R Vs Edgar Case Study

Case Facts: This particular case occurred in Lawrence County, Alabama on or about July 15, 2003, the defendant Eric Miller and co-defendant Colby Smith, beat a man to death with a bat and left him to die in a burning trailer and stole a three hundred and fifty dollar ($350) baseball card collection according to news reports. The victim in this case was Mr. Cole C. Cannon and he was listed at fifty-two (52) years of age at the time of the murder. The defendant’s mother testified in court in his behalf that he attempted suicide multiple times, lived in foster care for three years and had been in and out of psychological programs before the killing in 2003, when he was fourteen (14). She went on to say that she was a single parent and was

Johnson further maintains that the circuit court erred by admitting documents that were not properly authenticated. The State counters that “the appearance and contents of each of the documents contained sufficient information from which the factfinder could have reasonably concluded that the document was what the State purported it to be.” We hold that the documents admitted against Johnson were properly authenticated.

What was the ruling of the court at the trial level and briefly explain the trial judge’s decision?

This homicide investigation also dealt with a first degree burglary and an assault with a

The case of Kusmider v. State, 688 P.2d 957 (Alaska App. 1984), was a state appeal’s court case that addressed the chain of causation for a murder, which had occurred, and the actions of the trial court judge (Brody & Acker, 2010). In this case, the appellant, Kusmider, appealed his conviction for second degree murder, based on the fact that the trial judge did not let him introduce evidence, which may have shown that the victim may have survived his wounds, if not for the actions of the paramedics.

Merits: The respondent, Daniel Murphy, was convicted by a jury in an Oregon court of the second-degree murder of his wife. The victim died by strangulation in her home in the city of Portland, and abrasions and lacerations were found on her throat. There was no sign of a break-in or robbery. Word of the murder was sent to the estranged husband, Daniel Murphy. Upon receiving the message, Murphy promptly telephoned the Portland police and voluntarily came into Portland for questioning. Shortly after the respondent’s arrival at the station house, where he was met by retained counsel, the

Issue on appeal: Have Atkins met the necessities of the arson which is identified by the trial court with reference to CALJIC No. 14.80?

an explanation of why and how each decision was made throughout the entire trial. The basis

Koppersmith’s testimony of his actions portrayed a picture of unintentional events. The judge referred to the Woods case, “ there was some evidence that the appellant failed to perceive the risk that the victim might die as a result of his actions.” Because there was evidence that gave a reasonable theory that would have supported the jury receiving instructions on criminally negligent homicide, there was error in the trial court not giving the jury the instructions. Therefore the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

2. Case Facts: On October 13, 1979, George Schnopps fatally shot his wife of 14 years. The victim and schnopps began having marital problems six months prior, when schnopps became suspicious that his wife was seeing another man. A few days prior to the incident, Schnopps threatened to make his wife suffer. On October 12, 1979 while at work asked a coworker to buy him a gun, telling the worker that he had been receiving threatening phone calls. Schnopps paid his coworker for the gun and ammunition. On the day of the incident, Schnopps told a neighbor he was going to call his wife and have her come pick up some things, and asked if them to keep the youngest child with her so he could talk to with his wife. When the wife went over Schnopps tried to convince his wife to stay with him, in response the wife made some vulgar comments which triggered Schnopps. He then shot her and then shot himself. Shortly after he called the neighbor and told her what had happened and she called the police. The defense offered evidence from friends and coworkers who noticed difference in Schnopps physical and emotional health after the victim had left him. The Commonwealth’s expert

Frosch, D and Johnson, K. (2007). Colorado Hearing Re-examine 1987 Murder Case. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/us/27fortcollins.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The decision of the tribunal was that the appellant was found guilty of having acted with dishonesty when he relied on the documents, but not when he created them, here he was charged with lack of integrity. The court had to therefore consider what the definition of the words ‘dishonesty’ and ‘integrity’ was.

Mark was found outside the only exit Nancy could use, in his pickup truck drunk and asleep. When the police officer arrived, they had charged mark with an invasion of privacy for violating the terms of the protective order and public intoxication. Then the state of Indiana charged mark with attempted murder, a jury trial was held and the jury found Mark guilty. Mark was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison and after completing his time five years of probation. The Indiana court had accepted mark collier appeal for his attempted murder charge, Mark had said that the evidence was insufficient and his acts were a preparation for the murder. The acts that mark had done makes the courts believe that mark was going to go through with the crime. The facts that were presented to the jury would make them believe that Mark had to take the substantial step for the crime of attempted murder. If Mark was awake, was going into the hospital, and opened to door, Mark would be guilty of attempted murder. The Indiana Supreme Court made a decision that mark was not guilty of attempted murder. Mark was not near Nancy since he was in the back of the parking

4. If the witness’s factual recollection of events differs in any important respect from the medical records, or from the version of facts set out in the Defendant, the statement should acknowledge this and comment upon these differences.

agreed to fight the case and see that victim should get Justice. In the courtroom, Lawyer started his arguments by first asked the defendant to explain where he was on the night of the murder.The victim was informed that he was in the hospital with his wife and newborn baby and he produced the hospital bills and other papers as evidence.