A recent criminal Supreme Court case that I find to be interesting is Missouri v. Frye. Actus reus is a guilty act‚ mens rea is a guilty mind‚ and concurrence is the equality of rights. Both actus reus and mens rea are both needed in order for a defendant to prove criminal liability. This case was about a guy named Frye‚ he was arrested for driving with a revoked license. Frye was previously arrested a few times before this incident dealing with the same crime. Missouri state law can give you a maximum
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Case Name: Kentucky v. King‚ 563 U.S. (2011) Facts: In Lexington‚ Kentucky‚ police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
GARRATT v. DAILEY Supreme court of Washington February 14‚ 1955 1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair‚ defendant‚ a child under six years old‚ deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that‚ due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity‚ he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time
Premium Legal terms Plaintiff Tort
U.S. Supreme Court TEXAS v. JOHNSON‚ 491 U.S. 397 (1989) 491 U.S. 397 Citation: Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute. Date Decided: June 21‚ 1989 Facts of case: At the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas‚ Texas‚ Johnson decided to burn an American flag in protest of some policies made by the Reagan administration and some Dallas corporations that he did not agree with. Noone sustained physical injury or was even
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States
Title of Case: Florida v. Michael A. Riley Legal Citation: 488 U.S. 445‚ 109 S.Ct. 693‚ 102 L.Ed.2d. 835 (1989) Procedural History: The respondent‚ Michael A. Riley‚ was charged with possession of marijuana under Florida law. The trail court granted his motion to suppress; the Court of Appeals reversed but certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court‚ which rejected the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trail court’s suppression order. The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Farwell‚ Benjamin CJU 134 Chp.8‚ Pg 286 Miranda V Arizona FACTS: On March 16‚ 1963‚ Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant‚ and although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights‚ he signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights‚ although the officers admitted at trial that Mr.Miranda was not appraised of his right to have an attorney present
Premium Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution Miranda v. Arizona Law
Issue: Barry Jewell was convicted of burglary with a deadly weapon resulting in serious bodily injury‚ a class A felony. Also‚ Battery resulting in serious bodily injury‚ a class C felony. Rule: The court used the case‚ Ellyson V. State‚ 603 N.E.2d 1369‚ 1373 (Ind. Ct.App.1992) In that case‚ Ellyson was charged with burglary because he broke into the house where him and his estranged wife lived with the intent to rape her. He was still charged with burglary even though he had the right to possession
Premium Felony Marriage Crimes
Jessica Feeney Paralegal 246 Monday / Wednesday 7 – 10:10pm People v. Green 163 Cal.App.3d 239‚ 205 CalRptr.255 (Cal App 2 Dist. 1984) Facts: The defendant Vencil Green was charged and convicted of 12 felony offenses. The defendant used a gun to commit robbery and kidnaping for the purpose of robbery. At trial court the defendant presented expert testimony that the defendant’s history of heavy usage of PCP and other illicit drugs that has affected his brain and his ability to have committed
Premium Appeal Crime Court
Citation Eisner v. Macomber‚3 AFTR 3020‚ 252 US 189‚1 USTC ¶32 (US‚ 1920) Issue (1) Under the 16th Amendment‚ does Congress have the power to tax stock dividends received by the Macomber? (2) Are stock dividends considered income? Facts Mrs. Macomber owned 2‚200 shares of Standard Oil Company. In January 1916‚ Standard Oil Company declared a 50% stock dividend. Mrs. Macomber received an additional 1‚100 shares of stock with a $19‚877 par value. The shares represented a surplus for Standard
Premium Stock market Stock Supreme Court of the United States
ruled that Tuskegee city officials redrew the cities boundaries unconstitutionally so that the white candidates in the cities political race could win and the blacks’ votes would not count. This case laid the framework for the passage of the 1965 voters rights act which outlawed discrimination in voting. The case was named after a Tuskegee university professor Charlie A. Gomillion who was the plaintiff and the defendant was the mayor of Tuskegee Phillip M. Lightfoot. Gomillion tried to make it easier
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States American Civil War