Wesst Arceen Named As the Sole Contingent Beneficiary
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Texas High School Mock Trial Competition 2017 Case Materials State of Texoma v. Houston Whit Cause No. 16-908 § STATE OF TEXOMA § IN THE CRIMINAL COURT § v. § § OF HOUSTON WHIT, § LANDRY COUNTY, TEXOMA § Defendant § § § § CASE MATERIALS PREPARED BY: Stephen W. Gwinn, Esq. Chair, Mock Trial Committee Fred Moss, Esq. Mock Trial Committee Sarah Flournoy, Esq. Co-Vice Chair, Mock Trial Committee Tasha James, Esq. Co-Vice Chair, Mock Trial Committee Brad Johnson, Esq. Co-Vice Chair, Mock Trial Committee James D. Blume, Esq. Spencer Bryson, Esq. Jacquelyn Clark, Esq. Jaclyn Kerbow, Esq. Cari LaSala, Esq. Scott Seelhoff, Esq. Stephen Stapleton, Esq. Cover Design, Cari LaSala, Esq. COPYRIGHT 2016-2017 TEXAS HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Cause No. 16-908 § STATE OF TEXOMA § § IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT v. § § OF HOUSTON WHIT, § § LANDRY COUNTY, TEXOMA Defendant. § § STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES The parties agree and stipulate as to the following: I. This is a criminal trial that will be tried before a jury. The Prosecution is being made by and in the name of the State of Texoma. Houston Whit is the Defendant. The Defendant has been charged by information with the criminal offense of murder. This will be a bifurcated trial. The parties will only try the issue of guilt or innocence. Should the Defendant be found guilty, there will be a separate trial on the issue of punishment at some future date. An appropriate punishment or the range of punishment is, therefore, not at issue in this trial and is not to be argued. Each person who is a witness has been properly advised of their constitutional rights. II. The Information reads as follows: In the name and by the authority of the State of Texoma, the Criminal District Court of Landry County, in said court at said Term, do present an information that one Houston Whit, on or about the 2nd day of February, 2016, in Landry County and the State of Texoma, did commit the crime of murder, in the County of Landry, located within the State of Texoma, against the peace and dignity of the State. Signed by A. C. Ducey, the Criminal District Attorney of Landry County, Texoma. III. There are no defects or infirmities in the information and none may be argued. Defendant has been properly warned of all rights, appropriate bail was set, and said bail has been posted. Houston Whit’s statement was given freely and voluntarily, and all of the legal requirements for the taking of said statement have been met. Whit’s state and federal constitutional rights, including the right against self-incrimination, right to counsel, and right to due process of STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS Page 1 of 4 law are not at issue with regard to the statement. The court has both subject matter and in personam jurisdiction over the parties. All questions of fact are being submitted to a jury. Questions of law will be decided by the court. IV. All exhibits included in the case materials are authentic and are accurate copies of the originals. No objections to the authenticity of the exhibits will be entertained. The only exhibits to be used at trial are those included in the case packet. The signatures on the witness statements and on all other documents are authentic. The Addenda are signed on the day of trial, and no continuances have been granted in this case. An exhibit which may qualify as a business record, such as reports from institutions, qualifies as a business record under the Rules of Evidence. V. Under the laws of Texoma, a murderer cannot recover from a legal Will if the murderer is convicted of taking the life of the decedent. At the time of death, the decedent had completed a Last Will and Testament which bequeathed the entire estate to the Defendant, with Wesst Arceen named as the sole contingent beneficiary. The autopsy and the post-mortem toxicology screening have been on file with the required affidavits for the necessary time to be admissible. Furthermore, the levels noted on the toxicology screenings for “Screen Cutoff” are lethal above the cutoff point. The drugs prescribed by Layne Hendrix in the amounts and dosages prescribed, when given in those amounts and dosages, are not lethal. VI. Lymon Francks, Wesst Arceen, and JoJo Nielsen, are to testify on behalf of the Prosecution. They may not testify for or be called on behalf of Defendant. Houston Whit, Doctor Layne Hendrix and Crash Derby are to testify on behalf of Defendant. They may not testify for or be called on behalf of the Prosecution. VII. The Prosecution must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) The Defendant intentionally or knowingly caused the death of an individual; or (2) The Defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act clearly dangerous to human life that caused the death of an individual. STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS Page 2 of 4 Or, the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide: 1) That Defendant recklessly caused the death of Decedent, committing the offense of manslaughter. VIII. The following instructions will be submitted to the jury: The occurrence in question made the subject of this prosecution is the events on or about February 2, 2016 in which Defendant, Houston Whit, is alleged to have committed the offense of murder. All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that a person has been arrested, confined or indicted for, or otherwise charged with offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at trial. The law does not require a defendant to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit the defendant, unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt after careful and impartial consideration of the evidence. The prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant guilty and it must do so by proving each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt and if it fails to do so, you must acquit the defendant. It is not required that the prosecution prove guilty beyond all possible doubt; it is required that the prosecution’s proof excludes all “reasonable doubt” concerning the defendant’s guilt. A “reasonable doubt” is a doubt based on reason and common sense after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. It is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of his own affairs. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. In the event you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt after considering all the evidence before you, and these instructions, you will acquit him/her and say by your verdict “Not guilty.” A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for that conduct, operating alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor is clearly insufficient. “Murder” is: (1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual; or (2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual. STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS Page 3 of 4 The jury may also consider the lesser included offense of “criminally negligent homicide.” “Criminally negligent homicide” is when a defendant causes the death of an individual with criminal negligence. A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint. A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint. IX. The Charge of the Court is accurate in all respects, and no objections to the Charge will be entertained. X. The following issues will be submitted to the jury: 1. On February 2, 2016, did Defendant commit the offense of murder? Answer Yes or No: If you answered “No” to the above question, answer Question 2. Otherwise do not answer Question 2. 2. On February 2, 2016, did Defendant commit the offense of criminally negligent homicide? Answer Yes or No: Respectfully submitted, Attorney for the State Attorney for the Defendant STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS Page 4 of 4 1 FACT STATEMENT OF LYMON FRANCKS 2 3 My name is Lymon Francks. I am 29 years old and I am a homicide squad detective with the Texoma 4 City Police Department. I graduated from Texoma County High School and immediately enrolled i 5 in Texoma County Community College where I received an AB degree, with highest honors, 6 in Police Science.