:
While skiing ordinarily carried a very low risk of death to other skiers, a reasonable person could have concluded that respondent's conduct grossly deviated from the standard of care that a reasonable, experienced ski racer would have exercised knowing that other people were skiing in front of him.

ANALYSIS:
Respondent's excessive speed and lack of control significantly increased the likelihood that a collision would occur and the extent of injuries that might result from such a collision, including the possibility of death.

OUTCOME: Reversed and remanded. Whether respondent committed reckless manslaughter was for the jury to determine. Skiing at such high speeds that when respondent collided with the victim, his ski fractured the thickest part of the victim's skull, created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death to another person.

***

Facts: ∆ was a professional racer skiing rapidly and, according to e/w, out of control
over a lengthy period before he struck and killed a man down mountain. ∆ charged with
reckless manslaughter but trial court and appeals court dismissed charges because “skiing
fast” does not constitute behavior so reckless that a reasonable person could foresee its
harm to others.

Rule: Out of control behavior can be determined to have consciously been reckless
enough to violate the law? “Criminalizing inadvertent harm. Really doesn’t have mens
rea, guilty state of mind—tries to coerce people into behaving w/in standards.”

NEGLIGENCE DIFFERENTIAL: Gross=criminal and simple/regular=civil
Subjective and objective negligence: “Don’t want people to just tumble into criminality.”
Takes into account the standards of the reasonable person (Subjective) whereas objective
is in the code?

What’s the relationship between negligence and moral culpability?
Subjective vs. Objective Negligence: Subjective based on values that come from
society, ∆ should have been aware of based on values, whereas objective negligence
stems from awareness that is specified in a code.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

Midgett v. State case brief

Midgett v. State case brief summary
292 Ark. 278

SYNOPSIS: Defendant appealed the judgement of the Craighead Circuit Court (Arkansas), which convicted him of first degree murder in the death of his son. Defendant alleged that the state's evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction due to his lack of premeditation and deliberation.

OVERVIEW:
-The evidence showed defendant brutally beat his son over a substantial period of time.
-The son died.
-The medical examiner concluded death was the beating by a human fist.
-Defendant was convicted of first degree murder.

HOLDING:
-The court affirmed as modified by reducing the sentence second degree murder and imprisonment for 20 years. -The court held that the evidence supported only the conclusion that defendant intended not to kill his son but to further abuse him or that his intent, if it was to kill the child, was developed in a drunken, heated, rage while disciplining the son.

ANALYSIS:
-The court agreed with defendant that in spite of all the evidence of child abuse there was no evidence that the death was premeditated and deliberated.
-The court found that in a case of child abuse of long duration the jury could have inferred that the defendant came not to expect death of the son, but rather that the son would live so that the abuse may continue.
-The jury was forced to speculate on defendant's intention before acting and weighing the consequences of a course of conduct.
-The evidence supported only the conclusion that defendant intended not to kill his son but to further abuse him or that his intent, if it was to kill the child, was developed in a drunken, heated, rage while disciplining the son.
-Neither of those supported a finding of premeditation or deliberation.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the conviction of defendant for murder. However, the court modified the conviction from first degree to second degree and reduced his imprisonment to 20 years.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

State v. Guthrie case brief

State v. Guthrie case brief summary
461 S.E.2d 163

SYNOPSIS: Defendant appealed the jury verdict of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County (West Virginia), which found him guilty of first-degree murder under W.Va. Code § 61-2-1. Defendant was sentenced to serve a life sentence with a recommendation of mercy. Defendant asserted cumulative error based on erroneous jury instructions and improper questions and comments made by the prosecution.

FACTS:
-After being harassed by a co-worker, defendant fatally stabbed the man with a knife. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder under W.Va. Code § 61-2-1 and sentenced to life in prison.

HOLDING:
-The court reversed, holding that the trial court erroneously admitted prejudicial statements allegedly made by defendant about blacks, women, and Hitler that inferred he was a racist, sexist, and Nazi.

ANALYSIS:
-The doctrine of curative admissibility did not apply because the statements had no relation to the crime.
-The prosecution's failure to disclose before cross-examination a statement allegedly made by defendant was also prejudicial and the cumulative error denied defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial.
-After adopting a new standard for determining the sufficiency of the evidence that permitted circumstantial evidence to support a conviction, the court determined that there was sufficient evidence of first-degree murder and remanded the case for a new trial.
-The court also adopted a new instruction defining premeditation for first-degree murder, holding that there must be some evidence that defendant considered and weighed his decision to kill to establish premeditation.

OUTCOME: The court reversed defendant's conviction for first-degree murder and remanded the case for a new trial. The court established new definitions for premeditation and the sufficiency of the evidence.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?