Saturday, December 10, 2011

August 2005

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Criminal Law Final


1.) Remanded with instruction

United States v. Jackson affirmed the conviction for attempted bank robbery under similar circumstances. In the United States v. Jackson the defendants had plotted to rob banks, and had "cased" several locations looking for an opportunity. However due to the FBI informant's advice the bank deposits had been broken up into several smaller deposits and heightened security surveillance had deterred the actual bank robbery from occurring. The court held in this case that the defendants had taken substantial steps towards the commission of the crime.

Coffman and Reeves also took substantial steps towards the completion of the murder of their teacher, Janice Geiger. Bringing the rat poison to school after having clearly stated their intent to others provides sufficient evidence to support their conviction. However, this court would like to address the issue of infancy in this case.

-"At common law, children under the age of seven are conclusively presumed to be without criminal capacity, those who have reached the age of fourteen are treated as fully responsible, while as to those between the ages of seven and fourteen there is a rebuttable presumption of criminal incapacity."-

The defendants in this instance are both twelve years of age, and therefore are entitled to the presumption of criminal incapacity. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove to a jury that both of these children are capable of fully appreciating the moral blameworthiness of their actions. Therefore this case is remanded with the instruction that the moral culpability of these two young women must first be established before assigning such severe punishments.



2.) Conviction affirmed

While it is true that illegal property cannot be stolen, the exception is if the property is money or has intrinsic value (like gold or silver). The money contained in the illegal slot machines can be the subject of larceny. The slot machines were illegal property and held and operated in direct violation of the law. Therefore the slot machines themselves cannot be stolen. Stealing illegal property isn't wrong because you would be recognizing the ownership rights of the person who owns the property illegally if it was. Money is one exception to this rule and can correctly be the subject of larceny even if it is contained in illegal slot machines. The illegal slot machines still had legal money in them. Money is the subject of larceny even if it's held illegally.


4.) Affirmed

Model Penal Code: Burglary Defined. A person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, with purpose to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter.

The elements of burglary at common law were: (a) a breaking and (b) entering of (c) the dwelling of (d) another (e) at night (f) with the intent to commit a felony within.

Jean Vowell was convicted based on the principle that she entered the building with the intent to commit a felony within. The court supports that decision. The defendant had entered a separate secured structure that was the private dwelling of the victim. This reveals the flaw of the defendant's appeal because the separate secured structure was not open to the public. Entering the dwelling of Ogata with the intent to commit the assault constitutes the act of burglary.

In the case of Bruce v. Commonwealth, the defendant had entered the home of his estranged wife with the intent to assault her. Although there was no more force required than that of turning an unlocked doorknob, the conviction was supported because Bruce had entered with the intent of committing a felony assault. Similarly in this case we can support the conviction of Jean Vowell.



8.) Reversed

The donor-defendant was charged under the traditional rape law. Traditional rape law maintains that in order to prove that rape had occurred, it must be shown that force had been used and that the penetration had been against the woman's will. In this case the woman believed the sexual act to be a life-saving medical treatment, but she still knew that it was sexual intercourse that was taking place. The woman was aware of the nature of the act in which she voluntarily engaged in and had consented to was sexual intercourse. She was not mislead about what she was doing, and had engaged in the act without resistance. Furthermore, there was a lack of force that was necessary, under the traditional rape law, to secure the conviction of rape. The donor-defendant did not use force, the woman did not resist the sexual intercourse, and this court must find that the act of rape did not occur in this case by the definition set forth by the traditional rape law.

Similarly, in the case of Boro v. Superior Court (p.243) the court reversed the conviction of a defendant who represented himself as a physician. The defendant in this case also persuaded the victim that sexual intercourse was a necessary medical treatment to treat a fatal disease. The court found that the victim was not unconscious of the nature of the act. She was still aware that the act she engaged in voluntarily had been sexual intercourse, regardless of any perceived medical treatment value.

STATE V. RAGUSEO


Case Brief

STATE V. RAGUSEO
Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1993
225 Conn. 114, 622 A.2d 519

Facts

The appellant John Raguseo was convicted of murder. Raguseo stabbed Philip Iacozza roughly fifteen times with an eight-inch knife directly causing, and proximately causing, the death of Iacozza.



The offense was murder unless the mitigating circumstances of “extreme emotional disturbance” were proven to exist. In order for the affirmative defense of “extreme emotional disturbance” to be established three criteria must be met. These criteria were: 1) The emotional disturbance was not a mental disease or defect. 2) The defendant was exposed to extremely unusual & overwhelming stress. 3) There was an extreme emotional reaction to the stress.

Raguseo appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Issue

Raguseo alleges that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the issue of extreme emotional distress. Raguseo argued that the trial court also acted improperly when it denied both of his motions for judgment of acquittal. He based his motions for acquittal on (1) evidence did not establish that he had intent to kill the victim, and (2) evidence established the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance.

If the jury had found sufficient proof that the defendant had been acting under “extreme emotional disturbance” the crime would be reduced from murder to manslaughter. Acting under “extreme emotional distress” would amount to a mitigating circumstance.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the conviction of murder.

The court found that (1) intent to cause death may correctly be inferred from the type of weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the type of wound inflicted, and the events surrounding the death.
(2) The issue of extreme emotional disturbance was a matter for the trier of fact. As the jury found the “mitigating circumstance” to be neither unusual nor extreme, the court must uphold the jury’s decision that there was not sufficient ground for the affirmation defense of extreme emotional disturbance.

Dissent

Berdon, Associate Justice, dissenting.

Berdon argues that the reasonableness of the emotional disturbance should have been determined from the point of view of the appellant. The jury should have been instructed to find that the cause of the emotional disturbance should not have been evaluated by a rational mind, but rather from the viewpoint of the defendant (a chronic paranoid schizophrenic).

Berdon reasons that emotional disturbance can reasonably be cause by a seemingly trivial event, if the subject experiencing the disturbance is predisposed to being emotionally unbalanced. Furthermore, he asserts that any person who commits murder cannot expect that his/her actions will be viewed as reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

Murder with provocation (manslaughter) can be established only if the facts presented show that the act arose from reasonable provocation.

The affirmative defense of “emotional disturbance” can be established only if the facts presented show that the act arose from reasonable provocation.

Seneca's Agamemnon


Agamemnon by Seneca
Roman plays were famous for violence, and Seneca's adaptation of Aeschylus' Agamemnon is no exception. Condemned men were cast into the role of victim of the tragedy. When the murder took place in the scene of the play, the act would not be faked. They would actually carry out the execution of the convict. In Agamemnon the main character is murdered by his wife Clymenestra. In the Greek version Agamemnon’s murder occurs off stage and the audience knows the murder took place when Clymenestra emerges with blood on her face and tells the details of her deed. Seneca focused greatly on the act of the murder, and makes it very clear that the scene cannot be properly performed without chopping off somebody's head with an axe.
Agamemnon has returned from Troy where he had won the war against the Trojans. In his ten-year absence his wife has taken Aegisthus as her lover. Aegisthus is Agamemnon’s cousin who was born from his father Thyestes' incestuous relationship with his own daughter. Aegisthus is then Thyestes' son and his grandson. Aegisthus is sleeping with his cousin's wife Clymenestra in Agamemnon’s absence. Meanwhile during this same ten years, Agamemnon has captured a Princess of Troy, Cassandra, and made her his slave concubine. Cassandra is a prophet/seer of the future. While Clymenestra reasons that this is a fine situation for Agamemnon to have a concubine, as conquering warriors should be permitted, she is deeply troubled by her own infidelity and plots to kill Agamemnon so that he does not kill her first for cheating on him. Clymenestra is certain there is no way to hide her affair from Agamemnon because people gossip and the hired help will rat her out. She believes that her infidelity is her condemnation and in order to protect her two remaining children she must kill Agamemnon. While at sea Agamemnon had sacrificed one of Clymenestra's daughters to save his fleet of ships from perishing. The sacrifice was done to appease a god. Likewise, Aegisthus believes it is Apollo’s will that Clymenestra bears his children1.
In the Greek version three motives are given for the betrayal by Clymenestra. These reasons are that 1) Clymenestra is jealous of Cassandra, Agamemnon’s concubine, 2) The sacrifice of Clymenestra’s daughter Iphigenia, and 3) to avenge the deaths of the lost lives of Athens’ young warriors. In Seneca’s adaptation of the play these circumstances are not viewed as being any of the motives for Agamemnon’s murder. Instead as much as these issues are addressed they are all played down as being acceptable, reasonable, and even to be expected. Seneca focused primarily on the Clymenestra’s desire to keep her relationship with Aegisthus a secret. All other motives are seemingly dismissed out of hand. (Seneca 173-207)
Clymenestra and Aegisthus murder Agamemnon together in a consummation of their anti-marriage. After Aegisthus stabs Agamemnon several times Clymenestra chops off his head with a double bladed axe. Clymenestra’s two remaining children, Electra and Orestes, flee the house. Orestes catches a ride in his uncle Strophius’ chariot. Electra is captured and Aegisthus decides

1Seneca, Lucius Annaeus. Seneca: The Tragedies / translated by David R. Slavitt. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1992.

that they should torture her in the dungeon until she tells them where Orestes went. In the end Clymenestra’s desire to protect her children from Agamemnon has been thwarted by her own bloodlust. (Seneca 173-207)
Seneca greatly impacted the works of later playwrights. Shakespeare and the French Renaissance were blatantly inspired by the work of Seneca. In all likelihood, during the Elizabethan period Classical tragedy was synonymous with Seneca. From 1551 to 1563 Seneca's plays were the height of English culture. In fact, in 1562, when the first English tragedy was performed it was reviewed in terms of how closely it mimics the style of Seneca2.
It is noteworthy how closely the great Shakespeare classics resemble the plays of Seneca. Several main themes and plot devices Shakespeare used were taken right out of the pages of Seneca's works. Crime, incest, supernatural forces, princely ambitions, and a preoccupation with torture, mutilation, and death are both themes of Seneca and Shakespeare. Most noteworthy however is that Seneca had adapted the Greek plays to Roman culture to help inspire the development of Roman theatre, while Shakespeare did the same thing with Seneca's plays (adapting them from Roman culture to inspire the growth of English art). It would seem plagiarism hasn't always been such a four-letter word. (Arkins)
Examples of the common themes are easily witnessed when we compare Hamlet's apparition with the ghost of Thyestes at the beginning of Agamemnon.

2Arkins, Brian. "Heavy Seneca: his Influence on Shakespeare's Tragedies." Arkins: Seneca and Shakespeare. 1995. University College Dublin, Ireland. 2 August 2005 .

Clymenestra was having an incestuous affair with her husband's cousin; similarly Hamlet's mother marries his uncle. These may be common themes among the classical plays, but the implication that these actions are committed to secure a position of royalty makes the correlations too great to overlook. Clearly Shakespeare was influenced by Seneca's interpretation of the Greek classics. (Arkins)
Seneca was a philosophical rhetorician from Cordoba, Spain. He was educated in Rome and studied a form of philosophy that combined Stoicism with the mysticism of Pythagoreanism. He was a political figure during the rule of four emperors, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. Two of the emperors hated Seneca, one contemplated his murder, one banished him into exile, and his relationship with a third eventually contributed to his death. The first emperor that he fell into displeasure with was Caligula who sought to murder Seneca, but was dissuaded by a female courtier that convinced him that Seneca was of such frail health that the emperor was better off to just let nature take it's course3.
After writing a scathing burlesque on the buffoonery of emperor Claudius (Gill), Seneca was banished into exile for eight years on the Island of Corsica. The banishment is also thought to be related to the accusations that Seneca had an affair with the niece of the emperor's third wife4. It is highly likely that the accusations were just an excuse to get rid of political opposition. Little is known

3Gill, N.S. Seneca - A Thinker For Our Times. 25 May. 1995. 31 July 2005 .
4 Friesen, Lauren. "Theatre Chair." Lecture 19, Seneca. 28 July 2005. University of Michigan - Flint. 28 July 2005 .

of his banishment to the island except that there is a pile of rubble among the ruins of Corsica known as "Seneca's tower"5. It is speculated that this is where Seneca wrote his adaptations of the Greek classics.
Eventually Claudius' fourth wife Agrippina requested that Seneca return to Rome to tutor her son, Lucius Domitius, the future emperor Nero. Agrippina then poisoned Claudius so that Nero could assume the throne. (Friesen) Seneca then became the Prime Minister under the rule of the emperor Nero. (Gunmere) Eventually Agrippina became the mistress of Britannicus, the son of Claudius. She plotted to have Nero killed so that she could become, once again, the wife of the emperor. (Friesen) Agrippina’s relationship with Britannicus could have been the inspiration for Seneca’s adapted Greek plays regarding incest. However, this is not entirely clear because it was such a common theme among the classical plays, and it is also unknown if Seneca had written the plays before or after he became aware of the relationship and plot to overthrow Nero.
Historically scholars believe that Nero was the “mad emperor” who fiddled while Rome burned. While it may be true that Nero was insane, his paranoid dillusions were not entirely unfounded. In essence Nero’s mother had killed his father so that he could become emperor. Then his mother begins a relationship with her dead husband’s son. From the context of this relationship they plot to overthrow Nero so they can again have the emperor’s thrown. It would seem that Nero had good reason to be paranoid. However, as a manifestation of
Nero’s paranoia he requests Seneca to drink poison because he feels that

5Gummere, Richard Mott. Seneca the Philosopher and his Modern Message. Norwood: The Plimpton Press, 1934.

Seneca’s position as Prime Minister might have threatened Nero’s role as emperor. (Gunmere)
I believe that Seneca placed a hidden commentary in the play Agamemnon regarding the citizens being the helpless subjects of kings and toys to the gods. He offers us the advice that we should avoid their notice, and when we cannot avoid it we should appear pleasing to them singing praises and thanks. This may actually be a his own way of admitting that even as a member of the senate and later as Prime Minister he was essentially powerless and subject to the whims of the emperor. Although Seneca had served as Prime Minister to the emperor Nero, he had previously been banished to the island of Corsica under the rule of the former emperor Claudius. Corsica was a penal colony where out of favor political figures could be sentenced to exile. Seneca spend some eight years there, and it is believed that he wrote his plays while there in exile. It seems the plays that he wrote were written from memory, like he had seen the Greek play performed and in his newfound spare time he decided to write an adaptation.
In addition to this, I furthermore believe that in Seneca's version of Agamemnon the characters were actually symbolic representations of the roman "royalty". Clymenestra's affair with Aegisthus echoes of Agrippina's relationship with Britannicus. I'm certain Seneca had these figures of the Roman Empire in mind when he adapted a play about an incestuous queen and the murder of the king. This plot plays out in the play Agamemnon when Clymenestra kills the king Agamemnon so that she can continue the relationship she has with her nephew. A strikingly similar situation occurs with Agrippina killing Claudius so that Nero could be emperor, and again when she plotted to kill Nero so that Britannicus could become emperor. The correlations that are evident with the incest and the murder of a ruler are too similar to merely be coincidental.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Finals, papers, blah, blah, blah


Been busy with writing papers and final exams. I presented my case brief for Dr. Mars. I got an A+ on it. I'll post it here when I get to it. I just finished her final exam and emailed it in. I have a final exam online for my Theatre History class. The final is one hour long and opens at 7:00 am tuesday morning and closes at 11:00 pm wednesday evening. Once we start the exam we have one hour to submit it before we are deducted points. The deduction is one point for every minute over time. There will be 50 questions. I had to write an 8 page paper for the class too, that took up some time in the past two weeks trying to finish it.

Dr. Koch said that there will not be a third paper to write for his class, but the final exam is tomarrow at 4:00 pm. Then the summer semester is over...

As promised, here are my answers from the Criminal Law midterm exam (I just submitted the final a few minutes ago [it's due on tuesday before noon]): [I got 84% on this midterm, I'll post the final after I know the grade]

1.) Decision affirmed.

Keebler was charged under the common law rules. Therefore murder of a fetus is not a culpable offense. As a fetus is not defined as a "human being" under common law rules, he must be acquitted of murder. The trial judge made the correct decision, and this court affirmed that judgment.

If Mr. Keebler had been tried under the provisions of the Michigan Penal Code, he might have been successfully prosecuted. Michigan Penal Code provides for manslaughter charges to be brought in the event the fetus is a "quick child". A quick child is one capable of fetal movement in the uterus. As evidence of this case shows, the child was in such a state as to be considered a quick child. Therefore, if Keebler had been charged under Michigan Penal Code, he might have been reasonably convicted. However, as he was charged under common law rules, the unborn fetus was not human and therefore Keebler must be acquitted of murder.

3.) Coviction upheld.

We, the majority, find that George F. Fish, Inc. is criminally liable via the principle of viacious liability. The vicarious liablity clause allows for suspension of the mens rea for the crime by imposing strict liability for the employees actions. This type of regulatory statute would be excessively difficult to enforce, if not for this clause. Bot the actus reus and mens rea are suspended by virtue of the vicarious liability clause. Therefore employers, such as George F. Fish, Inc., and others, are not able to argue to the courts that they were unaware of the violations, or had not directly taken part in them. It is sufficient that they profited from the criminal act. The conviction and fines are then justifiable as there shall be no profitability in ill-gotten gains.

5.) Conviction upheld.

Words alone are not enough to adequately provoke the act of murder. For provocation to exist there must have been a witnessed act performed by Reynold's wife. In order to invoke the "heat of passion" argument Mr. Reynolds must have literally caught his wife in bed with another man. Only then would his argument for voluntary manslaughter hold any weight with this court.

Furthermore, we find that Reynolds actions prior to the event demonstrate more than adaquate deliberation and premeditation. While his suspicion of his wife's affair is not sufficient ofr a "caught up in the moment" sort of difense, it does prove that he formed the intent to kill well in advance of his actions. see State v. Mercer.

6.) Affirmed.

The conviction of Robert Hogan is upheld on the grounds of the felony-murder rule. Bandy's death would not have happened, but for, the felonious act of kidnapping. Hogan's act of kidnapping, coupled with the heinous act of depriving the woman of all sustainance establishes a direct causation of his actions leading to the death of Bandy. Therefore his intent may be overlooked as death should have been a natural and forseeable event caused directly by his actions.

The conviction of Terressa Nix is upheld on the principle of the "act by ommission". In the case "Commonwealth v. Pestinikas" the courts have found that failure to provide assistance can be equivalent to a postive action if the result is the same. Miss Nix did in fact form a legal duty to assist Pam Bandy when she first became aware of the perilous situation with which Bandy was faced.* This allows Terressa Nix to be convicted of murder absent any actus reus. Therefore, both convictions are upheld.


*This was the one that I got wrong. The real answer is this: legal duty can be formed only after you begin to assist. Witnessing a crime does not form a legal duty. Create the peril, have a legal relationship (wife, child, etc.), voluntary assistance. These are the only ways to form the legal duty to assist. [Moral duty v. legal duty]

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Test scores


Dr. Mars gave us back our tests, but she collected them at the end of class so they could be recorded. I got an 84% on her test. I did get the case wrong that I thought I did. This was the mid-term exam for the class. We'll have a final, and I have a case brief on thursday to present and turn in.

Dr. Koch gave me an 83% on my first test, and I'm still averaging 88% in THE 300. B grades aren't bad, and I'm not complaining. On the last test that I took in Dr. Koch's class only 3 people got A's, and 8 students got B's, most of the student's got a C grade on the test. I'm just happy that I was one of the 8 students. I'm going to take another test in his class today at 4:15-6:45.
posted by pre-blawger at 8/02/2005 02:44:00 PM | 0 comments

No comments:

Post a Comment