DOCSLIB.ORG

Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence Revised 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence Revised 2015 State Statutes: Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence Revised 2015 National Center on Protection Orders and Full Faith & Credit 1901 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1011 Arlington, Virginia 22209 Toll Free: (800) 903-0111, prompt 2 Direct: (703) 312-7922 Fax: (703) 312-7966 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.fullfaithandcredit.org State statutes are constantly changing. Please independently verify the information found in this document. If you have a correction or update, please contact us at (800) 903-0111, prompt 2 or via email at [email protected]. This project is supported by Grant No. 2014-TA-AX-K046 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. Compiled by the National Center on Protection Orders and Full Faith & Credit TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTE: For your convenience, hyperlinks are located on each state name in this Table of Contents. For faster access, please select the name of the state you would like to view ALABAMA .................................................................................... 3 MONTANA ................................................................................. 24 ALASKA ....................................................................................... 3 NEBRASKA ................................................................................. 25 ARIZONA ..................................................................................... 4 NEVADA .................................................................................... 25 ARKANSAS ................................................................................... 5 NEW HAMPSHIRE....................................................................... 26 CALIFORNIA ................................................................................. 6 NEW JERSEY ............................................................................... 27 COLORADO .................................................................................. 7 NEW MEXICO ............................................................................. 27 CONNECTICUT.............................................................................. 7 NEW YORK ................................................................................. 28 DELAWARE ................................................................................ 10 NORTH CAROLINA ...................................................................... 28 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ............................................................. 11 NORTH DAKOTA ........................................................................ 28 FLORIDA .................................................................................... 11 OHIO ......................................................................................... 29 GEORGIA ................................................................................... 11 OKLAHOMA ............................................................................... 29 GUAM ....................................................................................... 12 OREGON .................................................................................... 30 HAWAII ..................................................................................... 12 PENNSYLVANIA .......................................................................... 32 IDAHO ....................................................................................... 14 RHODE ISLAND .......................................................................... 33 ILLINOIS ..................................................................................... 15 SOUTH CAROLINA ...................................................................... 34 INDIANA .................................................................................... 17 SOUTH DAKOTA ......................................................................... 35 IOWA ........................................................................................ 17 TENNESSEE ................................................................................ 36 KANSAS ..................................................................................... 18 TEXAS ........................................................................................ 36 KENTUCKY ................................................................................. 19 UTAH ......................................................................................... 37 LOUISIANA ................................................................................ 20 VERMONT.................................................................................. 37 MAINE ....................................................................................... 20 VIRGIN ISLANDS ......................................................................... 38 MARYLAND ................................................................................ 21 VIRGINIA ................................................................................... 38 MASSACHUSETTS ....................................................................... 22 WASHINGTON ........................................................................... 38 MICHIGAN ................................................................................. 22 WEST VIRGINIA .......................................................................... 38 MINNESOTA .............................................................................. 23 WISCONSIN ............................................................................... 39 MISSISSIPPI ............................................................................... 23 WYOMING ................................................................................. 39 MISSOURI .................................................................................. 24 2 STATE STATUTE WITH CITATION ALABAMA Code of Ala. § 13A-6-132 (2015) Domestic violence – Third degree (a) A person commits domestic violence in the third degree if the person commits the crime of assault in the third degree pursuant to Section 13A-6-22; the crime of menacing pursuant to Section 13A-6-23; the crime of reckless endangerment pursuant to Section 13A-6-24; the crime of criminal coercion pursuant to Section 13A-6-25; the crime of harassment pursuant to subsection (a) of Section 13A-11-8; the crime of criminal surveillance pursuant to Section 13A-11-32; the crime of harassing communications pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 13A-11-8; the crime of criminal trespass in the third degree pursuant to Section 13A-7-4; the crime of criminal mischief in the second or third degree pursuant to Sections 13A-7-22 and 13A-7-23; or the crime of arson in the third degree pursuant to Section 13A-7-43; and the victim is a current or former spouse, parent, child, any person with whom the defendant has a child in common, a present or former household member, or a person who has or had a dating or engagement relationship with the defendant. Domestic violence in the third degree is a Class A misdemeanor. (b) The minimum term of imprisonment imposed under subsection (a) shall be 30 days without consideration of reduction in time if a defendant willfully violates a protection order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction and in the process of violating the order commits domestic violence in the third degree. (c) A second conviction under subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor, except the defendant shall serve a minimum term of imprisonment of 10 days in a city or county jail or detention facility without consideration for any reduction in time. (d) A third or subsequent conviction under subsection (a) is a Class C felony. (e) For purposes of determining second, third, or subsequent number of convictions, convictions in municipal court shall be included. ALASKA AS § 11.41.230 (2014) Assault in the fourth degree (a) A person commits the crime of assault in the fourth degree if (1) that person recklessly causes physical injury to another person; (2) with criminal negligence that person causes physical injury to another person by means of a dangerous instrument; or (3) by words or other conduct that person recklessly places another person in fear of imminent physical injury. (b) Assault in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor. AS § 11.41.250 (2014) Reckless endangerment (a) A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. (b) Reckless endangerment is a class A misdemeanor. ARIZONA A.R.S. § 13-1203 (2015) Assault; classification A. A person commits assault by: 1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or 2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or 3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person. B. Assault committed intentionally or knowingly pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 is a class 1 misdemeanor. Assault committed recklessly pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 or assault pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 2 is a class 2 misdemeanor. Assault committed pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 3 is a class 3 misdemeanor.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization
    U. S. Department of Justice I Bureau of Justice Statistics I Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization by Herbert Koppel people's perception of the meaning of BJS Analyst March 1987 annual rates with respect to their own The Bureau of Justice Statistics lives. If the Earth revolved around the This report provides estimates of the National Crime Survey provides sun in 180 days, all of our annual crime likelihood that a person will become a annual victimization rates based rates would be halved, but we would not victim of crime during his or her life- on counts of the number of crimes be safer. time, or that a household will be vic- reported and not reported to timized during a 20-year period. This police in the United States. These Calculating lifetime victimization rates contrasts with the conventional use of a rates are based on interviews 1-year period in measuring crime and twice a year with about 101,000 For this report, lifetime likelihoods criminal victimization. Most promi- persons in approximately 49,000 of victimization were calculated from nently, the National Crime Survey nationally representative NCS annual victimization rates and life (NCS) surveys a sample of U.S. house- households. Those annual rates, tables published by the National Center holds and publishes annual victimization while of obvious utility to for Health statistics.% The probability rates, and the FBI's Uniform Crime policymakers, researchers, and that a person will be victimized at a Reports (UCR) provide annual rates of statisticians, do not convey to particular age basically depends upon crimes reported to the police.
    [Show full text]
  • Have You Been the Victim of Assault, Robbery, Harassment Or Some Other School-Related Crime?
    Have you been the victim of assault, robbery, harassment or some other school-related crime? If you have, are you: Housed at the UFT and staffed by your colleagues who ➤ Feeling vulnerable, anxious, fearful, angry or understand your school environment and both the pressures depressed? and satisfactions of your job, the Victim Support Program is the only one of its kind in the country. Services include: ➤Confused about procedures and forms? ✓ Individual and group counseling conducted by Frustrated by the paperwork involved in securing your ➤ licensed psychologists, specially trained and medical benefits, claiming line-of-duty injury, or dealing with law enforcement or other agencies? experienced in working with people who are suffering trauma. ➤ Apprehensive about returning to work? ✓ Help with forms and procedures. Call the Victim Support Program. Assistance in dealing with the police department and The Victim Support Program was established in 1989 by ✓ the United Federation of Teachers and the New York City other criminal justice agencies. Board of Education to provide comprehensive, practical ✓ Support as we accompany you to court or the Board’s assistance and psychological support to teachers and other Medical Bureau. school personnel following crimes and violent incidents in Visits to schools following violent incidents to deal school. ✓ with “ripple effect” trauma. Our goal is to help you cope with the aftermath of a criminal incident. We will support you as you strive for recovery after what we know is often a professionally and personally traumatic event. Call us. We can help! (212) 598-6853 Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.- 6 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Incident Entry (IIE)
    Individual Incident Entry (IIE) To begin entering a Group A or Group B incident into the state repository, click the “Incident / Arrest” button. Choose Incident or Arrest Click the “Incident Report” button to begin entering Group A incidents or click “Arrest Report” to begin enter Group B incidents into the repository. If you choose Group A, Incident …. Start with selecting either New Case or Get Previous Case Group A, New Case …. 1 2 After clicking on “New Case”: 1) enter the incident number in the box and 2) click “OK” – these steps are mandatory. Group A, Previous Case …. 1 2 After clicking “Get Previous Case”: 1) enter the incident number or partial number in the box and 2) click “Search”. Either one incident or a list of incidents with the partial number will display. Click the “Select” button to choose the appropriate case. Incident data elements …. Optional: Use only if incident date is Mandatory (if known): unknown Date incident occurred (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY) Mandatory: Use military 24-hour time; if incident occurs exactly at If an incident needs to be midnight, consider it to have removed from the repository, occurred at the beginning of the “delete” it here. following day. Optional: Physical address or Mandatory: Answer “no” or “yes” only for the latitude/longitude contribute to the offenses of: repository crime mapping feature. All Other Larceny Bribery Burglary/Breaking & Entering Credit Card/ATM Fraud Embezzlement Extortion/Blackmail False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game (Fraud) Impersonation (Fraud) Motor Vehicle Theft Theft From A Building Theft from a Motor Vehicle Robbery Wire Fraud Victim data elements ….
    [Show full text]
  • Libel As Malpractice: News Media Ethics and the Standard of Care
    Fordham Law Review Volume 53 Issue 3 Article 3 1984 Libel as Malpractice: News Media Ethics and the Standard of Care Todd F. Simon Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Todd F. Simon, Libel as Malpractice: News Media Ethics and the Standard of Care, 53 Fordham L. Rev. 449 (1984). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol53/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LIBEL AS MALPRACTICE: NEWS MEDIA ETHICS AND THE STANDARD OF CARE TODD F. SIMON* INTRODUCTION D OCTORS, lawyers, and journalists share a strong common bond: They live in fear of being haled into court where the trier of fact will pass judgment on how they have performed their duties. When the doc- tor or lawyer is sued by a patient or client, it is a malpractice case.I The standard by which liability is determined is whether the doctor or lawyer acted with the knowledge, skill and care ordinarily possessed and em- ployed by members of the profession in good standing.' Accordingly, if * Assistant Professor and Director, Journalism/Law Institute, Michigan State Uni- versity School of Journalism; Member, Nebraska Bar. 1. W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 32, at 185-86 (5th ed.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Supreme Court Adopts a Reasonable Juvenile Standard in J.D.B. V. North Carolina
    THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ADOPTS A REASONABLE JUVENILE STANDARD IN J.D.B. V NORTH CAROLINA FOR PURPOSES OF THE MIRANDA CUSTODY ANALYSIS: CAN A MORE REASONED JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR JUVENILES BE FAR BEHIND? Marsha L. Levick and Elizabeth-Ann Tierney∗ I. Introduction II. The Reasonable Person Standard a. Background b. The Reasonable Person Standard and Children: Kids Are Different III. Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida: Embedding Developmental Research Into the Court’s Constitutional Analysis IV. From Miranda v. Arizona to J.D.B. v. North Carolina V. J.D.B. v. North Carolina: The Facts and The Analysis VI. Reasonableness Applied: Justifications, Defenses, and Excuses a. Duress Defenses b. Justified Use of Force c. Provocation d. Negligent Homicide e. Felony Murder VII. Conclusion I. Introduction The “reasonable person” in American law is as familiar to us as an old shoe. We slip it on without thinking; we know its shape, style, color, and size without looking. Beginning with our first-year law school classes in torts and criminal law, we understand that the reasonable person provides a measure of liability and responsibility in our legal system.1 She informs our * ∗Marsha L. Levick is the Deputy Director and Chief Counsel for Juvenile Law Center, a national public interest law firm for children, based in Philadelphia, Pa., which Ms. Levick co-founded in 1975. Ms. Levick is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University School of Law. Elizabeth-Ann “LT” Tierney is the 2011 Sol and Helen Zubrow Fellow in Children's Law at the Juvenile Law Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal
    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal Release 20, September 2019 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/criminal-law-procedure- 161/virginia-model-jury-instructions-criminal-skuusSku6572 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.050 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements First, the Commonwealth's attorney may make an opening statement outlining his or her case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence [Second, following the opening statements, the Commonwealth will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate.] [Second, following the opening statements, the evidence will be presented.] Instructions of Law Third, at the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Police Perjury: a Factorial Survey
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Police Perjury: A Factorial Survey Author(s): Michael Oliver Foley Document No.: 181241 Date Received: 04/14/2000 Award Number: 98-IJ-CX-0032 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. FINAL-FINAL TO NCJRS Police Perjury: A Factorial Survey h4ichael Oliver Foley A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The City University of New York. 2000 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. I... I... , ii 02000 Michael Oliver Foley All Rights Reserved This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • What Does Intent Mean?
    WHAT DOES INTENT MEAN? David Crump* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1060 II. PROTOTYPICAL EXAMPLES OF INTENT DEFINITIONS......... 1062 A. Intent as “Purpose” ..................................................... 1062 B. Intent as Knowledge, Awareness, or the Like ............ 1063 C. Imprecise Definitions, Including Those Not Requiring Either Purpose or Knowledge .................. 1066 D. Specific Intent: What Does It Mean?.......................... 1068 III. THE AMBIGUITY OF THE INTENT DEFINITIONS.................. 1071 A. Proof of Intent and Its Implications for Defining Intent: Circumstantial Evidence and the Jury ........... 1071 B. The Situations in Which Intent Is Placed in Controversy, and the Range of Rebuttals that May Oppose It................................................................... 1074 IV. WHICH DEFINITIONS OF INTENT SHOULD BE USED FOR WHAT KINDS OF MISCONDUCT?....................................... 1078 V. CONCLUSION .................................................................... 1081 * A.B. Harvard College; J.D. University of Texas School of Law. John B. Neibel Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center. 1059 1060 HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 38:1059 I. INTRODUCTION Imagine a case featuring a manufacturing shop boss who sent his employees into a toxic work environment. As happens at many job sites, hazardous chemicals unavoidably were nearby, and safety always was a matter of reducing their concentration. This attempted solution, however, may mean that dangerous levels of chemicals remain. But this time, the level of toxicity was far higher than usual. There is strong evidence that the shop boss knew about the danger, at least well enough to have realized that it probably had reached a deadly level, but the shop boss disputes this evidence. The employees all became ill, and one of them has died. The survivors sue in an attempt to recover damages for wrongful death.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Crimes of Obsession: Harassment, Menacing, Stalking and Contempt by Tim Franczyk, Esq. Title Page Introduction
    Table of Contents Crimes of Obsession: Harassment, Menacing, Stalking and Contempt By Tim Franczyk, Esq. Title Page Introduction 2 Categories of Stalkers 2 Legal Response 3 Degrees of Offensive Conduct 3 Relevant Statutes 3 Harassment 2nd Degree 3 Harassment 1st Degree 4 Menacing 3rd Degree 5 Menacing 2nd Degree 6 Menacing 1st Degree 7 Stalking Offenses 7 Stalking 4th Degree 7 Stalking 3rd Degree 8 Stalking 2nd Degree 8 Some Cases 9 Stalking 1st Degree 11 Criminal Contempt Offenses 11 Criminal Contempt 2nd Degree 12 Criminal Contempt 1st Degree 12 Some Cases 13 Aggravated Criminal Contempt 14 Dial M for Mayhem 14 Aggravated Harassment 2nd Degree 14 Aggravated Harassment 1st Degree 16 Final Thought 17 1 | P a g e CRIMES OF OBSESSION: HARASSMENT, MENACING, STALKING AND CONTEMPT Thomas P. Franczyk Deputy for Legal Education Assigned Counsel Program July 2nd, 2021 INTRODUCTION: In 1983, Gordon Sumner (better known as Sting) wrote one of his biggest hits which, for all intents and purposes, was an ode to obsession. In the opening verse, he writes: “Every breath you take. Every move you make. Every bond you break, every step you take, I’ll be watching you. Every single day, every word you say, every game you play, every night you stay, I’ll be watching you.” The chorus, which screams of unbridled possessiveness, asks: “Oh can’t you see, you belong to me. How my poor hear aches with every step you take. And every move you make, every vow you break, every side you take, every claim you stake, I’ll be watching you.” The character in the song (which Sumner reportedly wrote after the break-up with his first wife), would arguably fit right into the category of “rejected stalker.” This is a character described by psychologist/ New York University professor Robert T.
    [Show full text]
  • Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence Revised 2014
    State Statutes: Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence Revised 2014 National Center on Protection Orders and Full Faith & Credit 1901 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1011 Arlington, Virginia 22209 Toll Free: (800) 903-0111, prompt 2 Direct: (703) 312-7922 Fax: (703) 312-7966 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.fullfaithandcredit.org State statutes are constantly changing. Please independently verify the information found in this document. If you have a correction or update, please contact us at (800) 903-0111, prompt 2 or via email at [email protected]. This project is supported by Grant No. 2011-TA-AX-K080 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. Compiled by the National Center on Protection Orders and Full Faith & Credit TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTE: For your convenience, hyperlinks are located on each state name in this Table of Contents. For faster access, please select the name of the state you would like to view ALABAMA .................................................................................... 3 MONTANA ................................................................................. 24 ALASKA ....................................................................................... 3 NEBRASKA ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fraud: District of Columbia by Robert Van Kirk, Williams & Connolly LLP, with Practical Law Commercial Litigation
    STATE Q&A Fraud: District of Columbia by Robert Van Kirk, Williams & Connolly LLP, with Practical Law Commercial Litigation Status: Law stated as of 16 Mar 2021 | Jurisdiction: District of Columbia, United States This document is published by Practical Law and can be found at: us.practicallaw.tr.com/w-029-0846 Request a free trial and demonstration at: us.practicallaw.tr.com/about/freetrial A Q&A guide to fraud claims under District of Columbia law. This Q&A addresses the elements of actual fraud, including material misrepresentation and reliance, and other types of fraud claims, such as fraudulent concealment and constructive fraud. Elements Generally – nondisclosure of a material fact when there is a duty to disclose (Jericho Baptist Church Ministries, Inc. (D.C.) v. Jericho Baptist Church Ministries, Inc. (Md.), 1. What are the elements of a fraud claim in 223 F. Supp. 3d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2016) (applying District your jurisdiction? of Columbia law)). To state a claim of common law fraud (or fraud in the (Sundberg v. TTR Realty, LLC, 109 A.3d 1123, 1131 inducement) under District of Columbia law, a plaintiff (D.C. 2015).) must plead that: • A material misrepresentation actionable in fraud • The defendant made: must be consciously false and intended to mislead another (Sarete, Inc. v. 1344 U St. Ltd. P’ship, 871 A.2d – a false statement of material fact (see Material 480, 493 (D.C. 2005)). A literally true statement Misrepresentation); that creates a false impression can be actionable in fraud (Jacobson v. Hofgard, 168 F. Supp. 3d 187, 196 – with knowledge of its falsity; and (D.D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Mississippi No. 2012-Ca-02010
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2012-CA-02010-SCT BRONWYN BENOIST PARKER v. WILLIAM DEAN BENOIST AND WILLIAM D. BENOIST, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HIS CAPACITY OF EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BILLY DEAN “B.D.” BENOIST, DECEASED v. BRONWYN BENOIST PARKER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/20/2012 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. PERCY L. LYNCHARD, JR. TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: GOODLOE TANKERSLEY LEWIS AMANDA POVALL TAILYOUR GRADY F. TOLLISON, JR. REBECCA B. COWAN KRISTEN E. BOYDEN COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: YALOBUSHA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: GOODLOE TANKERSLEY LEWIS AMANDA POVALL TAILYOUR ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GRADY F. TOLLISON, JR. TAYLOR H. WEBB REBECCA B. COWAN NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES DISPOSITION: ON DIRECT APPEAL: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART ON CROSS-APPEAL: AFFIRMED - 02/19/2015 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: 09/25/2014 MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE WALLER, C.J., KITCHENS AND CHANDLER, JJ. KITCHENS, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Bronwyn Benoist Parker’s motion for rehearing is granted. The original opinion is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor. ¶2. Parker and William Benoist are siblings who litigated the will of their father, Billy Dean “B.D.” Benoist, in the Chancery Court of Yalobusha County. In 2010, B.D. executed a will which significantly altered the distributions provided by a previous will that B.D. had executed in 1998. Bronwyn alleged that William had unduly influenced their father, who was suffering from dementia and drug addiction, into making the new will, which included a forfeiture clause that revoked benefits to any named beneficiary who contested the will.
    [Show full text]