People v. Beam case brief summary legal brief

People v. Beam case brief  
624 N.W.2d 764

CASE SYNOPSIS:
The State appealed an order of the Wayne Circuit Court (Michigan) dismissing an information charging defendant with owning a dog, trained or used for fighting, that caused the death of a person on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutionally vague.

FACTS: 

-A woman was mauled to death by defendant's pit bulls while he was incarcerated.
-He was indicted for owning a dog trained or used for fighting that caused the death of a person, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.49(10) (Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.244(10)). 

-Neighbors testified the dogs had been trained to fight and that they had seen dogfights staged in defendant's back yard. 

-Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing the statute was unconstitutionally vague.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
-The trial court granted the motion and the State appealed.

HOLDING:

-The court affirmed, holding the statute was not unconstitutionally vague as it clearly provided notice and fair warning to defendant that owning such an animal subjected him to criminal liability if the animal killed a person.

RULES:
-A statute can be challenged for vagueness where it was over-broad and impinged on First Amendment freedoms, it does not provide fair notice of the conduct proscribed, or where it is so indefinite that it confers unstructured and unlimited discretion on the trier of fact to determine whether the law has been violated. 

 
CONCLUSION:
The judgment was reversed, because the statute proscribing owning a dog trained or used for fighting was not unconstitutionally vague as it clearly provided notice and fair warning to defendant that he owned such an animal at his own peril and could be held criminally liable if the animal killed a person.

---
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. Caillet case brief case brief summary

State v. Caillet case brief 518 So.2d 1062
Subject: Animal Law

CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendants applied for supervisory writs, challenging the order of the 21st Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston (Louisiana) denying their motion to quash the indictments filed against them for dog fighting.

FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY: 

-Twenty- six people where charged with dog fighting in violation of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:102.5 for paying a fee to be spectators at a dog fight. 

-They filed a motion to quash. 

-The trial court denied the motion. 

-Thereafter, 11 defendants applied for supervisory writs, urging that the indictments against them should be quashed as it failed to charge a punishable offense.

HOLDING:
After reviewing the applicable statute, the court granted the motion to quash, holding that § 14:102.5 did not proscribe paying a fee to be a spectator at a dog fight.

CONCLUSION: The court granted defendants' application for supervisory writs, made it peremptory and granted their motion to quash the indictment against them

---
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?