Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
Pages:
10 pages/β‰ˆ2750 words
Sources:
1 Source
Style:
Other
Subject:
Law
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 43.2
Topic:

Criminal Law Case Briefs

Essay Instructions:

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)

Essay Sample Content Preview:
Criminal Law Case Briefs
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 arg...
Updated on
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

πŸ‘€ Other Visitors are Viewing These Other Essay Samples:

HIRE A WRITER FROM $11.95 / PAGE
ORDER WITH 15% DISCOUNT!