response

Analysis 1:

Issue:

The first issue was when McNeill consented to letting Stinton enter the home even when McNeill had the protection order on Stinton. So why have a burglary charge if Ms. McNeill consented in letting in the house. He was asked to leave and did so but returned to get what was his and wasn’t able to get in

 

The second issue is the protection order Stinton did enter the house with consent from McNeill.

 

Rule:

 

For Stinton to be charged with burglary you must comply with two elements 1. Intent to commit a crime and 2. The person enters or remains unlawfully in dwelling other than a vehicle.

 

The rule for the protection order didn’t state but McNeill had it in place for a reason.

 

Analysis:

 

The events that occurred for this trial, was Stinton entered his old residence where Ms. McNeill leaves and when asked to leave he did so but entered once more. The second event was breaking the protection order McNeill had in place.

 

Conclusion:

 

Stinton should not be charged with burglary because he had consent to enter the house from McNeill. She let him into the house knowing that she had a protection order and he wasn’t supposed to be near hear or in the house. She gave authorization to Stinton to enter.

 

What I learned:

 

I learned that not everything is black and white. There is some law that cover certain things and then other laws that don’t cover ones that you want to cover. Things can’t always be decided with just one decision or with a right and wrong answer. You must follow the law even when you think that should be charged or the other person should be charged.

 **Response1:

Analysis2:

Issue:

                Whether or not the respondent should be convicted of the crime of residential burglary. The respondent violated the protection order, which can serve as the predicate crime for residential burglary.     

Rule:

                Residential burglary has two elements:  “[ (1) ] intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, [and (2) ] the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.”

                A protection order may include different provisions, including: no contact provision which prohibits the abuser from calling, texting, emailing, stalking, attacking, hitting, or disturbing the victim

Analysis:

                The respondent was invited the first time by the victim, and when the respondent tried to take items the victim claimed were hers, the respondent was asked to leave. The respondent left the house for air, however used force to get back in, violating the protection order. The Appellant is right to hold that the violation of protection order provision can serve as the predicate crime for residential burglary.

Conclusion:

                The court dismissed the burglary charge, reasoning that the State lacked proof of the respondent’s intent to commit a crime inside the victim’s home. Because, the respondent entered the home unlawfully with intent to commit crime therein, therefore the dismissal was reversed. 

What I Learned from this Case

                I learned the intricacies on a protection order. As well as some of the provisions that it includes and how they can apply to a residential burglary charge. So, they can to further prove evidence.

Response 2:

Analysis 3:

Issue(s)

 

          Issue 1

 

The issue in the case State v. Stinton is whether the trial court was correct to dismiss a residential burglary charge against Stinton.

 

Rule(s)

 

          Rule as to Issue 1

 

Residential burglary requires two elements: 1) Intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, and 2) the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle. Stinton claims that his alleged violation of a protection order does not satisfy the “intent to commit a crime therein” and therefore the state failed to establish prima facie proof of all elements of the charged crime.

 

Analysis

 

          Rule 1, Issue 1

 

The state contends that Stinton also violated a provision of the no contact order preventing him from direct harassing contact with McNeil and that this violation is separate from illegally entering the residence. The state was able to present evidence that Stinton knew of the order and intended to make contact with McNeil in spite of it. It is also undisputed that the unlawful entry took place. The state asserts that this evidence establishes a prima facie case that provisions of the protection order had been violated.

 

Conclusion

 

The court reversed the dismissal of the residential burglary charge. They decided that the violation of a protection order could serve as the predicate crime for residential burglary and that because evidence of such a crime on Stinton’s part was presented that the trial court was in error.

What I Learned from this Case

 

I gained some insight into the process an appellate court goes through when reviewing the actions of a lower court. In particular, I was not aware that precedents set in one state (in this example applying a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court to a case in Washington) could be applied to cases in another.

Response 3:

______________________________________________________________________