Case briefing Assignment 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

Dr. Kakoti...

Description

Casey Skomer 4/2/2015 Dr. Kakoti CRJU 1200 ASSIGNMENT 2 (a). Tison v. Arizona: Although they can be considered accomplices to murder, should they also be eligible for the death penalty? Just as with any case, the details should be assessed with discretion before sentencing. While Tison’s sons are legally guilty of being accomplices to felony murder, they were not technically involved in the actual murder, just all the events that lead up to it. The sons had no criminal intent to commit the murders, as their father and his cellmate did, so they should not be punished as severely as if hey committed the actual murders. They boys did partake and assist in a felonious escape and armed robbery that lead up to the murders, and they assumed the risk of death being a possibility of their crimes, but they were not present when the murders were committed and shouldn’t be convicted or punished as murderers. A reasonable maximum punishment for their status as accomplices should be a life prison sentence, but not the death penalty.

(b). State v. Ulvinen, Questions 2 and 4 2) The jury could infer that Ulvinen was an accomplice to the murder because she 1. continued to agree that her son’s talk of murdering his wife would be “the best thing for the kids,” 2. chose to come upstairs and sit by, ready to prevent children from going into the bathroom, and that could be seen as actively helping her son complete his crime.

4) I do agree with the court that Ulvinen was not an accomplice because her passive agreement with her son’s plans of murder is not sufficient evidence to convict her of actively accompanying him, but she is without a doubt an accessory to her son’s crime because she knew that he had committed the crime, helped clean the bathroom and destroyed evidence after David Hoffman dismembered his wife’s body, and lied in her testimony about where Carol Hoffman was.

(c). State v. Chism: Question 2 Louisiana statute 14:25 states: an accessory, after the commission of a felony 1) has harbored, concealed, or aided the offender, 2) knows, or has reasonable belief that there has been a crime committed, and 3) has reasonable belief or intends to avoid/escape arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment. The court holds that 1) Lloyd had committed attempted murder, aggravated battery, and kidnapping before Chism chose to assist him. 2) There is no reasonable doubt to believe that Chism didn’t know that Lloyd had committed a crime because Chism testified to have witnessed the victim moaning and bleeding in the car after being stabbed. And 3) Chism’s failure to refuse or leave throughout the car ride to Willow Point, failure to attempt to escape when the victim was first put in the car, voluntary compliance with Lloyd’s demands to move the victim, failure to immediately report the crime after leaving Lloyd, discarding of his bloody clothed which were evidence, and reporting the crime long after he had arrived home and talked to his mom shows that Chism has at least general intent for Lloyd to avoid arrest.

(d). State v. Zeta Chi Fraternity, Question 4 Yes, Zeta Chi Fraternity is guilty of selling alcohol to a minor and prostitution because its members actively committed those crimes without any thought to what they were doing. The brothers did move the alcohol vending machine to a private room so it would not be intended for use, but party goers still found the machine and used it, so if the fraternity really wanted to avoid the providing or sale to minors, they could have locked the room with alcohol, or completely removed it from the premises. Zeta Chi testified that they set guidelines that the party goes were not allowed to touch the dancers; however, when attendees gave money to the dancers, nothing was done to stop them. In fact, guests were told by some fraternity members that the more money paid to the dancers, the more they would do, so there was mens rea and intent to commit prostitution.

(e) Read State v. Akers, then answer Question 3 I do think that parents should be held accountable for the crimes of their children because up until their children become legal adults at 18, they are under their parents’ or guardians’ care and supervision. Therefore, the crimes that children commit reflect on how they were raised, the environments and children that parents allow their own children to be surrounded with, and how well the parents have outlined the difference between right and wrong and what their children should and shouldn’t do in order to comply with the laws of society....