Supreme Court Case: The People Vs. Rodrigo Caballero
C
Supreme Court Case
Bobby Blankenship
CJA/354
July 15th, 2013
P.M. Pollock
Supreme Court Case
Have you ever wondered if there is such a thing as to serious a judgment on a criminal case? In this paper I am bringing to light the case of The People VS. Rodrigo Caballero. In this case Caballero shot at a rival gang, in which he injured one individual. While being charged with three counts of willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder he was given a sentence of 110 years to life. While his crime is a serious offense, was the sentence given just?
What Makes This Case Interesting
This case is interesting because a juvenile was sentenced to 110 years to life without parole which violates the Eight Amendment. The Eight Amendment …show more content…
prohibits states from sentencing a juvenile convicted of non-homicide offenses to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded it to the lower courts because it violated the defendant’s Eight Amendment right. Could the ruling be in effect of bias towards gangs?
Sources, Purposes, and Jurisdictions
The sources of criminal law that relate to this case would be Constitutions, statutes and ordinances, and appellate court decisions.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution asserts that “This Constitution … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Statutes and ordinances are laws passed by Congress and by state legislatures that make up most of criminal law. Each state has a statutory criminal code as does the federal government.
Appellate court decisions are legal opinions having the status of law as stated by the appellate courts become case law. Such law results from appellate court interpretations of statutory law or from court decisions where rules have not yet been codified in statutes. The purposes of criminal law that relates to this case are: to deter people from criminal activity and to stipulate the degree of seriousness of criminal conduct. The sentencing that was cast from the judge in this case seems aimed more to deter other juveniles from possibly committing the same …show more content…
crimes.
While the crime that was committed, premeditated attempted murder, is a serious crime and should be punished, the sentence that was given from the judge appears to be too strict for this case scenario. The amount of time given for these crimes makes one wonder if the judge was aiming more to make an example of the criminal instead of trying the case in a just and unbiased manner. The jurisdictions that relate to this case is the State of California, Superior Court in Los Angeles County, and the Supreme Court of California.
Accomplice and Criminal Liability
Accomplice liability is one who assists in the commission of a crime but does not commit the actus reus.
An accomplice is often present or directly aids in the commission of the crime. The principle of accomplice liability is based on the notion that any individual who aids, abets, encourages, or assists another person to commit a crime should share in the criminal liability that accrues under law. “Criminal liability is the legal responsibility for a crime against the state, making the perpetrator subject to prosecution in a court of law and punishment (wiseGeek, 2003-2013).”
Accomplice liability in this case would be the gang that Rodrigo Caballero is a member of. They assisted in the crime by driving Caballero to the scene where the rival gang members were. Criminal liability in this case would be Caballero. He committed the crime of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder which makes him legally responsible for the crime. Since he is legally responsible for this crime, Caballero was prosecuted and punished for his
crime.
Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Concurrence
Actus reus is an act in violation of the law also known as the criminal act. A lawyer must prove that the accused party was responsible for a deed prohibited by criminal law in order to establish actus reus. The actus reus in this case is when Caballero pulled a gun and shot at the rival gang members. Mens rea means a guilty mind and refers to the specific mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime.
The importance of mens rea as a component of crime cannot be overemphasized, which can be seen in fact that some courts have held that all crimes exists primarily in the mind. Mens rea in this case is what mental state that Caballero was in at the time of the crime. Caballero knew what he was doing was wrong, but he committed the crime anyways regardless of what would happen. Concurrence requires that the act and the mental state occur together in order for a crime to take place. If one precedes the other, the requirements of the criminal law are not met. Concurrence in this case is the mental state that Caballero was in when he committed the crime of attempted murder.
References
CliffsNotes. (n.d.). Sources of Criminal Law. Retrieved from http://www.cliffsnotes.com/more-subjects/criminal-justice/criminal-law/sources-of-criminal-law
wiseGeek. (2003-2013). What is Criminal Liability. Retrieved from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-criminal-liability.htm
EBOOK COLLECTION: Schmalleger, F., Hall, D. E., & Dolatowski, J.J. (2010). Criminal law today: An introduction with capstone cases. (4th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
The People v. Rodrigo Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262,282 P.3d 291, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 286 (2012)
Supreme Court Case
Bobby Blankenship
CJA/354
July 15th, 2013
P.M. Pollock
Supreme Court Case
Have you ever wondered if there is such a thing as to serious a judgment on a criminal case? In this paper I am bringing to light the case of The People VS. Rodrigo Caballero. In this case Caballero shot at a rival gang, in which he injured one individual. While being charged with three counts of willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder he was given a sentence of 110 years to life. While his crime is a serious offense, was the sentence given just?
What Makes This Case Interesting
This case is interesting because a juvenile was sentenced to 110 years to life without parole which violates the Eight Amendment. The Eight Amendment …show more content…
prohibits states from sentencing a juvenile convicted of non-homicide offenses to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded it to the lower courts because it violated the defendant’s Eight Amendment right. Could the ruling be in effect of bias towards gangs?
Sources, Purposes, and Jurisdictions
The sources of criminal law that relate to this case would be Constitutions, statutes and ordinances, and appellate court decisions.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution asserts that “This Constitution … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Statutes and ordinances are laws passed by Congress and by state legislatures that make up most of criminal law. Each state has a statutory criminal code as does the federal government.
Appellate court decisions are legal opinions having the status of law as stated by the appellate courts become case law. Such law results from appellate court interpretations of statutory law or from court decisions where rules have not yet been codified in statutes. The purposes of criminal law that relates to this case are: to deter people from criminal activity and to stipulate the degree of seriousness of criminal conduct. The sentencing that was cast from the judge in this case seems aimed more to deter other juveniles from possibly committing the same …show more content…
crimes.
While the crime that was committed, premeditated attempted murder, is a serious crime and should be punished, the sentence that was given from the judge appears to be too strict for this case scenario. The amount of time given for these crimes makes one wonder if the judge was aiming more to make an example of the criminal instead of trying the case in a just and unbiased manner. The jurisdictions that relate to this case is the State of California, Superior Court in Los Angeles County, and the Supreme Court of California.
Accomplice and Criminal Liability
Accomplice liability is one who assists in the commission of a crime but does not commit the actus reus.
An accomplice is often present or directly aids in the commission of the crime. The principle of accomplice liability is based on the notion that any individual who aids, abets, encourages, or assists another person to commit a crime should share in the criminal liability that accrues under law. “Criminal liability is the legal responsibility for a crime against the state, making the perpetrator subject to prosecution in a court of law and punishment (wiseGeek, 2003-2013).”
Accomplice liability in this case would be the gang that Rodrigo Caballero is a member of. They assisted in the crime by driving Caballero to the scene where the rival gang members were. Criminal liability in this case would be Caballero. He committed the crime of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder which makes him legally responsible for the crime. Since he is legally responsible for this crime, Caballero was prosecuted and punished for his
crime.
Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Concurrence
Actus reus is an act in violation of the law also known as the criminal act. A lawyer must prove that the accused party was responsible for a deed prohibited by criminal law in order to establish actus reus. The actus reus in this case is when Caballero pulled a gun and shot at the rival gang members. Mens rea means a guilty mind and refers to the specific mental state of the defendant at the time of the crime.
The importance of mens rea as a component of crime cannot be overemphasized, which can be seen in fact that some courts have held that all crimes exists primarily in the mind. Mens rea in this case is what mental state that Caballero was in at the time of the crime. Caballero knew what he was doing was wrong, but he committed the crime anyways regardless of what would happen. Concurrence requires that the act and the mental state occur together in order for a crime to take place. If one precedes the other, the requirements of the criminal law are not met. Concurrence in this case is the mental state that Caballero was in when he committed the crime of attempted murder.
References
CliffsNotes. (n.d.). Sources of Criminal Law. Retrieved from http://www.cliffsnotes.com/more-subjects/criminal-justice/criminal-law/sources-of-criminal-law
wiseGeek. (2003-2013). What is Criminal Liability. Retrieved from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-criminal-liability.htm
EBOOK COLLECTION: Schmalleger, F., Hall, D. E., & Dolatowski, J.J. (2010). Criminal law today: An introduction with capstone cases. (4th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
The People v. Rodrigo Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262,282 P.3d 291, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 286 (2012)