cr help need 3 assgn due in 48 hours

Discussion Chapter 4: The Elements of Crime

Ten Years Imprisonment for an Accident?

 

“Accidents happen. Sometimes they happen to individuals committing crimes with loaded guns.”

 

In  Dean v. U.S., the defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment under a federal sentencing enhancement for an accidental discharge of his firearm during a bank robbery. The prosecution presented evidence at trial indicating that the defendant went into the bank wearing a mask and carrying a loaded firearm. The defendant told everyone in the bank to “get down,” and then went behind the tellers’ station and began grabbing money with his left hand. The gun in his right hand discharged. The defendant seemed surprised by the discharge, cursed, and ran out of the bank. No one was injured or hurt during the robbery.

The defendant thereafter admitted he committed the robbery. The US Supreme Court upheld the defendant’s sentencing, in spite of the fact that there was  no evidence of  intent to discharge the firearm. The Court based its holding on the plain meaning of the statute requiring a minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment when a firearm is discharged during a robbery. The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1) (A), does not expressly state a criminal intent requirement. The Court further held that a presumption of criminal intent was not required. As the Court stated, “[i]t is unusual to impose criminal punishment for the consequences of purely accidental conduct. But it is not unusual to punish individuals for the unintended consequences of their  unlawful acts” ( Dean v. U.S., 129 S. Ct. 1849, 1855 (2009)).

 

1. Do you think it is ethical to sentence Dean to ten years’ imprisonment for his accidental conduct in this case? Why or why not?

Exercise: Chapter 4: The Elements of Crime

Answer the following questions and make sure your response is 100 words or more for each.

1. As Jordan is driving to school, she takes her eyes off the road for a moment and rummages through her purse for her phone. This causes her to run a stop sign. Jordan is thereafter pulled over by law enforcement and issued a traffic ticket. What is Jordan’s criminal intent in this case? Is Jordan criminally responsible for running the stop sign? Why or why not?

2. Read  Morissette v. U.S., 342 U.S. 246 (1952). In  Morissette, the defendant was convicted of unlawful conversion of federal property for gathering and selling spent bomb casings dropped during US Air Force practice maneuvers. The statute required “knowing” conversion of the property, and the defendant claimed he believed the property was  abandoned. Did the US Supreme Court uphold the defendant’s conviction? Why or why not? 

3. Read  State v. Crosby, 154 P.3d 97 (2007). In  Crosby, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter of a dependent person by neglect. The defendant’s mother died of “sepsis” and was brought to the hospital covered with feces and bedsores. The defendant was her mother’s caregiver. The jury was instructed that the defendant possessed the mental state of “recklessness” under the statute if she disregarded a substantial risk of  harm or  circumstances. The jury asked the judge if “circumstances” included the  bedsores or  just death. He responded that the risk could be more than just death and left it up to the jury to decide. Did the Supreme Court of Oregon uphold the defendant’s conviction? Why or why not? 

4. Read  State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St. 3d 466 (2010). In  Horner, the defendant pleaded no contest to aggravated robbery. The defendant’s pre-plea indictment did not contain a mens rea element for aggravated robbery, just the mens rea for theft. The defendant moved to dismiss the no contest plea, based on the fact that the indictment was defective for lacking the mens rea element. Did the Ohio Supreme Court find the indictment defective? Why or why not? 

Case Study: Chapter 4: The Elements of Crime

*Please make sure that your response is 100 words or more for each question/statement. *

 

You are a well-known private defense attorney with a perfect record. Read the prompt, review the case, and then decide whether you would  accept or  reject it if you want to maintain your level of success.

1. The defendant and his wife argued. She raised a knife above her head and stated, “Don’t make me use this.” The defendant took the knife away and thereafter stabbed the victim forty-three times in the head and chest with it. The defendant wants to make an  imperfect self-defense argument. Will you accept or reject the case? Read  State v. Perez, 840 P.2d 1118 (1992). The case is available at this link:  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7422940810428798296&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrLinks to an external site. .

2. The defendants crossed a police tape and trespassed on a medical clinic’s private property while protesting abortion. The defendants want to make arguments in support of  necessity,  defense of others, and  duress. The basis of the defendants’ claims is that they are protecting the lives of unborn children. Will you accept or reject the case? Read  Allison v. Birmingham, 580 So.2d 1377 (1991). The case is available at this link:  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8254507993974001416&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrLinks to an external site. .

3. The defendant, a police officer, shot the victim twice after being summoned to the victim’s home by his wife. The victim was intoxicated and armed with two small steak knives. The defendant shot the victim subsequent to a somewhat lengthy encounter during which the victim lunged at him with the knives. The victim claimed he was putting the knives down or about to put the knives down. The victim is suing the defendant for damages based on use of  excessive force in arrest or apprehension. Will you accept or reject the case? Read  Roy v. Inhabitants of Lewiston, 42 F.3d 691 (1994). The case is available at this link:  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8822695050372354696&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarrLinks to an external site. .

4. The defendant, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, distributes marijuana to qualified patients under California’s Compassionate Use Act, which allows the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes. The US government wants to stop this distribution under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which prohibits possession and use of marijuana under any circumstances. The defendant wants to continue distribution under a claim of  medical necessity. Will you accept or reject the case? Read  U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001). The case is available at this link:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-151P.ZOLinks to an external site. .