King v. cogden
•Download as DOCX, PDF•
1 like•976 views
Mrs. Cogdon was charged with murdering her 19-year-old daughter Pat but pleaded not guilty. She had been receiving treatment for minor neurotic conditions and had disturbing dreams. One night while they were sleeping, Mrs. Cogdon took an axe and killed Pat. Experts testified that Mrs. Cogdon was suffering from hysteria with an overlay of depression and that she was not awake at the time of the killing. Therefore, the court found that the killing was not legally her act and she was acquitted.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Recommended
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
Koppersmith v. state
1. Gregory Koppersmith and his wife Cynthia were arguing in their yard which turned physical. She fell from the porch and died from a skull fracture.
2. Medical evidence showed her injuries matched bricks at the scene. Gregory testified his actions were reflexive and he had no knowledge of bricks in the yard.
3. The appellate court concluded the jury could have determined Gregory did not perceive his wife might die from his actions. Since the jury was not instructed on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser offense, the conviction was reversed and remanded.
Le barron v. state
David LeBarron grabbed a woman, demanded her purse then forced her into a coal shack, saying she knew what he wanted while unzipping his pants and pulling up her skirt. He was convicted of attempted rape. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding there was enough evidence of LeBarron's intent to rape the woman based on his threats and actions. The court also found that her claimed pregnancy was not an extraneous factor that prevented the rape from being attempted.
Hamilton v. cameron
Bobby Cameron had an argument with his wife Darlene about their son during which he said "I'd probably have to blow your head off to get you to shut up." Though the police found no disturbance when they arrived, they did find Cameron's loaded shotguns. Cameron was found guilty of domestic violence in municipal court and fined $50 plus court costs, and his shotguns were confiscated. However, the court of appeals reversed the decision, holding that an essential element of domestic violence - knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm - was lacking, as Cameron's statement was only a conditional threat and there was no evidence he made a motion to carry out the threat or further harm his wife.
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. 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.
Recommended
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
Koppersmith v. state
1. Gregory Koppersmith and his wife Cynthia were arguing in their yard which turned physical. She fell from the porch and died from a skull fracture.
2. Medical evidence showed her injuries matched bricks at the scene. Gregory testified his actions were reflexive and he had no knowledge of bricks in the yard.
3. The appellate court concluded the jury could have determined Gregory did not perceive his wife might die from his actions. Since the jury was not instructed on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser offense, the conviction was reversed and remanded.
Le barron v. state
David LeBarron grabbed a woman, demanded her purse then forced her into a coal shack, saying she knew what he wanted while unzipping his pants and pulling up her skirt. He was convicted of attempted rape. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding there was enough evidence of LeBarron's intent to rape the woman based on his threats and actions. The court also found that her claimed pregnancy was not an extraneous factor that prevented the rape from being attempted.
Hamilton v. cameron
Bobby Cameron had an argument with his wife Darlene about their son during which he said "I'd probably have to blow your head off to get you to shut up." Though the police found no disturbance when they arrived, they did find Cameron's loaded shotguns. Cameron was found guilty of domestic violence in municipal court and fined $50 plus court costs, and his shotguns were confiscated. However, the court of appeals reversed the decision, holding that an essential element of domestic violence - knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical harm - was lacking, as Cameron's statement was only a conditional threat and there was no evidence he made a motion to carry out the threat or further harm his wife.
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. 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.
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. 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.
People v. o'neil
Stefan Golab died from acute cyanide poisoning after inhaling fumes while working at a polyurethane plant. Steven O'Neil, Charles Kirshbaum, and Daniel Rodriguez, who were high-level managers at the plant, were charged and convicted of murder. They appealed the conviction. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded the case, finding that the trial evidence was sufficient to preclude retrial because the managers were responsible for operating the plant under unsafe conditions without proper safety instructions or equipment for employees, which resulted in Golab's death.
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. 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
People v. thomas
The defendant was charged with second-degree murder after brutally beating a boy under his supervision at an institution with a rubber hose, causing injuries that led to the boy's death. At trial, evidence was presented that the defendant had previously beaten the boy. The appellate court affirmed both the defendant's conviction for involuntary manslaughter and the admission of evidence about the prior beating. The court found that the savage nature of the beating was sufficient to establish malice for second-degree murder. It also found that evidence of the prior beating was properly admitted to show the defendant's motive.
Jewell v. state
Barry Jewell broke into the home of his estranged wife Bridget Fisher through a kitchen window at 4 AM, hitting her new boyfriend Chris Jones with a 2 by 4 and cutting off his penis with a knife. Jewell was convicted at trial of burglary with a deadly weapon resulting in serious bodily injury and battery resulting in serious bodily injury. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that although Jewell had previously lived in the home, it qualified as the dwelling of "another person" under the burglary statute because Bridget had purchased the home before their marriage and changed the locks after Jewell moved out, establishing her control of the property.
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.
Duest v. state
1. Lloyd Duest was seen carrying a knife and stating his intent to "roll a fag". He was later seen at a gay bar with the victim, John Pope, before Pope's body was discovered stabbed multiple times at his home.
2. Duest was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. He appealed the conviction.
3. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding there was sufficient evidence of premeditation based on Duest's statements about getting money from "rolling gay guys", being seen leaving the bar with the victim while carrying a knife, and the multiple stab wounds found on the victim's body.
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.
George lee mims, sr. v. us
George Lee Mims, Sr. was convicted of attempting to rob a bank along with accomplices. They procured weapons and disguises and made two trips to the bank when it was closed. On the second trip, one accomplice placed a gun to a bank employee's head but they left without entering. The Supreme Court reversed Mims' conviction, finding not enough evidence that their conduct went beyond mere preparation to the actual attempted commission of the robbery. The jury was not properly instructed on what constitutes an attempted robbery.
Confession under Malaysian Evidence Act 1950
The document discusses the definitions and principles related to confessions and admissions in evidence law. It begins by defining a confession as an admission stating or suggesting that the accused committed the offence. A confession can be plenary (full acknowledgment of guilt) or non-plenary (incriminating statement suggesting guilt). All confessions are admissions but not all admissions are confessions. The document then examines circumstances where confessions may be excluded, such as if they were obtained through inducement, threat or promise by a person in authority. It also discusses exceptions where a confession can still be admitted, such as if the improper influence has been removed. The document analyzes several key court cases related to these principles.
7. CONSPIRACY.pptx
This document provides an overview of the law of conspiracy in Malaysia. It discusses key elements of the offense of conspiracy including: (1) an agreement between two or more parties is required; (2) the agreement must be to commit an illegal act, whether that is to commit a crime or commit a legal act through illegal means; (3) one party must take an overt act in furtherance of the agreement if the object is non-criminal. It also examines requirements for the actus reus and mens rea of conspiracy and discusses defenses like voluntary withdrawal. The document uses case examples to illustrate concepts like inferring agreement from actions and assessing what knowledge parties need have of the conspiracy.
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.
Murder ACCORDING TO JURISTS VIEWS
LAW OF JURISPRUDENCE. analysis of murder based on views given by few jurist scholars like mile Durkeim. also in Islamic perspective.
Sonnier v. state
The Court of Appeals reversed Olga Sonnier's conviction for theft of speakers. The evidence was insufficient to prove Sonnier had actual knowledge the speakers were stolen when she pawned them for two men. While Sonnier's possession of the recently stolen property could sustain a conviction, the evidence did not contradict her explanation that she was helping friends pawn the speakers and did not claim ownership herself. As the state failed to prove Sonnier's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction.
Hearsay
This document discusses hearsay evidence and exceptions to the hearsay rule. It begins by defining hearsay as out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is generally inadmissible due to issues with reliability. Exceptions allow certain hearsay statements, including dying declarations where the declarant is unavailable due to death. The document also discusses different forms of hearsay such as oral, written, and conduct, and exceptions like res gestae and statements of unavailable persons under Section 32 of the Evidence Act 1950. It concludes by mentioning the current issue of potentially abolishing the hearsay rule.
FAMILY LAW - PROMISE TO MARRY
This document outlines the key elements of a valid contract to marry under Malaysian law, including definitions, requirements, breach and consequences. It discusses the requirements of offer, acceptance, consideration and capacity. Capacity requires that parties be single and of age. Breach can occur through failure to marry within a reasonable time or through anticipatory breach. Defences include misrepresentation, lack of a duty of full disclosure, and proof of moral/physical infirmity. Consequences of breach include general and special damages awards.
(3) non fatal offences
disclaimer - this is just an attempt to answer the question for tutorial/assignment, pls double check with ur own notes for confirmation
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.
More Related Content
What's hot
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. 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.
People v. o'neil
Stefan Golab died from acute cyanide poisoning after inhaling fumes while working at a polyurethane plant. Steven O'Neil, Charles Kirshbaum, and Daniel Rodriguez, who were high-level managers at the plant, were charged and convicted of murder. They appealed the conviction. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded the case, finding that the trial evidence was sufficient to preclude retrial because the managers were responsible for operating the plant under unsafe conditions without proper safety instructions or equipment for employees, which resulted in Golab's death.
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. 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
People v. thomas
The defendant was charged with second-degree murder after brutally beating a boy under his supervision at an institution with a rubber hose, causing injuries that led to the boy's death. At trial, evidence was presented that the defendant had previously beaten the boy. The appellate court affirmed both the defendant's conviction for involuntary manslaughter and the admission of evidence about the prior beating. The court found that the savage nature of the beating was sufficient to establish malice for second-degree murder. It also found that evidence of the prior beating was properly admitted to show the defendant's motive.
Jewell v. state
Barry Jewell broke into the home of his estranged wife Bridget Fisher through a kitchen window at 4 AM, hitting her new boyfriend Chris Jones with a 2 by 4 and cutting off his penis with a knife. Jewell was convicted at trial of burglary with a deadly weapon resulting in serious bodily injury and battery resulting in serious bodily injury. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that although Jewell had previously lived in the home, it qualified as the dwelling of "another person" under the burglary statute because Bridget had purchased the home before their marriage and changed the locks after Jewell moved out, establishing her control of the property.
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.
Duest v. state
1. Lloyd Duest was seen carrying a knife and stating his intent to "roll a fag". He was later seen at a gay bar with the victim, John Pope, before Pope's body was discovered stabbed multiple times at his home.
2. Duest was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. He appealed the conviction.
3. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding there was sufficient evidence of premeditation based on Duest's statements about getting money from "rolling gay guys", being seen leaving the bar with the victim while carrying a knife, and the multiple stab wounds found on the victim's body.
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.
George lee mims, sr. v. us
George Lee Mims, Sr. was convicted of attempting to rob a bank along with accomplices. They procured weapons and disguises and made two trips to the bank when it was closed. On the second trip, one accomplice placed a gun to a bank employee's head but they left without entering. The Supreme Court reversed Mims' conviction, finding not enough evidence that their conduct went beyond mere preparation to the actual attempted commission of the robbery. The jury was not properly instructed on what constitutes an attempted robbery.
Confession under Malaysian Evidence Act 1950
The document discusses the definitions and principles related to confessions and admissions in evidence law. It begins by defining a confession as an admission stating or suggesting that the accused committed the offence. A confession can be plenary (full acknowledgment of guilt) or non-plenary (incriminating statement suggesting guilt). All confessions are admissions but not all admissions are confessions. The document then examines circumstances where confessions may be excluded, such as if they were obtained through inducement, threat or promise by a person in authority. It also discusses exceptions where a confession can still be admitted, such as if the improper influence has been removed. The document analyzes several key court cases related to these principles.
7. CONSPIRACY.pptx
This document provides an overview of the law of conspiracy in Malaysia. It discusses key elements of the offense of conspiracy including: (1) an agreement between two or more parties is required; (2) the agreement must be to commit an illegal act, whether that is to commit a crime or commit a legal act through illegal means; (3) one party must take an overt act in furtherance of the agreement if the object is non-criminal. It also examines requirements for the actus reus and mens rea of conspiracy and discusses defenses like voluntary withdrawal. The document uses case examples to illustrate concepts like inferring agreement from actions and assessing what knowledge parties need have of the conspiracy.
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.
Murder ACCORDING TO JURISTS VIEWS
LAW OF JURISPRUDENCE. analysis of murder based on views given by few jurist scholars like mile Durkeim. also in Islamic perspective.
Sonnier v. state
The Court of Appeals reversed Olga Sonnier's conviction for theft of speakers. The evidence was insufficient to prove Sonnier had actual knowledge the speakers were stolen when she pawned them for two men. While Sonnier's possession of the recently stolen property could sustain a conviction, the evidence did not contradict her explanation that she was helping friends pawn the speakers and did not claim ownership herself. As the state failed to prove Sonnier's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction.
Hearsay
This document discusses hearsay evidence and exceptions to the hearsay rule. It begins by defining hearsay as out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is generally inadmissible due to issues with reliability. Exceptions allow certain hearsay statements, including dying declarations where the declarant is unavailable due to death. The document also discusses different forms of hearsay such as oral, written, and conduct, and exceptions like res gestae and statements of unavailable persons under Section 32 of the Evidence Act 1950. It concludes by mentioning the current issue of potentially abolishing the hearsay rule.
FAMILY LAW - PROMISE TO MARRY
This document outlines the key elements of a valid contract to marry under Malaysian law, including definitions, requirements, breach and consequences. It discusses the requirements of offer, acceptance, consideration and capacity. Capacity requires that parties be single and of age. Breach can occur through failure to marry within a reasonable time or through anticipatory breach. Defences include misrepresentation, lack of a duty of full disclosure, and proof of moral/physical infirmity. Consequences of breach include general and special damages awards.
(3) non fatal offences
disclaimer - this is just an attempt to answer the question for tutorial/assignment, pls double check with ur own notes for confirmation
What's hot (20)
More from Harold Sowards
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. akers
1. Two fathers were found guilty of allowing their minor children to drive snowmobiles in violation of state statutes regulating off-highway recreational vehicles.
2. The issue is whether liability can be imposed on parents under RSA 626: 8 II(b), a statute regarding parental responsibility.
3. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that no liability can be imposed on the parents under this statute. The statute was not intended to impose criminal liability solely due to parental status, as that would violate due process under the New Hampshire Constitution.
State in the interest of m.t.s.
This case involves a juvenile, M.T.S., who was charged with second-degree sexual assault of C.G. The facts are that M.T.S. attempted to kiss and touch C.G. without her consent multiple times one night. Later that night, M.T.S. entered C.G.'s bedroom while she was in the bathroom and began kissing and undressing her, then engaged in sexual penetration without her consent. The issue is whether "physical force" is met simply by an act of nonconsensual penetration with no more force than necessary. The court held yes, that any act of sexual penetration without affirmative and freely given permission of the victim constitutes sexual assault.
More from Harold Sowards (19)
Recently uploaded
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
Our company bridges the gap between registered users and experienced advocates, offering a user-friendly online platform for seamless interaction. This platform empowers users to voice their grievances, particularly regarding online consumer issues. We streamline support by utilizing our team of expert advocates to provide consultancy services and initiate appropriate legal actions.
Our Online Consumer Legal Forum offers comprehensive guidance to individuals and businesses facing consumer complaints. With a dedicated team, round-the-clock support, and efficient complaint management, we are the preferred solution for addressing consumer grievances.
Our intuitive online interface allows individuals to register complaints, seek legal advice, and pursue justice conveniently. Users can submit complaints via mobile devices and send legal notices to companies directly through our portal.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
在线办理(SU毕业证书)美国雪城大学毕业证成绩单一模一样
学校原件一模一样【微信：741003700 】《(SU毕业证书)美国雪城大学毕业证成绩单》【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）原件一模一样纸张工艺/offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原。
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
【主营项目】
一.毕业证【q微741003700】成绩单、使馆认证、教育部认证、雅思托福成绩单、学生卡等！
二.真实使馆公证(即留学回国人员证明,不成功不收费)
三.真实教育部学历学位认证（教育部存档！教育部留服网站永久可查）
四.办理各国各大学文凭(一对一专业服务,可全程监控跟踪进度)
如果您处于以下几种情况：
◇在校期间，因各种原因未能顺利毕业……拿不到官方毕业证【q/微741003700】
◇面对父母的压力，希望尽快拿到；
◇不清楚认证流程以及材料该如何准备；
◇回国时间很长，忘记办理；
◇回国马上就要找工作，办给用人单位看；
◇企事业单位必须要求办理的
◇需要报考公务员、购买免税车、落转户口
◇申请留学生创业基金
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
Business Laws Sunita saha
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
在线办理(UNE毕业证书)新英格兰大学毕业证成绩单一模一样
学校原件一模一样【微信：741003700 】《(UNE毕业证书)新英格兰大学毕业证成绩单》【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）原件一模一样纸张工艺/offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原。
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
【主营项目】
一.毕业证【q微741003700】成绩单、使馆认证、教育部认证、雅思托福成绩单、学生卡等！
二.真实使馆公证(即留学回国人员证明,不成功不收费)
三.真实教育部学历学位认证（教育部存档！教育部留服网站永久可查）
四.办理各国各大学文凭(一对一专业服务,可全程监控跟踪进度)
如果您处于以下几种情况：
◇在校期间，因各种原因未能顺利毕业……拿不到官方毕业证【q/微741003700】
◇面对父母的压力，希望尽快拿到；
◇不清楚认证流程以及材料该如何准备；
◇回国时间很长，忘记办理；
◇回国马上就要找工作，办给用人单位看；
◇企事业单位必须要求办理的
◇需要报考公务员、购买免税车、落转户口
◇申请留学生创业基金
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Search Warrants for NH Law Enforcement Officers
Training aid for law enforcement officers related to search warrants, the requirements needed, drafting, and execution of the search warrant.
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
Learn more on how to obtain the work permit for self-employed persons in Italy at https://immigration-italy.com/selfemployment-work-permit-in-italy/.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptx
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
快速办理(SCU毕业证书)澳洲南十字星大学毕业证文凭证书一模一样
学校原件一模一样【微信：741003700 】《(SCU毕业证书)澳洲南十字星大学毕业证文凭证书》【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）原件一模一样纸张工艺/offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原。
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
【主营项目】
一.毕业证【q微741003700】成绩单、使馆认证、教育部认证、雅思托福成绩单、学生卡等！
二.真实使馆公证(即留学回国人员证明,不成功不收费)
三.真实教育部学历学位认证（教育部存档！教育部留服网站永久可查）
四.办理各国各大学文凭(一对一专业服务,可全程监控跟踪进度)
如果您处于以下几种情况：
◇在校期间，因各种原因未能顺利毕业……拿不到官方毕业证【q/微741003700】
◇面对父母的压力，希望尽快拿到；
◇不清楚认证流程以及材料该如何准备；
◇回国时间很长，忘记办理；
◇回国马上就要找工作，办给用人单位看；
◇企事业单位必须要求办理的
◇需要报考公务员、购买免税车、落转户口
◇申请留学生创业基金
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Framework
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
MEANING
Corporate Governance refers to the way in which companies are governed and to what purpose. It identifies who has power and accountability, and who makes decisions. It is, in essence, a toolkit that enables management and the board to deal more effectively with the challenges of running a company.
Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...
Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional and judicial approach
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
From Promise to Practice. Implementing AI in Legal Environments
Pim Betist's presentation about generative AI in the legal sector at Lexpo.com '24
Recently uploaded (20)
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaints
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
V.-SENTHIL-BALAJI-SLP-C-8939-8940-2023-SC-Judgment-07-August-2023.pdf
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
The Work Permit for Self-Employed Persons in Italy
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...
fnaf lore.pptx ...................................
fnaf lore.pptx ...................................
Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...
Presentation (1).pptx Human rights of LGBTQ people in India, constitutional a...
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...
From Promise to Practice. Implementing AI in Legal Environments
From Promise to Practice. Implementing AI in Legal Environments
King v. cogden
- 1. HaroldSowards CJ 322, Tu/Th 9:30 9/7/15 King v. Cogdon (Morris 1951) 1. Facts Mrs. Cogdon was charged for murdering her 19 yr old daughter Pat and pleads not guilty She has been receiving treatment for relatively minor neurotic conditions Had dreams that Pat was covered in spiders, there was a ghost at the end of her bed and that she was still in the middle of a war Then while they were both sleeping, Mrs. Cogdon went and killed Pat with an axe Three experts testified on Cogdon’s story She is acquitted 2. Issue Is there a reason to doubt Mrs. Cogdon’s deep attachment to her daughter? Is Mrs. Cogdon suffering from a form of hysteria with an overlay of depression? 3. Holding No Yes 4. Reasoning There was unanimous support given to Mrs. Cogdon’s story by the medical and psychological evidence presented by the experts. She was considered to not be awake at the time of the killing and there could be no defense under the M’Naghten Rules. Since insanity was not pleaded as a defense, she was acquitted because the act of killing itself, was not in law, regarded as her act at all.