Commonwealth v. carr
•Download as DOCX, PDF•
1 like•212 views
Case Brief: Commonwealth v. Carr
Report
Share
Report
Share
Recommended
New York Today: What’s That Smell?
PhotoBaby skunks joined wandering cats in requiring an unusual rescue.Credit Left, New York City Pol...
Dive heart project
DiveHeart is a non-profit organization that provides scuba diving experiences and programs for people with disabilities. It was founded in 2001 by Jim Elliott, who still acts as the chief executive. DiveHeart partners with many organizations to help fund and support its mission of using scuba diving to build confidence in people with disabilities. While DiveHeart does good work partnering with others and fundraising, it could improve by establishing its own facilities and creating a clear long-term management plan.
Pseudo family violence
Pseudo families form in prisons to fulfill emotional and economic needs of inmates. They typically consist of 15-20 people assuming familial roles like mother, father, siblings. Pseudo families provide companionship, resources, and protection from loneliness and violence. However, they can also be a source of conflict through jealousy, coercion, and retaliation between members. Rivalries often form over control of goods and power within the prison system.
Pseudofamilyviolence sowards
This document provides an overview of pseudo families that form in prison. It discusses what pseudo families are, why inmates join them, the roles that exist within pseudo families, sources of conflict, and how power and control can manifest. Pseudo families form support networks and fill social roles for inmates. However, they can also experience domestic violence and abuse mirroring dynamics outside of prison. The roles, conflicts, and power issues are illustrated through examples from the TV show Orange is the New Black.
Sowards 440exam
This document contains a criminal justice exam on domestic violence. It includes 20 multiple choice questions testing knowledge of key terms and concepts related to family violence, child abuse, and sexual assault. It also includes short answer questions defining important terms like the Conflict Tactics Scale, Munchausen syndrome by proxy, and shaken baby syndrome. Additionally, it provides an essay prompt asking about best practices for interviewing child victims of sexual abuse to obtain evidence while making them feel comfortable.
Rape review
The document discusses 4 cases of acquaintance rape involving college students and the symptoms experienced by the victims afterwards. It expresses disapproval of views that victims should forgive and forget, and notes common justifications made by rapists. Police comments were described as disgusting. Expulsion rates of rapists from schools were reported to be low. Disrespectful actions by students, such as offensive photos, were criticized. Surveys promoting rape were condemned. The importance of speaking out against rape was discussed, and issues around university responses to Title IX claims, including potential biases, were raised.
Movie review
The document summarizes and analyzes instances of domestic abuse depicted in a movie. It describes several tactics of physical, emotional, and economic abuse used by the character Josh Mosher against his wife Kim and their children. These include leaving bruises, putting the children in pressure holds, name-calling, monitoring spending, and withholding help when Kim was sick. The document also notes that Josh and his father both experienced abuse as children, and that the domestic violence counseling program highlighted the role of learned behavior from parents. It concludes with questions about legal aspects of the story.
Line of duty review
The document discusses several cases of domestic violence and summarizes key points from a video about domestic violence. It describes multiple victims who suffered physical and emotional abuse, including being threatened with guns, beaten, choked, burned with cigarettes, and having their hair pulled out in front of children. Statistics are presented about rates of abuse being perpetuated across generations. Excuses used to justify abuse, such as "keeping the family together", are critiqued. Signs of an abusive partner, like weapon access, rage issues, and drug/alcohol problems, are outlined. Different police approaches to focusing on victims or perpetrators are also mentioned.
Recommended
New York Today: What’s That Smell?
PhotoBaby skunks joined wandering cats in requiring an unusual rescue.Credit Left, New York City Pol...
Dive heart project
DiveHeart is a non-profit organization that provides scuba diving experiences and programs for people with disabilities. It was founded in 2001 by Jim Elliott, who still acts as the chief executive. DiveHeart partners with many organizations to help fund and support its mission of using scuba diving to build confidence in people with disabilities. While DiveHeart does good work partnering with others and fundraising, it could improve by establishing its own facilities and creating a clear long-term management plan.
Pseudo family violence
Pseudo families form in prisons to fulfill emotional and economic needs of inmates. They typically consist of 15-20 people assuming familial roles like mother, father, siblings. Pseudo families provide companionship, resources, and protection from loneliness and violence. However, they can also be a source of conflict through jealousy, coercion, and retaliation between members. Rivalries often form over control of goods and power within the prison system.
Pseudofamilyviolence sowards
This document provides an overview of pseudo families that form in prison. It discusses what pseudo families are, why inmates join them, the roles that exist within pseudo families, sources of conflict, and how power and control can manifest. Pseudo families form support networks and fill social roles for inmates. However, they can also experience domestic violence and abuse mirroring dynamics outside of prison. The roles, conflicts, and power issues are illustrated through examples from the TV show Orange is the New Black.
Sowards 440exam
This document contains a criminal justice exam on domestic violence. It includes 20 multiple choice questions testing knowledge of key terms and concepts related to family violence, child abuse, and sexual assault. It also includes short answer questions defining important terms like the Conflict Tactics Scale, Munchausen syndrome by proxy, and shaken baby syndrome. Additionally, it provides an essay prompt asking about best practices for interviewing child victims of sexual abuse to obtain evidence while making them feel comfortable.
Rape review
The document discusses 4 cases of acquaintance rape involving college students and the symptoms experienced by the victims afterwards. It expresses disapproval of views that victims should forgive and forget, and notes common justifications made by rapists. Police comments were described as disgusting. Expulsion rates of rapists from schools were reported to be low. Disrespectful actions by students, such as offensive photos, were criticized. Surveys promoting rape were condemned. The importance of speaking out against rape was discussed, and issues around university responses to Title IX claims, including potential biases, were raised.
Movie review
The document summarizes and analyzes instances of domestic abuse depicted in a movie. It describes several tactics of physical, emotional, and economic abuse used by the character Josh Mosher against his wife Kim and their children. These include leaving bruises, putting the children in pressure holds, name-calling, monitoring spending, and withholding help when Kim was sick. The document also notes that Josh and his father both experienced abuse as children, and that the domestic violence counseling program highlighted the role of learned behavior from parents. It concludes with questions about legal aspects of the story.
Line of duty review
The document discusses several cases of domestic violence and summarizes key points from a video about domestic violence. It describes multiple victims who suffered physical and emotional abuse, including being threatened with guns, beaten, choked, burned with cigarettes, and having their hair pulled out in front of children. Statistics are presented about rates of abuse being perpetuated across generations. Excuses used to justify abuse, such as "keeping the family together", are critiqued. Signs of an abusive partner, like weapon access, rage issues, and drug/alcohol problems, are outlined. Different police approaches to focusing on victims or perpetrators are also mentioned.
Us v. maze
Thomas Maze used Charles Meredith's credit card to obtain food, lodging, and other items while traveling through several states without Meredith's permission. Meredith reported the card stolen. Maze was indicted on four counts of federal mail fraud for using the mailed invoices to defraud the bank and merchants. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's reversal of Maze's conviction, holding that the mailings were not sufficiently related to Maze's scheme since they occurred after he obtained the items and were simply a result of the physical distance between locations, not to execute the scheme.
Us v. garcia
The document summarizes a court case, US v. Garcia. It describes a shooting that occurred at a party between rival gangs, the Crips and Bloods. Cody Garcia, a member of the Bloods, arrived and exchanged words with the Crips. A shooting broke out and four people were injured, though there was no evidence Garcia fired a weapon. Garcia was charged with conspiracy to assault three individuals. The court of appeals reversed Garcia's conviction, finding the government did not provide sufficient evidence of an agreement or overt act to prove the conspiracy charge. There was no testimony about what led to the shooting or evidence of a prearranged plan. Gang tensions alone do not establish conspiracy.
Us v. ancheta
Jeanson James Ancheta pled guilty to conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and conspiracy to violate the CAN-SPAM Act. He admitted to using computer servers to transmit malicious code over the internet and scan/exploit other computers. He directed an Internet Relay Chat Channel to help spread "zombie" bots. He was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison in Los Angeles. The court affirmed that the prison term was fair for someone who spread computer viruses to generate over $100,000 and infect 400,000 computers.
State v. zeta chi fraternity
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that agents of Zeta Chi Fraternity acted within the scope of their authority and on behalf of the corporation. Witness testimony established that fraternity members controlled the beer machine and space, and were aware underage drinking was occurring. The fraternity also knowingly allowed oral sex acts in exchange for money to occur
State v. ulvinen
Helen Ulvinen was convicted of first-degree murder for the killing of Carol Hoffman by Helen's son David Hoffman. David strangled and dismembered his wife Carol. He called his mother Helen to watch the children while he disposed of Carol's body. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed Helen's conviction. There was no evidence that Helen influenced David's decision to kill his wife. As David's parent, Helen was insulated by statute from guilt as an accomplice after the fact for her conduct. The evidence at best showed that Helen passively acquiesced to David's plan, which is not a criminal offense under Minnesota law.
State v. tomaino
A clerk at a video store sold an R-rated video to a minor, despite the store owner not being present. The store owner was convicted under a statute prohibiting disseminating harmful materials to juveniles. The appellate court reversed the conviction, finding that the statute requires personal action by the defendant, and as the owner was not present, the statute did not apply to him. The case was remanded for a new trial with proper jury instructions.
State v. stark
Calvin Stark tested positive for HIV in 1988 and was informed by his doctor that he must disclose his status before engaging in sexual activity. Despite this, Stark had unprotected sex with three victims between 1989-1990 without informing them of his HIV status. He was charged with three counts of assault. At his bench trials, Stark was found guilty on all counts. The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the evidence - including Stark being counseled on safe sex practices and testimony from his victims and neighbors - supported the element of intent to inflict bodily harm.
State v. snowden
Raymond Snowden met Cora Dean at a club and they left together. They argued over cab fare, Snowden pulled out a knife and cut her throat, severing her spinal cord and causing her death. Snowden then disposed of evidence from the crime. He pled guilty to murder in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that Snowden had sufficient time after meeting Dean to develop the desire to kill her, showing malice aforethought. The court reasoned that Snowden's acts met the statutory definition of deliberate and premeditated murder.
State v. sexton
Ronald Sexton was seen arguing with Alquadir Matthews before Matthews told Sexton his gun was unloaded and a bullet was fired, killing Matthews. At trial, a ballistics expert testified that it was impossible to see if the gun was loaded without pulling the slide back, and someone unfamiliar with guns could assume it was unloaded. Sexton was convicted of manslaughter and unlawful gun possession. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's reversal, holding that the state failed to prove Sexton knew the gun was loaded, which is essential to the charges. The case was remanded.
State v. schleifer
1. The defendant stood in front of a crowd and told them to commit various crimes including breaking windows, assaulting someone with a lead pipe, and stealing property. He was charged with solicitation to commit crimes.
2. The issue is whether an individual can be punished under the law for inciting and commanding multiple people to commit serious crimes with wanton disregard for life and property.
3. The court held that solicitation to another to commit felonies with dangerous weapons is a crime under common law, so the judgment was set aside and the case remanded.
State v. ninham
Omer Ninham, who was 14 years old at the time, was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide for his role in beating a man and causing him to fall to his death. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Ninham appealed his sentence, arguing that it was unconstitutional punishment for a 14-year-old and excessively harsh. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that a life sentence without parole for a 14-year-old convicted of homicide was not categorically unconstitutional. The Court also determined that Ninham's sentence was not disproportionate to his crime and that his family's religious beliefs were not improperly considered in sentencing.
State v. mays
The defendant, Kenneth Rokicki, was charged with a hate crime for yelling gay slurs at a Pizza Hut employee and disturbing other customers and staff. Rokicki argued that the hate crime statute was unconstitutional. The trial court convicted Rokicki and sentenced him to probation and community service. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, finding that the hate crime statute was not overly broad or a violation of free speech. The statute permissibly punished bias-motivated conduct more harshly than identical unbiased conduct based on sound public policy.
State v. loge
Steven Loge was stopped by police for speeding. During the stop, police found an open beer bottle under the passenger seat of the truck Loge was driving. Loge was charged with violating a statute prohibiting open containers of alcohol in vehicles. The trial court found Loge had "absolute liability" under the statute and did not require proof of knowledge of the open container. The appellate court affirmed, stating knowledge was not required. The state Supreme Court also affirmed, finding the statute unambiguously did not require knowledge as an element of the offense in order to protect society. The court reasoned that by taking control of the truck, Loge took control of all contents, including the open bottles.
State v. kimball
James Kimball entered a party store after drinking vodka and taking medication. He pet the store dog and approached a cash register, demanding money from the clerk. The clerk did not take the demands seriously at first. Kimball was charged with and convicted of attempted unarmed robbery at a bench trial. The appellate court reversed the conviction, finding that while Kimball committed overt acts, there was insufficient evidence that he possessed the specific intent to commit robbery. The case was remanded for a new trial.
State v. jantzi
Peter Jantzi accompanies Diane Anderson to her estranged husband Rex Anderson's house and lets the air out of the tires of Rex's van. Rex chases Peter down a bicycle path and jumps on him, getting stabbed in the abdomen by Peter's knife. Peter is convicted of assault in the 2nd degree. The Court of Appeals affirms the conviction but modifies it to assault in the 3rd degree and remands for resentencing, finding that while Peter knew he had a weapon and an injury could occur, he did not intend to stab Rex.
State v. hoying
1) Ted Hoying began stalking and harassing his ex-coworker Kelly Criswell after she declined his date request and left her job, sending her over 100 emails between August and September 2003 in violation of a civil protection order.
2) Hoying was convicted of menacing by stalking and sentenced to 6.5 years in prison.
3) The appeals court affirmed the conviction and sentencing, finding that the content of Hoying's emails would cause mental distress, and his behavior after the jury verdict showed a refusal to submit to the law.
State v. chism
This document summarizes a court case, State v. Chism. It describes the key facts of the case: Brian Chism was driven by Tony Duke with Chism's uncle Ira Lloyd also in the car. During the ride, an argument broke out between Ira and his ex-wife Gloria, which resulted in Ira stabbing and killing Gloria. Chism and Duke then removed Gloria's body from the car per Ira's demands before leaving. Chism was later convicted of being an accessory after the fact. The issue on appeal was whether Chism assisted Ira under circumstances that indicated Chism actively wanted to help Ira avoid arrest. The court upheld Chism's conviction, finding sufficient
State v. chaney
The Alaska Supreme Court remanded the case of State v. Chaney, finding the trial court's sentence of one year imprisonment for forcible rape and robbery was too lenient. Donald Chaney, a high school dropout with no criminal record, was charged with two counts of forcible rape and one count of robbery. While the trial court and Division of Corrections recommended lighter sentences, the Alaska Supreme Court believed longer sentences were necessary to affirm societal norms against such serious crimes and ensure no favoritism was shown due to Chaney's status. As Chaney showed no remorse for his actions and there was no credible statement from his perspective regarding the incidents, he deserved a punishment fitting the crimes.
State v. burrell
Marc Burrell was convicted of manslaughter after shooting and killing Douglas Saari at a house. Burrell claimed he had a lazy eye that made it difficult to see anything to his left. He appealed the conviction, arguing the jury was not instructed that they had to find he voluntarily pulled the trigger. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that criminal liability only requires the overall conduct include a voluntary act, not that every single preceding act be voluntary as well.
More Related Content
More from Harold Sowards
Us v. maze
Thomas Maze used Charles Meredith's credit card to obtain food, lodging, and other items while traveling through several states without Meredith's permission. Meredith reported the card stolen. Maze was indicted on four counts of federal mail fraud for using the mailed invoices to defraud the bank and merchants. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's reversal of Maze's conviction, holding that the mailings were not sufficiently related to Maze's scheme since they occurred after he obtained the items and were simply a result of the physical distance between locations, not to execute the scheme.
Us v. garcia
The document summarizes a court case, US v. Garcia. It describes a shooting that occurred at a party between rival gangs, the Crips and Bloods. Cody Garcia, a member of the Bloods, arrived and exchanged words with the Crips. A shooting broke out and four people were injured, though there was no evidence Garcia fired a weapon. Garcia was charged with conspiracy to assault three individuals. The court of appeals reversed Garcia's conviction, finding the government did not provide sufficient evidence of an agreement or overt act to prove the conspiracy charge. There was no testimony about what led to the shooting or evidence of a prearranged plan. Gang tensions alone do not establish conspiracy.
Us v. ancheta
Jeanson James Ancheta pled guilty to conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and conspiracy to violate the CAN-SPAM Act. He admitted to using computer servers to transmit malicious code over the internet and scan/exploit other computers. He directed an Internet Relay Chat Channel to help spread "zombie" bots. He was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison in Los Angeles. The court affirmed that the prison term was fair for someone who spread computer viruses to generate over $100,000 and infect 400,000 computers.
State v. zeta chi fraternity
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that agents of Zeta Chi Fraternity acted within the scope of their authority and on behalf of the corporation. Witness testimony established that fraternity members controlled the beer machine and space, and were aware underage drinking was occurring. The fraternity also knowingly allowed oral sex acts in exchange for money to occur
State v. ulvinen
Helen Ulvinen was convicted of first-degree murder for the killing of Carol Hoffman by Helen's son David Hoffman. David strangled and dismembered his wife Carol. He called his mother Helen to watch the children while he disposed of Carol's body. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed Helen's conviction. There was no evidence that Helen influenced David's decision to kill his wife. As David's parent, Helen was insulated by statute from guilt as an accomplice after the fact for her conduct. The evidence at best showed that Helen passively acquiesced to David's plan, which is not a criminal offense under Minnesota law.
State v. tomaino
A clerk at a video store sold an R-rated video to a minor, despite the store owner not being present. The store owner was convicted under a statute prohibiting disseminating harmful materials to juveniles. The appellate court reversed the conviction, finding that the statute requires personal action by the defendant, and as the owner was not present, the statute did not apply to him. The case was remanded for a new trial with proper jury instructions.
State v. stark
Calvin Stark tested positive for HIV in 1988 and was informed by his doctor that he must disclose his status before engaging in sexual activity. Despite this, Stark had unprotected sex with three victims between 1989-1990 without informing them of his HIV status. He was charged with three counts of assault. At his bench trials, Stark was found guilty on all counts. The court affirmed the convictions, finding that the evidence - including Stark being counseled on safe sex practices and testimony from his victims and neighbors - supported the element of intent to inflict bodily harm.
State v. snowden
Raymond Snowden met Cora Dean at a club and they left together. They argued over cab fare, Snowden pulled out a knife and cut her throat, severing her spinal cord and causing her death. Snowden then disposed of evidence from the crime. He pled guilty to murder in the first degree. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that Snowden had sufficient time after meeting Dean to develop the desire to kill her, showing malice aforethought. The court reasoned that Snowden's acts met the statutory definition of deliberate and premeditated murder.
State v. sexton
Ronald Sexton was seen arguing with Alquadir Matthews before Matthews told Sexton his gun was unloaded and a bullet was fired, killing Matthews. At trial, a ballistics expert testified that it was impossible to see if the gun was loaded without pulling the slide back, and someone unfamiliar with guns could assume it was unloaded. Sexton was convicted of manslaughter and unlawful gun possession. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's reversal, holding that the state failed to prove Sexton knew the gun was loaded, which is essential to the charges. The case was remanded.
State v. schleifer
1. The defendant stood in front of a crowd and told them to commit various crimes including breaking windows, assaulting someone with a lead pipe, and stealing property. He was charged with solicitation to commit crimes.
2. The issue is whether an individual can be punished under the law for inciting and commanding multiple people to commit serious crimes with wanton disregard for life and property.
3. The court held that solicitation to another to commit felonies with dangerous weapons is a crime under common law, so the judgment was set aside and the case remanded.
State v. ninham
Omer Ninham, who was 14 years old at the time, was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide for his role in beating a man and causing him to fall to his death. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Ninham appealed his sentence, arguing that it was unconstitutional punishment for a 14-year-old and excessively harsh. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that a life sentence without parole for a 14-year-old convicted of homicide was not categorically unconstitutional. The Court also determined that Ninham's sentence was not disproportionate to his crime and that his family's religious beliefs were not improperly considered in sentencing.
State v. mays
The defendant, Kenneth Rokicki, was charged with a hate crime for yelling gay slurs at a Pizza Hut employee and disturbing other customers and staff. Rokicki argued that the hate crime statute was unconstitutional. The trial court convicted Rokicki and sentenced him to probation and community service. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, finding that the hate crime statute was not overly broad or a violation of free speech. The statute permissibly punished bias-motivated conduct more harshly than identical unbiased conduct based on sound public policy.
State v. loge
Steven Loge was stopped by police for speeding. During the stop, police found an open beer bottle under the passenger seat of the truck Loge was driving. Loge was charged with violating a statute prohibiting open containers of alcohol in vehicles. The trial court found Loge had "absolute liability" under the statute and did not require proof of knowledge of the open container. The appellate court affirmed, stating knowledge was not required. The state Supreme Court also affirmed, finding the statute unambiguously did not require knowledge as an element of the offense in order to protect society. The court reasoned that by taking control of the truck, Loge took control of all contents, including the open bottles.
State v. kimball
James Kimball entered a party store after drinking vodka and taking medication. He pet the store dog and approached a cash register, demanding money from the clerk. The clerk did not take the demands seriously at first. Kimball was charged with and convicted of attempted unarmed robbery at a bench trial. The appellate court reversed the conviction, finding that while Kimball committed overt acts, there was insufficient evidence that he possessed the specific intent to commit robbery. The case was remanded for a new trial.
State v. jantzi
Peter Jantzi accompanies Diane Anderson to her estranged husband Rex Anderson's house and lets the air out of the tires of Rex's van. Rex chases Peter down a bicycle path and jumps on him, getting stabbed in the abdomen by Peter's knife. Peter is convicted of assault in the 2nd degree. The Court of Appeals affirms the conviction but modifies it to assault in the 3rd degree and remands for resentencing, finding that while Peter knew he had a weapon and an injury could occur, he did not intend to stab Rex.
State v. hoying
1) Ted Hoying began stalking and harassing his ex-coworker Kelly Criswell after she declined his date request and left her job, sending her over 100 emails between August and September 2003 in violation of a civil protection order.
2) Hoying was convicted of menacing by stalking and sentenced to 6.5 years in prison.
3) The appeals court affirmed the conviction and sentencing, finding that the content of Hoying's emails would cause mental distress, and his behavior after the jury verdict showed a refusal to submit to the law.
State v. chism
This document summarizes a court case, State v. Chism. It describes the key facts of the case: Brian Chism was driven by Tony Duke with Chism's uncle Ira Lloyd also in the car. During the ride, an argument broke out between Ira and his ex-wife Gloria, which resulted in Ira stabbing and killing Gloria. Chism and Duke then removed Gloria's body from the car per Ira's demands before leaving. Chism was later convicted of being an accessory after the fact. The issue on appeal was whether Chism assisted Ira under circumstances that indicated Chism actively wanted to help Ira avoid arrest. The court upheld Chism's conviction, finding sufficient
State v. chaney
The Alaska Supreme Court remanded the case of State v. Chaney, finding the trial court's sentence of one year imprisonment for forcible rape and robbery was too lenient. Donald Chaney, a high school dropout with no criminal record, was charged with two counts of forcible rape and one count of robbery. While the trial court and Division of Corrections recommended lighter sentences, the Alaska Supreme Court believed longer sentences were necessary to affirm societal norms against such serious crimes and ensure no favoritism was shown due to Chaney's status. As Chaney showed no remorse for his actions and there was no credible statement from his perspective regarding the incidents, he deserved a punishment fitting the crimes.
State v. burrell
Marc Burrell was convicted of manslaughter after shooting and killing Douglas Saari at a house. Burrell claimed he had a lazy eye that made it difficult to see anything to his left. He appealed the conviction, arguing the jury was not instructed that they had to find he voluntarily pulled the trigger. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that criminal liability only requires the overall conduct include a voluntary act, not that every single preceding act be voluntary as well.
More from Harold Sowards (20)
Commonwealth v. carr
- 1. HaroldSowardsII CJ 322, Tu/Th 9:30 11/9/15 Commonwealth v. Mitchell WL 773785 (Penn. Com. PL 1993) 1. Facts Upper DarbyPolice Dept.receive areportonJune 21, 1992 @ 9:49 PM LieutenantMichael KennedyandOfficerMarkManleyproceedto7142 Stockley Road, Upper Darby,PA whichis ownedbyJamesandBettyJo Johnson See KKK,niggerandcrossespaintedall overthe property June 25,1992 Duane Mitchell istakenintocustody Voluntarilywaives(inwriting) righttocounsel/silence andgivesastatementfreelyto police Tellsthemthathe alone spraypaintedthe wordson the propertyandthat he had been drinking Nonjurytrial heldDec.22,1992 convictedof criminal mischief under18 PA CS 2710 (B) whichisa misdemeanorinthe 3rd degree Post-trial motions filed AnddeniedonMay 17, 1993 Pay fine of $150 Supreme Courtaffirmsthe denial of the motions 2. Issue Was the evidence sufficientenoughtoprove the tangible propertywasdamagedinthe employmentof fire,explosionorotherdangerousmeans? 3. Holding Yes,affirmed 4. Reasoning It isabundantlyclearthatthe defendantspraypaintedthe wordsandsymbolsonthe Johnson’s house w/otheirpermission.All elementsof acrime have beenestablishedbeyondareasonable doubt.Defendantintentionallydamagedthe tangibleproperty.Intentionalspraypaintingof graffiti issufficienttosupportthe convictionof criminal mischief.