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?
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment