Criminal Law Case Briefs
Criminal Law Case Briefs Assignment
Students must write and submit a case brief to the school for each case listed below. Any cases not covered in the casebook may be located in books at a local law library or online at LexisNexis. If a student can’t find a required case, a different case on the same topic from the casebook may be used for preparation of a written case brief.
Note that students are required to read the cases in their casebook, then write their own briefs. Submitting an already-written brief from Casenote Legal Briefs books, online sites, such as casenotes.com, quimbee, lawnix, etc., or even from LexisNexis, is not allowed. Presenting such briefs as if they are one’s own is plagiarism, and will result in a grade of “Fail.” Again, students must read the actual cases, then write their own briefs.
The case briefs are graded as “Pass” or “Fail” only. The most common reason students fail the case briefs assignment is plagiarism. Therefore, students should take care to use quotation marks when quoting from the original case decision, and they should use their own words for all other parts of the briefs.
Students who need help in learning to write a case brief should read the article, Why and How to Write a Case Brief.
Students must submit all case briefs together, so students must complete the assignment for each course in which they are enrolled for the term, then submit them all at once. We recommend completing the case briefs for all courses and submitting them during the 5th to 7th month of study. Most students find it easiest to brief each required case as they come across it in their reading of the case book. Then, when they finish reading the book, they will also have finished the case briefs.
All the case briefs for the course must be in one document, with each separate case brief starting on a new page of the document. That is, students submit one document for Criminal Law Case Briefs; they do not submit ten separate documents with one case brief on each.
Note that in order to be eligible to request final exams, students must have submitted case briefs, and must receive a grade of “Pass.”
When students complete and pass the criminal law case briefs assignment, they receive credit for seven hours of verified academic engagement.
Why and How to Brief a Case, including a sample case brief of Lucy v. Zehmer
List of Required Cases for the Criminal Law Case Briefs Assignment:
State v. Rocker, 52 Haw. 336, 475 P.2d 684 (1970). (Intent)
United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976). (Knowledge)
County Court of Ulster County, N.Y. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979). (Possession)
Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975). (Heat of Passion Test)
Hyam v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 2 All.E.R. 41, A.C. 55, 2 W.L.R. 607 (1975). (Murder)
State v. Goodseal, 220 Kan. 487, 553 P.2d 279 (Kansas 1976). (Felony Murder)
Daniel M'Naghten's Case, 8 Eng. Rep. 718, 10 Cl.&Fin. 200 (1843). (Insanity)
United States v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 219 (D.C.Cir. 1973). (Self Defense)
State v. Thompson, 243 Mont. 28, 792 P.2d 1103 (1990) (Statutory Definitions)
United States v. Brown, 518 F.2d 821 (1975). (Deliberate & Premeditated)
State v. Rocker
TOPIC: Intent.
CASE: State v. Rocker, 52 Haw. 336, 475 P.2d 684 (1970).
FACTS: On February 26, 1969, the appellants were arrested for sunbathing on a beach while completely nude. Since some other people were on the beach, their act was regarded as offensive and against common decency or morality.
HISTORY: Following a waiver of a jury trial, the appellants were found guilty, by a circuit court, of creating a common nuisance. They subsequently appealed against the verdict.
ISSUE: Did the defendants create a nuisance by sunbathing in the nude on a public beach?
Did the defendants have intent to create nuisance?
RULING: Yes. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. For one to be adjudged of having created a common nuisance, there must be an indecent exposure that more than one person can see.
RATIONALE: The judges relied heavily on the statutes that define a public place and exposure. In this regard, they argued that the defendants created a nuisance because the place where they were naked was public. As such, there was a likelihood of their exposure being observed by more than one casual observer. In addition, even though sunbathing in the nude is not illegal per se, the judges concluded that the defendants had general intent. This is because the exposure happened where it was likely to be seen by others.
RULE: The court relied on the public nuisance law that states that a public nuisance is an act that interferes with the rights of the public.
United States v. Jewell
TOPIC: Knowledge.
CASE: United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976).
FACTS: The defendant drove a car into the United States. In the car was marijuana concealed in a secret compartment between the trunk and the rear seat. The defendant claimed that he was not aware of the marijuana being there.
HISTORY: The lower court convicted the defendant for knowingly or intentionally importing a controlled substance. The court also found him guilty of knowingly or intentionally possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute it. He challenged the verdict in a court of appeal.
ISSUE: Can the defendant be adjudged to have had knowledge of possessing and importing a controlled substance?
RULING: Yes. The defendant’s mental state made him aware of the probability of the existence of marijuana. The court also concluded that to act knowingly does not necessarily mean acting with positive knowledge. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
RATIONALE: The court concluded that there was circumstantial evidence that the defendant knew the existence of a secret compartment. The same evidence showed that he knew what was contained therein. As such, to avoid responsibility, the defendant deliberately avoided positive knowledge of the presence of marijuana. The court also dismissed the defendant’s allegations of being deliberately ignorant. It argued that he knew the fact in question was highly probable and was just pretending not to know so.
RULE: The judges relied on the rule that if a defendant's suspicion is aroused but deliberately decides to ignore it, he is adjudged to have knowledge
DISSENTING OPINION: Three judges had a different opinion arguing that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the jury in the lower court was not overwhelmingly convincing. As such, they opined that the plausible decision would have been overturning the verdict.
County Court of Ulster County, N.Y. v. Allen
TOPIC: Possession.
CASE: County Court of Ulster County, N.Y. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979).
FACTS: The respondents, who included three adults and a sixteen-year-old girl, had jointly faced charges of possessing two loaded handguns and a machine gun. In addition, they were accused of possessing heroin. All these were found in a car they were riding in and had been stopped for speeding. The two handguns had been positioned crosswise in a handbag belonging to the girl, while the machine gun and heroin were discovered in the car’s trunk. The defendants had borrowed the car from the driver’s brother. In addition, there was evidence that two of the defendants had placed something in the car before the beginning of the journey. However, the keys to the trunk could not be found in the car.
HISTORY: The trial court's jury had found the four guilty of possession of the handguns but acquitted them of possessing the machine gun and heroin. In addition, the defendants had objected to the introduction of the firearms as evidence. They argued that the state had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was a connection between them and the guns. The trial court overruled the objection and a motion to dismiss the charges. After the dismissal of their post-trial motion, the defendants went to the court of appeal that subsequently upheld previous verdicts. They filed a petition in the Federal District Court claiming to have been denied due process of law through the application of the statutory presumption. The district court issued a writ holding that the defendants had not forfeited their federal claim. The case moved to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Is the statutory presumption of possession constitutional?
RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and the district court.
RATIONALE: The judges concluded that a New York statute that states that the presence of a firearm in a car is presumptive evidence of illegal possession by all the occupants of the car was rational. They also held that the girl was not the only person with dominion over the guns. This is because they were too big to be concealed in the handbag. There was every indication that the others were aware of the guns’ presence. As such, it was reasonably improbable that they belonged to the girl only.
RULE: The judges heavily relied on permissive presumption. As such, they made an inference from the evidence produced in court.
Mullaney v. Wilbur
TOPIC: Heat of Passion Test.
CASE: Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975).
FACTS: A trial jury found the respondent guilty of murder based on his pre-trial statement and circumstantial evidence. The evidence had shown that he had fatally attacked a man called Claude Hebert. The court had also heard that Hebert had made homosexual advances to the respondent, which had apparently provoked him.
HISTORY: The trial court found the respondent guilty. He appealed to the judicial Supreme Court. He argued that he could only be convicted of manslaughter because he lacked malice afterthought.
ISSUE: Whether the Maine rule requiring the defendant to prove that he acted in the heat of passion is consistent with due process.
RULING: No. The analysis of the district court and first circuit was affirmed.
RATIONALE: The court contended that transferring the burden to the defendant was wrong if the prosecution could not negate that he committed the crime in the heat of passion. The court felt that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that that fact was absent in a homicide case.
RULE: The Maine rule requires the prosecution to prove malice afterthought beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, it rules out the possibility of relying on a presumption of implied malice.
Hyam v. Director of Public Prosecutions
TOPIC: Murder
CASE: Hyam v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 2 All.E.R. 41, A.C. 55, 2 W.L.R. 607 (1975).
FACTS: On July 15, 1972, the respondent set a house on fire using petrol, a newspaper, and a match. In the house were Mrs. Booth and three children, a boy and two young girls, who were presumably asleep. The woman and the boy managed to escape through a window, but the girls died of asphyxia (CASEMINE, n.d.). The respondent was allegedly inspired by jealousy. In mitigation, she claimed she intended to scare Mrs. Booth into leaving the neighborhood. In this regard, causing grievous harm was not part of her intentions.
HISTORY: The trial jury found the respondent guilty of murder. She subsequently appealed to the court of appeal. The court subsequently dismissed the appeal. She took the case to the House of Lords.
ISSUE: Can proving beyond reason...