Boris Harvard Case

He met a man named Dennis Fritz, and their similar lifestyles led to become good friends. They would hang out, get drunk, then do stupid things. After getting wildly drunk, Ron would find women to sleep with which got him charged of rape two times. Ever since then the townspeople and police hated him and saw him as a disgrace to the city of Aba. His bad reputation and the impatience of the court and community led them to quickly and without much evidence convict Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz of the murder of Debbie Carter. Ron was sentenced to death row and Fritz was sentenced to a lifetime in prison.

1. How has the Investment Office selected, compensated, and controlled private equity fund managers? What explains the differences between their strategy in private equity with that in other asset classes (e.g., real estate)?

Involuntary manslaughter is classified as killing another human individual unintentionally by their reckless behavior, or by a misdemeanor or lower level of felony. Voluntary manslaughter is killing another human individual by not having the intent to kill, but acted in the heat of passion during a certain situation in which the individual was having strong emotions. Also negligent homicide is when an individual causes death of another individual through criminal negligence meaning that there was no premeditation but was aware of the risks of his actions (Arizona State Legislature, 2007). An example of a case that falls under the tittle 13- criminal code of homicide sections 13-1101 to 13-1105 in Arizona is the Appellee v. Larry D. Thompson, 204 Ariz.

Currently, sentences vary based on mental state, injury, and offense level (Benson-Varghese 2017). The three levels of mental state include “intentionally or knowingly caused”, caused by

In the state of California, according to the CAL. PEN. CODE § 187, there are three types of murders that involve having an intention to kill. They are as listed: premeditated murder, second-degree murder malice aforethought, and murder as a result of provocation. Murder as a result of provocation is one who states a mental incapacity for either the time being, such as; blacking out, or they had temporary loss of control of oneself and could not control it. This is only seen though through murder cases for it to end up being a lesser charge. Second-degree murder malice aforethought is a non-premeditated killing of a victim who cannot be fully proven there was the full reasoning of the death. This is also known as having some sort of intent or recklessness.(Cal. Penal Code § 187 [West 1996]). Premeditated murder is someone who sat down and thought the murder through and went along with it, also known as first-degree murder. So with all that being said, in the scenario about a victim of a DUI accident who had religious beliefs about blood transfusion died from bleeding out too much in California. The drunken driver was on probation for a previous DUI he has received, and because of him driving drunk, caused him to be impaired which caused him to crash into a parked car. Where then the victim was trapped and started to bleed out. When they approached the hospital, the victim made it clear that she is against blood transfusions due to her religious beliefs, so the doctors than

The defendant was involved in a fight in which he inflicted a deep cut on the victim's finger. The victim failed to take care of the wound or get medical assistance and the wound became infected. Eventually gangrene set in and the victim was advised to have his arm amputated. The victim refused and died. The defendant was liable for his death despite the victim's actions in contributing to his own death.

Several questions were raised by the defendant after his trial, which resulted in him filing an appeal of his conviction. Although he admitted to shooting Mr. Villella, Kusmider alleged that there was negligence upon the EMT’s for failing to properly restrain Mr. Villella while being transported to the hospital. During the trial, “a pathologist testified that Mr. Villella’s death was caused by the gunshot wound to his throat, however, the wound could have been survivable (Brody & Acker, 2010, p.116). The issue of proximate causation came about during Kusmider v. State (1984). Judge Johnstone “precluded Kusmider from pursuing the issue of proximate cause before the jury as he ruled that negligent failure to provide approximate medical assistance could not interrupt the proximate causation” (Kusmider v. State, 1984).

In most places, involuntary manslaughter happens as a result of reckless behavior, improper use of reasonable care or skill when performing a legitimate task, or committing an act that is breaks the law, but is not considered a felony (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/) although in some states is.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: 1. the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; 2. the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and 3. the conduct must be the cause 4. of severe emotional distress. This is exactly what happened din this case. Steve Steel not only knocked the phone out of Prudence’s hand but also broke down the door and threatened Prudence with force and made her scared for her life. I do believe that negligence is a part of this case. A person who engages in activities that pose an unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm, breaches their duty of reasonable care. Steve Steel did not show a proper care of duty with Prudence. I think that Steve Steel should also be responsible for all of the physical and mental damages since he did not show reasonable care. I think the tort liability in this case would be assault and battery. An assault involves three things that we see in this case. An assault occurs when an intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or

Section 18 actual bodily harm also as same meaning in s.20, is relevant here in respect of the actual bodily harm caused to Wolfgang broken skull. The actus reus of the offence was committed by Igor, the actus rea is require wounding or grievous bodily harm also have the same meaning as in section 20 under section 18, also to be satisfied under this fact see case of Burstow. Under the section 20 ABH Igor has criminal liability for (ABH) He commit the actus rea of the offence

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

Septembeard is a national organization that began in 2010 after Art Wagner, founder, wanted to develop an organization dedicated to eradicating prostate cancer. As a survivor, Wagner realized there are endless possibilities to help fund research for this disease, yet little was being done.

Carnival cruises provide a vacation that includes all activities, food, beverages and transportation to multiple destinations in one low price, appealing the budget friendly cruisers.

“…anointing winners and losers on the basis of 12 months’ worth of performance is silly in the context of portfolios that are being managed with incredibly long time horizons.” — David F. Swensen, Chief Investment Officer, Yale University1

The Supreme Court case, R v Murray[4], states that the appellant pleaded not guilty to one charge of murder – where the appellant was found guilty of manslaughter – where, although the appellant intended to kill the deceased, he was only criminally responsible for manslaughter because of provocation under section 304[5] - where the appellant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment under section 161B[6] - where there was a declaration that the applicant had been convicted of a serious violence offence. Where the case R v McDougall and Collas[7] was applied as a precedent to the final decision of the case.