State V Etzweiler Case Brief Summary

The defendant, Melyssa Baylor, qualifies as an accessory after the fact by concealing the perpetrator by allowing him to live at her house knowing that he has committed a felony, helping the perpetrator flee the scene by buying him a plane ticket, concealing physical evidence in her home like receipts, credit card statements of Terry Creighton, etc., and lying to the police and investigators about having any

On June 7th 2008, Sarah May Ward was arrested for the murder of Eli Westlake after she ran him over in a motor vehicle in St. Leonards. Prior to the incident the offender had been driving the wrong way down Christine Lane which was a one way street. Whilst this was occurring she was intoxicated, under the influence of marijuana, valium, and ecstasy and was unlicensed to drive. The victim and his brother who were also intoxicated, where walking down the lane and where nearly hit by the offender. This prompted the victim to throw cheese balls at the car and make a few sarcastic remarks regarding her driving ability. After a brief confrontation between the two parties the victim and his brother turned away and proceeded to walk

El Chico Corp., 732 S.W.2d 306. For instance, in Bruce, the court held that the inebriated state of a pair of customers of the defendant’s restaurant may be deemed to have been sufficiently apparent to the restaurant based on circumstantial evidence alone even if the defendant had not possessed actual knowledge of the pair’s condition. Bruce v. K.K.B., Inc., 52 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2001). The plaintiffs in Bruce suffered serious injuries after his car was struck by an intoxicated driver (a member of the aforementioned pair), who die died in the crash, who was driving home from the defendant’s restaurant. Id. In spite of testimony to the contrary by both the restaurant’s employees and the surviving member of the pair, the court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to exhibit that the driver had been “obviously intoxicated to the extent that she presented a clear danger to herself and other” at the time of service. Id. Analogously, in Perseus, the inebriated nature of a patron of the defendant’s bar was deemed to have been sufficiently apparent to the defendant, even if the defendant lacked actual knowledge of the patron’s condition, since the defendant should have had knowledge of the customer’s condition. Perseus, Inc. 995 S.W.2d 202. The defendants in Perseus. were sued after the aforementioned patron hit and killed two people after leaving

Yandrich v. Radic, plaintiff was not successful in his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s father committed suicide allegedly due to his depression from another son being killed by a car. 495 A.2d 460, 246 (Pa. 1981). The Court found that the father was not a witness because he was not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and thus could not find for the plaintiff in this case. The differences between Yandrich and Ms. Nordlund’s claim outweigh their legal similarities, as the father in Yandrich did not see the scene of the accident like Ms. Nordlund did. Ms. Nordlund’s poor vision is a weakness in her claim, but having heard and seen the accident, (despite her blurry vision), may be strong enough to overcome

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.

The manslaughter charges say that Nesbit "did recklessly, or with criminal negligence, cause the death of another human being." The life safety violations are for "secondary

On August 2, 2014, a man by the name of Harry Kumar was shot dead by Stephanie Hardee. That much is known. What is not known is whether Stephanie Hardee’s intent was malicious or not. The prosecution, being led by Hanna Kumar, the daughter of the decendent, alleges that her grandmother, Stephanie Hardee murdered Harry Kumar with “deliberate premeditation and malice” (Mock Trial, 30). Meanwhile the defense, being led by Stephanie Hardee, tells a story of how Mr. Kumar was abusive to Hanna and that Stephanie Hardee shot Harry only in self-defense, and ergo is not guilty of premediated murder. Both sides pose very valid arguments, with plenty of supporting evidence, and the case boils down to a simple question,

Thursday, Grays testified after being called to the stand by his Defense Attorney Ronald Travis. Grays testimony stuck to his initial theory. He stated the accident was caused when he swerved to miss a black dog in the road which caused him to cross the road into the wrong lane. Grays also stated he didn't consume any alcohol or drugs the day of the accident. However, Arnot Hospital lab reports showed his blood alcohol level was .123 approximately 30 minutes after the accident.

The following witness was the insurance salesman who Richardson had spoken to about life insurance on his family just days before their death. This insurance salesman claimed that at the time, James could not pay the necessary premiums and that the policy had not been in place before the children’s death. After this testimony, the jury retired to consider the given evidence. Less than 10 minutes later, they returned with the unanimous verdict of guilty. They recommended death by an electric chair for Richardson, however, the sentence was brought down to life in prison.

I think that this case received strong opinions from both sides of the bench. I don’t think that it would have been appropriate to drop the case, as was initially attempted. However, based on the dissenting

The issue of this case is whether or not my client killed the victim and the is answer is clearly no. Mr. Jack Merridew is innocent.

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

During a verbal altercation, Mrs. Bennett threw a hammer narrowly missing Mr. Darcy’s head. The issue is whether Mrs. Bennett possessed sufficient intent to establish a aggravated assault case. She claimed that she did not wish to harm Darcy. The author believes there is probably not enough to establish the element of intent to commit aggravated assault without any injury. In Commonwealth v. Matthew, the court held that intent may be inferred from the defendants conduct or words. The author argues that Mrs.Bennett never threatened to harm Darcy and walked away to wait for the cops. In Commonwealth v. Alexander, court that held that circumstantial evidence was not enough to prove intent to inflict serious injury. Mrs. Bennett’s claim that she

In addition, they didn’t find any evidence putting him at the crime scene, so there is no way he could have killed Hatfield if he wasn't there. Hatfield’s body was found alongside of a deserted road with only tire tracks left behind. The Dothan Police force didn’t find any DNA, footprints, or fingerprints where Hatfield’s body was. “The only thing placing him at the scene was his recanted statement, which no one else corroborated.” All the evidence presented in court supported the fact that Bailey at worst helped cover up the murder but he did not murder Hatfield. If all the evidence points to the fact that he wasn’t there, and he didn’t commit the murder than he shouldn’t have been charged with murder.

The court ruled that State could not sue for equitable indemnity or contribution based on the fact that there was no evidence that Moffatt owed a duty of care or that Moffatt was negligent. The court also determined that there was no contractual relationship between State and Major and that a person or other property was not damaged. Based on the two core findings, all cross complaints made by State are disregarded and State is found to be solely responsible for the damages. Moffatt is also awarded costs on the appeal.