DOCSLIB.ORG

Compendium of the Hawaiʻi Pattern Jury Insructions - Criminal (Updated As of March 1, 2021)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Compendium of the Hawaiʻi Pattern Jury Insructions - Criminal (Updated As of March 1, 2021) COMPENDIUM OF THE HAWAIʻI PATTERN JURY INSRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL (UPDATED AS OF MARCH 1, 2021) TABLE OF INSTRUCTIONS1 Volume I 1. PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS Introductory Comment 1.01 Preliminary Instructions to the Jury (6/15/18). 1.02 Jury Instruction: Use of Interpreter (12/27/96). 1.02A Juror Notetaking (To be given prior to evidence being presented) (5/4/09). 1.02B Juror Notetaking (To be given prior to deliberation) (5/4/09). 2. INSTRUCTIONS IN THE COURSE OF TRIAL Introductory Comment 2.01 Cautionary Instruction – Recess (9/4/09). 2.02 Discharge of Defense Counsel During Trial (9/4/09). 2.03 Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts (9/4/09). 2.04 Cautionary Instruction During Trial Regarding Transcript of a Recording (9/4/09). 3. INSTRUCTIONS AT END OF CASE Introductory Comment 3.01 Consider Instructions as a Whole (10/8/12). 3.02 Presumption of Innocence; Reasonable Doubt (6/29/00). 3.03 Consider Only the Evidence (9/4/09). 3.04 Disregard Stricken Evidence. 3.05 Judicial Notice. 3.06 Stipulations. 3.07 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence. 3.08 Weight of Evidence. 3.09 Credibility and Weight of Testimony (6/29/00). 3.10 Rejecting Testimony. 3.11 Number of Witnesses. 3.12 Prosecution Not Required to Call All Witnesses. 3.13 Defendant Not Required to Call Any Witnesses. 1 The original instructions approved and published in December, 1991, set forth in Volume I of these instructions, are not dated. Instructions approved since then have, in parentheses, the date of the order of approval, though a few instructions included in this compendium were approved after 1991, but no approval date could be verified for the instruction. These are indicated by “(approval date?)”. i 3.14 Defendant Not Required to Testify. 3.15 Defendant as Witness (2/10/12). 3.16 State of Mind – Proof by Circumstantial Evidence (6/29/00). 3.17 Retention of Alternate Juror on Submission of Case to Jury (2/10/12). 3.18 Substitution of Alternate Juror: During Deliberations (2/10/12). 3.19 Eyewitness Testimony (1/3/13 (see Inst. No. 3.17), 10/29/14). 3.19A Show-Up Identification (12/18/14). 4. CONSIDERATION OF PARTICULAR EVIDENCE 4.01 Evidence Admitted for a Limited Purpose (6/29/00). 4.02 Evidence Applicable to Only One Defendant. 4.03 Availability of Exhibits During Deliberations. 4.04 Mug Shots. 4.05 Expert Witnesses (6/29/00). 4.06 Separate Consideration of Multiple Counts/Defendants. 4.07 Out of Court Statement By Defendant (12/27/96) 5. OFFENSES 5.01 Generic Elements Instruction (Revised 5/4/09). 5.02 RESERVED (6/29/00) 5.03 Included Offense - Generic (6/29/00). 5.03B Included Offense When Greater Offense is Alternatively Charged in a Single Count: Generic (Added 8/26/11). 5.03C Included Offense When Greater Offense is Alternatively Charged in Separate Counts: Generic (Added 8/26/11). 5.04 Merger – Continuing and Uninterrupted Course of Conduct: H.R.S. § 701-109(1)(e) (Added 5/25/11) [5.04A Murder in the 2° -- Murder Alleged By Commission and Omission In One Count - Generic (With Included Offense and Defense) H.R.S. §§ 707-701.5 and 702-203(2) (12/27/96)(Renumbered 6/29/00. See 9.07B).] 5.04A Merger – Continuing and Uninterrupted Course of Conduct: Special Interrogatory (Added 5/25/11) 5.05 Murder in the 2° -- By Omission -- Generic H.R.S. §§ 707-701.5 and 702-203(2) (Renumbered 5/25/11). 5.05A Murder in the 2° -- Murder Alleged by Commission and Omission in One Count – Generic: Parent/Minor Child (With Included Offense and Defense: H.R.S. §§ 707- 701.5 and 702-203(2) [Renumbered 5/25/11. See 9.07B] ii 5.06A Alternative Forms of Assault in the 2° in the Same Count (Substantial Bodily Injury and Dangerous Instrument): H.R.S. § 707-711(1)(a), (b), (d) (Added 8/26/11) 5.06B Alternative Forms of Assault in the 2° in Separate Counts (Substantial Bodily Injury and Dangerous Instrument): H.R.S. § 707-711(1)(a), (b), (d) (Added 8/26/11) 5.07 Count Removed From Jury Consideration: Generic (Added 2/10/12) 6. RESPONSIBILITY 6.01 Accomplice (6/29/00). 6.01A Caution as to Accomplice (6/29/00). [6.01C Special Interrogatory on Intrinsic Aggravating Circumstance When an Accomplice Instruction is Given (6/29/00)(Renumbered 10/27/03. See 8.07A.)] 6.02 State of Mind - Intentionally. 6.03 State of Mind - Knowingly. 6.04 State of Mind - Recklessly. 6.05 State of Mind - Negligently. 6.06 Possession (6/29/00). 6.07 State of Mind Required (5/4/09). 7. SPECIFIC DEFENSES Introductory Comment (6/29/00) 7.01A Self-Defense When The Use of “Deadly Force” Is At Issue(4/4/11). 7.01B Self-Defense When Only Force Is At Issue (8/26/11). 7.02A Defense of Others When Deadly Force Is At Issue (2/10/12). 7.02B Defense of Others When Deadly Force Is Not At Issue (8/26/11). 7.03 Defense to Theft (12/27/96, 6/29/00). 7.04 Intoxication (6/29/00). 7.05 Consent (5/5/17). 7.06 Affirmative Defense--Generic (6/29/00). 7.07 Insanity (6/29/00). 7.08 Entrapment - Methods of Persuasion (6/29/00). 7.09 Entrapment - False Representations (6/29/00). 7.10 Duress (6/29/00). 7.11 Choice of Evils - Escape (6/29/00). 7.12 Choice of Evils - Necessity (6/29/00, 12/19/03). 7.13 Ignorance of Mistake of Fact (12/27/96, 6/29/00). 7.14 Alibi (12/27/96, 6/29/00). iii 7.15 Use of Force by Persons With Special Responsibility for Care, Discipline, or Safety of Others – Minors and Incompetent Persons: H.R.S. § 703-309(1) and (3) (2/28/06). 7.16 Voluntary Act or Voluntary Omission (5/4/09). 7.17 Procuring Agent Defense (5/4/09). 7.18A Defense of Property When the Use of “Deadly Force” Is At Issue (10/8/12). 7.18B Defense of Property When the Use of “Deadly Force” Is Not At Issue (10/8/12). 8. JURY DELIBERATIONS Introductory Comment (6/29/00) 8.01 Penalty or Punishment Not to be Discussed. 8.02 Unanimity Instruction -- Generic (6/29/00, 10/31/00). 8.02A Unanimous Verdict (4/09/02). [See 8.02 (6/29/00) for commentary.] 8.03 Conduct of Deliberation. 8.04 Form of Verdicts. 8.05 Partial Verdict. 8.06 Return to Deliberation After Polling. 8.07A Special Interrogatory on Intrinsic Aggravating Circumstance When an Accomplice Instruction is Given (6/29/00, as 6.01C; renumbered and revised 10/27/03). 8.07B Offender Against Elderly, Handicapped or a Minor Under the Age of Eight: H.R.S. § 706-662 (5) (10/1/08). 8.07C Special Interrogatory: Offender Against Elderly, Handicapped or a Minor Under the Age of Eight: H.R.S. § 706-662 (5) (10/1/08). 8.07D Offender Against the Elderly, Handicapped or a Minor Under the Age of Eight: H.R.S. § 706-662(5) (Applicable to offenses that occurred on or before October 30, 2007) (10/1/08). 8.07E Special Interrogatory: Offender Against Elderly, Handicapped or a Minor Under the Age of Eight: H.R.S. § 706-662)(5) (Applicable to offenses that occurred on or before October 30, 2007) (10/1/08). Volume II 9. CHAPTER 707 -- OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON 9.00 Definitions of Terms Used in Chapter 9, Standard Jury Instructions (4/19/96, 4/9/02, 9/1/04, 10/29/14). iv 9.01 Murder 1° -- More Than One Person H.R.S. § 707-701(a) (4/19/96). 9.02 Murder 1° -- Peace Officer, Judge or Prosecutor H.R.S. § 707-701(b) (4/19/96). 9.03 Murder 1° -- Witness in a Criminal Prosecution H.R.S. § 707-701(c) (4/19/96). 9.04 Murder 1° -- Hires a Killer H.R.S. § 707-701(d) (4/19/96). 9.05 Murder 1° -- Hired Killer H.R.S. § 707-701(d) (4/19/96). 9.06 Murder 1° -- While Defendant Imprisoned H.R.S. § 707- 701(e) (4/19/96). 9.07 Murder 2° H.R.S. § 707-701.5 (4/19/96, 10/27/03). 9.07B Murder 2° -- Murder Alleged By Commission and Omission In One Count - Generic (With Included Offense and Defense) H.R.S. §§ 707-701.5 and 702-203(2) (6/29/00). 9.08 Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance Manslaughter H.R.S. § 707-702(2) (6/29/00). 9.08A Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance Manslaughter H.R.S. § 707-702(2) (12/19/03). 9.09 Manslaughter -- Reckless H.R.S. § 707-702(1)(a) (4/19/96) (Renumbered 6/29/00). 9.09A Manslaughter -- By Causing Suicide H.R.S. § 707- 702(1)(b) (4/19/96) (Renumbered 6/29/00). 9.10 Negligent Homicide 1° H.R.S. § 707.702.5 (4/19/96, 10/29/14). 9.10A Negligent Homicide 1° -Vulnerable User: H.R.S. § 707- 702.5(1)(b) (Added 10/29/14). 9.11 Negligent Homicide 2° H.R.S. § 707-703 (4/19/96, 10/29/14). 9.11A Negligent Homicide 2° -Vulnerable User: H.R.S. § 707- 703(1)(b) (Added 10/29/14). 9.12 Negligent Homicide 3° H.R.S. § 707-704 (4/19/96, 10/29/14). 9.13 Negligent Injury 1° H.R.S. § 707-705 (4/19/96, 10/29/14).
Load more

  1064
Copy Link
Recommended publications
  • Charging Language
    1. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abduction ................................................................................................73 By Relative.........................................................................................415-420 See Kidnapping Abuse, Animal ...............................................................................................358-362,365-368 Abuse, Child ................................................................................................74-77 Abuse, Vulnerable Adult ...............................................................................78,79 Accessory After The Fact ..............................................................................38 Adultery ................................................................................................357 Aircraft Explosive............................................................................................455 Alcohol AWOL Machine.................................................................................19,20 Retail/Retail Dealer ............................................................................14-18 Tax ................................................................................................20-21 Intoxicated – Endanger ......................................................................19 Disturbance .......................................................................................19 Drinking – Prohibited Places .............................................................17-20 Minors – Citation Only
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Hearsay and Related Topics
    Criminal Law EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS A Consultation Paper LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER No 138 The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WClN 2BQ. This Consultation Paper, completed for publication on 11 May 1995, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on this Consultation Paper before 31 October 1995. All correspondence should be addressed to: Ms C Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WClN 2BQ (Tel: 0171- 453 1232) (Fax: 0171- 453 1297) It may be helpful for the Law Commission, either in discussion with others concerned or in any subsequent recommendations, to be able to refer to and attribute comments submitted in response to this Consultation Paper. Any request to treat all, or part, of a response in confidence will, of course, be respected, but if no such request is made the Law Commission will assume that the response is not intended to be confidential. The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 138 Criminal Law EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS
    [Show full text]
  • No Jury Rigging in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: an Analysis of Jury Testimony to Impeach Jury Verdicts
    SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 4, Issue 2 Spring 2009 NO JURY RIGGING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT: AN ANALYSIS OF JURY TESTIMONY TO IMPEACH JURY VERDICTS ∗ BRIAN W. REIDY Cite as: Brian W. Reidy, No Jury Rigging in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: An Analysis of Jury Testimony to Impeach Jury Verdicts, 4 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 428 (2009), at http://www.kentlaw.edu/7cr/v4-2/reidy.pdf. I. INTRODUCTION Following the conclusion of a federal jury trial, a unique tension exists between the notion of a “fair verdict” and the American legal system’s historical veneration of private jury deliberations. When a litigant alleges that a fair trial was denied after jury deliberations have concluded, the resolution of this allegation directly conflicts with the systemic interest in verdict finality. Few would deny that a losing litigant deserves a new trial if the jury’s verdict was tainted by something external to the protections of the courtroom.1 Conversely, it is well-recognized that, unlike fine wine, steaks, and cheese, lawsuits do not improve with age because as time passes, memories fade, ∗ J.D. candidate, May 2009, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology. Special thank you to both my wife, Lizzie—I am nothing without you—and to my son, Owen—you inspire me every day. I love you both more than you will ever know! 1 James W. Diehm, Impeachment of Jury Verdicts: Tanner v. United States and Beyond, 65 ST. JOHN’S L. REV. 389, 403 (1991) (noting that external influences would include: threats against jurors, outside or erroneous information provided to jurors, or other improper influences).
    [Show full text]
  • Crime and Punishment Affray
    (crime) CRIME AND PUNISHMENT Affr ay Armed – riding and going Arson and maiming Barretr y (causing unnecessary legal actions) Burglary Forcible Detainer Felonies: buggery, abduction, tongue or eyes, stealing records, multiplication of gold or silver, unlawful hunting, bigamy Forcible entry Larceny Murder and homicide Offences by officer s Rape and attempted rape Riot Robbery Suicide Theft Treason Witchcraf t AFFRAY Hale gave the following definition of affray: 'if weapons drawn, or stroke given or offered, but words no affray: menace to kill or beat, no affr ay, but yet for safeguard of peace, constable may bring them before Justice'. It would thus appear that in order to commit an affray a weapon must be drawn, or a stroke given or offered. In the event of an affray, if it wer e considerable, a private person might stop the affray and deliver them to the constable. If a person hurt another dangerously, a private person might arrest the offender , and bring him to gaol or to the next Justice. A constable or Jus tice must suppress all affrays . Affr ays were misdemeanours, not punishable by death. Where were they pros ecuted and how punished? KING S BENCH AND ASS IZES A first glance through the KB and ASS I material(to be checked with the machine) does not reveal any cases of simple affr ay being prosecuted. This would not be surprising, since the offence was not of a suf ficiently serious nature in itself to come to these courts. The one exception I have found occurred in the Assizes for 1603 when three EC yeomen were indicted for assaulting a man at Bures.
    [Show full text]
  • Jury Misconduct in Texas: Trying the Trier of Fact
    SMU Law Review Volume 34 Issue 5 Article 3 1980 Jury Misconduct in Texas: Trying the Trier of Fact David E. Keltner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation David E. Keltner, Jury Misconduct in Texas: Trying the Trier of Fact, 34 SW L.J. 1131 (1980) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol34/iss5/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. JURY MISCONDUCT IN TEXAS: TRYING THE TRIER OF FACT by David E.Kellner* T HE problem of jury misconduct has plagued attorneys since the adoption of the Magna Carta. Since that time practitioners, concerned that verdicts be reached fairly, have attacked the outcomes of jury trials on the grounds that the jurors violated their oaths and instructions. In ad- dressing jury misconduct, courts have been caught between two conflicting policies. First, courts recognize that every litigant is entitled to a fair trial, free from preconceived prejudices and outside influence. A juror's mis- conduct can and often does deny this right. On the other hand, the jury's verdict should be certain and final. A subsequent review of the jury's de- liberations results in a trial on a trial. In their struggle to choose between these two policies, Texas courts have created a body of law with peculiar rules, practices, and presumptions governing jury misconduct cases that affect every attorney engaged in litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions for the Seventh Circuit
    Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions for the Seventh Circuit The Committee on Federal Criminal Jury Instructions for the Seventh Circuit drafted these proposed pattern jury instructions. The Seventh Circuit Judicial Council, on November 30, 1998, approved these instructions in principle and authorized their publication for use in the Seventh Circuit. The Judicial Council wishes to express its gratitude to the judges and lawyers who have worked so long and hard to make a contribution to our system of criminal justice. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTIONS ............................................1 1.01 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT AND THE JURY ........................2 1.02 THE EVIDENCE ..................................................3 1.03 TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES (DECIDING WHAT TO BELIEVE) ......4 1.04 WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE-INFERENCES .........................5 1.05 DEFINITION OF “DIRECT” AND “CIRCUMSTANTIAL” EVIDENCE ...6 1.06 WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE .........................................7 1.07 ATTORNEY INTERVIEWING WITNESS ............................8 1.08 PARTY OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL ............................9 1.09 NUMBER OF WITNESSES ........................................10 1.10 REMINDER OF VOIR DIRE OBLIGATIONS ........................11 2.01 THE CHARGE - THE INDICTMENT .....................................12 2.02 LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE ....................................13 2.03 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF .............15 2.04 DEFINITION OF REASONABLE DOUBT ...........................16 2.05
    [Show full text]
  • Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit)
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE 2019 REVISIONS TO PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT DISTRICT OF MAINE INTERNET SITE EDITION Updated 6/24/19 by Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Preface to 1998 Edition Citations to Other Pattern Instructions How to Use the Pattern Instructions Part 1—Preliminary Instructions 1.01 Duties of the Jury 1.02 Nature of Indictment; Presumption of Innocence 1.03 Previous Trial 1.04 Preliminary Statement of Elements of Crime 1.05 Evidence; Objections; Rulings; Bench Conferences 1.06 Credibility of Witnesses 1.07 Conduct of the Jury 1.08 Notetaking 1.09 Outline of the Trial Part 2—Instructions Concerning Certain Matters of Evidence 2.01 Stipulations 2.02 Judicial Notice 2.03 Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement 2.04 Impeachment of Witness Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.05 Impeachment of Defendant's Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.06 Evidence of Defendant's Prior Similar Acts 2.07 Weighing the Testimony of an Expert Witness 2.08 Caution as to Cooperating Witness/Accomplice/Paid Informant 2.09 Use of Tapes and Transcripts 2.10 Flight After Accusation/Consciousness of Guilt 2.11 Statements by Defendant 2.12 Missing Witness 2.13 Spoliation 2.14 Witness (Not the Defendant) Who Takes the Fifth Amendment 2.15 Definition of “Knowingly” 2.16 “Willful Blindness” As a Way of Satisfying “Knowingly” 2.17 Definition of “Willfully” 2.18 Taking a View 2.19 Character Evidence 2.20 Testimony by Defendant
    [Show full text]
  • REPORTED in the COURT of SPECIAL APPEALS of MARYLAND No. 485 September Term, 2012 BRENDEN DASHIELL V. STATE of MARYLAND Krauser
    REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 485 September Term, 2012 BRENDEN DASHIELL v. STATE OF MARYLAND Krauser, C.J., Graeff, Berger, JJ. Opinion by Krauser, C.J. Filed: November 4, 2013 Convicted, by a jury, sitting in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, of involuntary manslaughter, Brenden Dashiell, appellant, noted this appeal, raising three issues. Re-ordered to facilitate review, they are: I. Whether the circuit court erred in instructing the jury that self-defense is not a defense to affray; II. Whether the circuit court erred in allowing the jury to consider affray as an unlawful underlying act for involuntary manslaughter because the State failed to show that the fight occurred in public or caused terror to the people; and III. Whether the circuit court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that defense of property may be a defense to assault and affray. Because the circuit court erred in instructing the jury that self-defense is not a defense to affray, we reverse and remand. We shall, however, briefly address the two remaining issues, as they are likely to arise again if there is a retrial of this case. Background On Saturday, July 2, 2011, Justin Carter and his wife, Evelyn Carter, held a cookout on the back porch of their home in Gaithersburg, Maryland, to kick off the July 4th weekend. Among the guests were Susie Palencia, Mrs. Carter’s sister. Ms. Palencia and appellant were, at that time, a couple and together the parents of two daughters. Sometime that evening, appellant called the Carters’ home, looking for Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Filed an Amicus Brief
    RECEIVED by MSC 1/24/2020 11:58:45 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS __________________________ PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE MICHIGAN, FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION Plaintiff/Appellee, MSC NO.: 159063 COA NO.: 342424 -vs- CIRCUIT CT. NO.: 17-24073-AR DISTRICT CT. NO.: 15-45978-FY KEITH ERIC WOOD, Defendant/Appellant. _____________________________ AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION Submitted by: /s/ Eric Misterovich Eric Misterovich (P73422) Revision Legal, PLLC 8051 Moorsbridge Rd. Portage, MI 49024 (269) 281-3908 [email protected] John Di Giacomo (P73056) Revision Legal, PLLC 444 Cass St., Ste. D Traverse City, Michigan 49684 (231) 714-0100 [email protected] Attorneys for the Fully Informed Jury Association RECEIVED by MSC 1/24/2020 11:58:45 AM TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................................................ 1 SUMMARY OF THIS CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS IN THIS BRIEF ................................ 2 ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................................. 3 I. EVEN IF WOOD HAD KNOWINGLY HANDED HIS PAMPHLETS OR ORALLY COMMUNICATED THE IDEAS CONTAINED IN THE PAMPHLETS DIRECTLY TO A KNOWN JUROR, HE WOULD NOT COMMIT THE CRIME OF JURY TAMPERING....... 4 II. MICHIGAN JURIES HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Mississippi
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2015-CA-01886-SCT HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA AND HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY v. OLA MAE APPLEWHITE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF AND WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF DOROTHY MAE APPLEWHITE, DECEASED, CEOLA WADE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF AND WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF ANTHONY J. STEWART, DECEASED, AND KENNETH CORDELL CARTER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF AND WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF CECILIA COOPER, DECEASED DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/13/2015 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ALBERT B. SMITH, III TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: J. COLLINS WOHNER, JR. PHILIP A. DOMINIQUE SARA BAILEY RUSSO ELIZABETH A. WEEKS KEITH W. McDANIEL ROBERT WILLIAM MAXWELL LINDSEY C. MEADOR RALPH EDWIN CHAPMAN JIMMY B. WILKINS C. KENT HANEY DENNIS C. SWEET, III KEVIN CHRISTOPHER NEWSOM THOMAS N. VANDERFORD, JR. WILLIAM O. LUCKETT, JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: J. COLLINS WOHNER, JR. MICHAEL JAMES BENTLEY JIMMY B. WILKINS WALTER EDGAR McGOWAN WILLIAM O. LUCKETT, JR. ROBERT WILLIAM MAXWELL ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: RALPH EDWIN CHAPMAN EDUARDO ALBERTO FLECHAS DANA J. SWAN DENNIS C. SWEET, III SARA BAILEY RUSSO NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 03/11/2021 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: EN BANC. RANDOLPH, CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. This case arises from a two-car accident in which a Hyundai Excel was traveling southbound on U.S. Highway 61 at a closing speed of 68 to 78 mph and, for reasons unknown, crossed the center line into the oncoming lane of traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers
    California Bar Examination Essay Questions and Selected Answers July 2018 The State Bar Of California Committee of Bar Examiners/Office of Admissions 180 Howard Street • San Francisco, CA 94105-1639 • (415) 538-2300 845 S. Figueroa Street • Los Angeles, CA 90017-2515 • (213) 765-1500 ESSAY QUESTIONS AND SELECTED ANSWERS JULY 2018 CALIFORNIA BAR EXAMINATION This publication contains the five essay questions from the July 2018 California Bar Examination and two selected answers for each question. The answers were assigned high grades and were written by applicants who passed the examination after one read. The answers were produced as submitted by the applicant, except that minor corrections in spelling and punctuation were made for ease in reading. They are reproduced here with the consent of the authors. Question Number Subject 1. Contracts 2. Evidence 3. Professional Responsibility 4. Community Property 5. Constitutional Law ESSAY EXAMINATION INSTRUCTIONS Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts in the question, to tell the difference between material facts and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of law and fact upon which the case turns. Your answer should show that you know and understand the pertinent principles and theories of law, their qualifications and limitations, and their relationships to each other. Your answer should evidence your ability to apply the law to the given facts and to reason in a logical, lawyer-like manner from the premises you adopt to a sound conclusion. Do not merely show that you remember legal principles. Instead, try to demonstrate your proficiency in using and applying them.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2021 Criminal Law Webinar Case
    Phil Dixon [email protected] Jonathan Holbrook [email protected] Brittany Williams [email protected] Summer Criminal Law Webinar June 4, 2021 Cases covered include reported decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the North Carolina appellate courts decided between December 15, 2020, and May 18, 2021. The summaries were prepared by School of Government faculty and staff. To view all of the summaries, go to the Criminal Case Compendium or the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog. To obtain the summaries automatically by email, sign up for the Criminal Law Listserv. Investigatory Stops and Seizures The application of physical force with intent to restrain a suspect, even if unsuccessful, is a Fourth Amendment seizure Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 989 (Mar. 25, 2021) (Roberts, C.J.). Law enforcement officers were attempting to serve an arrest warrant early in the morning at an apartment complex in New Mexico. They noticed the plaintiff in the parking lot and realized she was not the subject of the warrant but wished to speak with her. As they approached, the plaintiff entered her car. According to the plaintiff, she did not immediately notice the police approaching (and was admittedly under the influence of methamphetamine). When an officer tried to open her car door to speak with her, she noticed armed men surrounding her car for the first time and drove off, fearing a carjacking. Although not in the path of the vehicle, the officers fired 13 rounds at the car as it drove away. The plaintiff was struck twice in her back but escaped, only to be apprehended the next day.
    [Show full text]