Friday, October 12, 2012

Baldwin v. Commonwealth case brief

Baldwin v. Commonwealth

Procedural Background: D was convicted in the Circuit Court, of attempted murder and eluding police. D appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. D appealed.

Evidence was insufficient to find that D had specific intent to kill police officer when he pulled out onto roadway during course of traffic stop, as required to support conviction for attempted murder; officer had been standing slightly behind driver's door when D pulled out onto roadway, officer's testimony that he had to “push off the back of the car so that [the vehicle's] back wheels didn't run over [his] feet” indicated, at most, that vehicle could have run over his feet, and D did not aim his vehicle directly at officer.

Holding: The Supreme Court, G. Steven Agee, J., held that evidence was insufficient to support conviction for attempted murder. Judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed; indictment dismissed.

-When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the appellate court will affirm the judgment of the circuit court unless that judgment is without evidence to support it or is plainly wrong.
-While a person may be guilty of murder though there was no actual intent to kill, he cannot be guilty of an attempt to commit murder unless he has a specific intent to kill.

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?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Landmark Personal Injury Lawsuits and Their Lasting Impact

According to a Forbes article, personal injury lawsuits are civil actions brought by an injured person against the party responsible for the...