C144 Quiz 2 Cases

Cases & Outcomes (let me know if I missed any!)

Regina v. Cunningham (1957)

• A person steals a gas meter for $ insidea a building

• Gas then escaped and harmed a victim upstairs

• Judge defined malice as the “injury to the resident having ‘wicked intent’ and was satisfied by intedning to steal the meter”

Regina v. Cunningham (Result)

• Was originally convicted for harming the resident but an Appellate court reversed the conviction

• Malicious is more than just wicked intent

Holdridge v. United States (1960)

• Defendants caught on the Air Force base after being escorted off previously. Protested and said it was based on religion.

• Found guilty, but the Defendants appealed and argued that the Government failed to prove their intent

Holdridge v. United States (Result)

• Strict Liability Conviction upheld (they re-entered)

• Identified factors to support Strict Liability Crime

Morissette v. United States (1952)

• Military bombing range in Michigan (trespass signs)

• Bombs were piled in areas on the range

• Individual went hunting and ended up taking some of the bomb casings that were piled up (believed they were abandoned

  • The judge would not allow his defense

Morissette v. United States (Result)

• The law was INVALID, and the individual’s conviction was reversed 

• Criminal intent is a necessary elemnt for Federal embezzlement

U.S. v. Balint (1922)

• Defendants (drug manufacturer) charged with violating the Federal Narcotic Act

• Selling Opium without an order form from the IRS

• Defense argued that they did not have “knowledge” that their product contained Opium

U.S. v. Balint (Result)

• The Federal Narcotics Act was VALID

• Prosecution did not need to prove they “knew” it contained opium

• Regulatory offense and legislature could omit a knowledge element for public safety

Regina v. Prince (1875)

• Prince took a 14-year-old away from her father (Believing she was 18)

• The jury believed Prince and that he reasonably believed the girl was 18

Regina v. Prince (Result)

• Court determined that the crime was a strict liability

• Mistake of her age, even if reasonable, was not a defense to strict liability

Lambert v. California (1957)

• Individual was convicted of forgery in California

• LA Ordinance required all felons to register and stay in the city for more than 5 days

• Arrested and sentenced for failing to register

• Defendant argued a lack of knowledge of the ordinance, but was not allowed to present her defense (“She should have known”)

Lambert v. California (Result)

• Conviction was REVERSED 

• Knowledge was a requirement for a notice offense

• Prosecution had to prove she knew the law, or should have known the law

State v. Wickliff (2005)

• Bail bondsman in NJ attempts to apprehend a fugitive

• Believed he had a legal right to enter a premise to look for a fugitive

• Charged with trespassing

State v. Wickliff (Result)

• Court held that Defense’s mistake of law WAS a defense

• Mistaken about a different law = negates the element of knowing

Cheek v. U.S.

• Failed to pay income taxes based on their attorney’s advice & unclear IRS code

• An innocent mistake as a result of the complexity of the tax code

Cheek v. U.S. (Result)

• Court reversed the lower court’s decision

• States that the “act” had to be willful, reasonable, or an unreasonable mistake was a defense

People v. Armitage (1987)

• Driving a boat drunk and flips it

• Driver and friend are hanging but, but the friend decides to swim to shore against advice and DROWNS

• Driver is charged with his death

People v. Armitage (Result)

• Was the boat driver liable? YES

• (Intervening Acts and Causation Examples)

People v. Schmies (1966)

• Defendant fled on his motorcycle after a traffic stop

• The officer chased him, crashed his car, and died during the pursuit

People v. Schmies (Result)

• Was the motorcyclist liable? YES

• (Intervening Acts and Causation Examples)

U.S. v. Hamilton (1960)

• The defendant beats up the victim and stomps on his head. He is treated at the hospital

• Nasal tubes are inserted to breathe. The nurse forgot to restrain the patient; he pulled the tubes out, suffocated, and died

U.S. v. Hamilton (Result)

• Was the defendant who beat him up liable? YES

• (Intervening Acts and Causation Examples)

People v. Goetz (1986)

• Defendant (white man) shot four black teenagers on a NY subway when they asked for money - they had no weapons

• Defendant was mugged before on the subway and believed they were about to mug him

People v. Goetz (Result)

• The verdict was not guilty of attempted murder

  • What would a reasonable person consider: His characteristics, prior muggings, people who ride the subway, race, gender, etc.

Steve v. Wanrow (1977)

• Individual (5’2) was on crutches with a broken leg

• Shot and killed a large, intoxicated man in her home

• Suspected him of molesting her son and other neighbors and an argument ensued

Steve v. Wanrow (Result)

• Originally convicted of 2nd degree murder

• Washington Supreme Court reversed:

  • Self-defense should be considered in light of all the circumstances known to the defendant, including things that occurred before the killing

State v. Ellis (1902)

• The defendant wanted to introduce into the evidence that the “victim” had a habit of carrying weapons on him and using them in arguments

• Trial court excused the defense evidence as insufficient to justify self-defense

State v. Ellis (Result)

• Washington Supreme Court reversed the decision

• The defendant’s apprehension of the “victim” WAS relevant

• Information goes to the reasonableness of the defendant’s motive