paralegal test 3 COMPLETED

.docx

School

Claflin University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

313

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CountExplorationBat34

Grayson Griffin Test Three: Legal Documents and Legal Analysis CLS by BARBRI ASU Student ID: 900598086 Paralegal I Assignments@legalstudies.com 05/02/2022 Test #3 ______________________________________________________________________________ Section One Directions: Read the following rule and hypothetical situation. Using your knowledge of legal analysis, break the rule down to its elements, present a comprehensive phrasing of the issue/s involved and, applying the rule to the facts provided, analyze the rule as to the given hypothetical to answer the questions below: How does rule 4 apply to this case? Was the service valid? Why or why not? Rule 4 Elements of Rule 4 + Facts + Issue/s + Application = Conclusion A civil action is commenced (1) by filing a complaint with the court and serving the summons and complaint within ten days of the court filing date, or (2) by service of a summons and complaint. The summons and complaint must be served by a non-party who is at least eighteen Civil actions begin with the filing of a complaint, and the serving of a summons upon a defendant. Nancy is suing Ned for Divorce. Nancy served a summons on Ned, and then filed it with the court. Nancy is suing Ned for Divorce and has consequently served Ned with a summons and subsequently filed with the court. Rule 4 FRCP dictates that Nancy either files a complaint with the court and within ten days served said complaint along with the summons on the opposing party, or she may serve both the summons and the complaint. This must be accomplished by a non-party individual who is at least 18 years old. Nancy’s civil action is properly filed with the court, provided that she complies with the ten- day requirement. This information is not given in the facts, but assuming that service was made within ten days, than one can assume that the service was valid.

years of age. Memo #1: Complete Interoffice Memo #1: The Case of Sam Kant (see handout). Use chapters 10 & 16 in PCD and the section entitled “Memorandum of Law” in Chapter 12 of 8 th Statsky to aid in this assignment. Office Memorandum of Law To: Grayson Griffin, Paralegal From: Kip Douglas, Supervising Attorney Date: 05/02/2022 Case: People v. Sam Kant RE: Whether Mr. Kant can be convicted of shoplifting pursuant to Criminal Statute § 142.33 Shoplifting I. Statement of Assignment Your memorandum requested that I analyze the above captioned cased to discuss the likelihood of Mr. Kant prevailing in his shoplifting case. Please find a brief recitation of the facts followed by my legal analysis, conclusion, and recommendation. II. Facts On Wednesday, September 11 th, 2020, Sam Kant was arrested for shoplifting at Bilmart Department Store. Mr. Kant purchased a case of six four ounce cans of Hoover’s Baked Beans with Bacon. Upon arrival at his residence, which he shares with his wife, he was scolded for choosing a brand which she detests. Mrs. Kant planned to serve the beans for an engagement the following afternoon. Mr. Kant returned to Bilmart the next morning to exchange the beans at the prompting of his irate wife. Upon entering Bilmart, Mr. Kant found the customer service line to be extremely long as a result of a popular community food drive, sponsored by Bilmart. In an attempt to avoid waiting in line for a prolonged amount of time, Mr. Kant placed the beans in a shopping cart and set out to bean shelf. He then retrieved the type of beans that his wife preferred. After returning to the line, he saw that there was still a considerable wait time. Not wanting to further enrage his wife, Mr. Kant placed the beans in what he thought was the merchandise return basket and as he made his way to the door he was apprehended by store security who had observed his actions and reported him to the authorities. In his haste, Mr. Kant had neglected to realize that the shopping cart in which he placed the items meant for exchange, was in actuality a food drive donation basket, rather than the return bin as he intended. III. Issues Did Mr. Kant’s actions indicate that he intended to permanently deprive Bilmont of their beans?

IV. Rule The controlling statute for shoplifting is Criminal Statute § 142.33 which provides as follows: § 142.33. “A person is guilty of shoplifting when he takes away, moves, or removes merchandise, in a manner that causes the merchant to be permanently deprived of that merchandise.”. Controlling precedence on this matter would be People v. Stealer (2001) which held that: (1) a “taking” cannot occur until the suspect has left the store, and (2) until the suspected shoplifter has left the premises, mere possession of the merchandise fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. V. Analysis There are four elements of § 142.33: 1. A person 2. Takes away, moves or removes 3. Merchandise 4. In a manner that causes a merchant to be permanently deprived of that merchandise. People v. Stealer supplies additional insight providing that a “taking” cannot occur until a suspect has, (a) left the store and, (b) left the premises. Also relevant is that “mere possession” of merchandise alone does not constitute proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While the elements enumerated in Criminal Statute § 142.33 are only just satisfied with the most generous interpretation and application, the case at bar swings on the fourth element of the controlling statute. The “manner” in which the merchandise is manipulated does not immediately cause the merchant to be “permanently deprived” of it. Stealer reinforces this position by holding that merchandise is not considered “taken” until the “suspect” or “suspected shoplifter has left the store and/or the premises, which Mr. Kant obviously had not. VI. Conclusion Applicable statutory law as well as case law, dictate that Mr. Kant would not be found guilty of shoplifting. Section Two Review the case of The People of the State of Colorado v. Liggett (see Appendix A) and prepare a thumbnail brief as illustrated on page 350 in 8 th Statsky. CITATION: People v. Liggett, CSC CO 72 No. 14SA88 (2014)

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help