Commonwealth v. Berkowitz Pennsylvania 1994

Facts: The victim left class, drank a martini, and waited for her boyfriend to show up in her dorm room. The defendant offered her to sit on the bed, asking for a massage. The victim declined. He proceeded to unzip his pants and unsuccessfully attempted to put his penis in her mouth. The defendant then locked the door and pushed the victim onto the bed. He removed her undergarments from one leg. He then penetrated her vagina with his penis. The defendant pulled out and ejaculated on her stomach saying, “Wow, I guess we just got carried away.” The victim then replied, “No, you got carried away.”

Issue: Did the defendant have sex with the victim by using overt force, or by restraining her in any way, allowing the act to be considered rape?

Holding: No. While the victim testified that she said “no” throughout the encounter, she did not offer physical resistance. There was no apparent physical force, threat of physical force, or psychological coercion from the Defendant. The only force involved from the defendant was the defendant’s body weight. The testimony fails to establish that the defendant forcibly compelled the victim to engage in sexual intercourse.

Koppersmith v. State, Alabama 1999

Facts: Defendant and victim had a confrontation outside of their residence that turned physical. Victim was slung off of porch by Defendant and Defendant began repeatedly beating her head into a brick. Victim died due to the blows to the head. Defendant was charged with reckless manslaughter; charges were later reversed and remanded.

Issue: Did the trial court err in denying Appellant’s request to instruct the jury on criminally negligent homicide, instead of reckless manslaughter, which alleged that the appellant had the intent to kill the Victim?

Holding: Yes. When a person knows the risk and disregards it, that person is a reckless offender, but when the person is not conscious of the risk, they cannot be guilty of disregarding it and are therefore a negligent offender. Here, there was a sufficient amount of evidence to support giving the jury instruction on criminally negligent homicide.

LeBarron v. State Wisconsin 1966

Facts: Defendant stole Victim’s purse while walking across a railroad bridge. Discovering that nothing was in it, Defendant then grabbed victim and led her to a coal shack nearby. Defendant then proceeded to unzip his pants and pull victims skirt up while saying “you know what else I want”. Victim did not scream due to fear of death. She claimed to be pregnant and pleaded for the defendant to “not hurt her baby”. After Defendant confirmed this statement, he threatened Victim not to tell anyone what had happened or he would “kill her” and left the scene.

Issue: Did the defendant have intent to rape even though he did not go through with the crime due to the victim’s pregnancy being an extraneous event?

Holding: Yes. The Defendant had every intention of having sexual intercourse with the victim by force and against her will due to his overt acts. It was proven that her pregnancy was an extraneous event, that if was not present, would have allowed the defendant to carry out the crime.

Oliver v. State, Nevada 1985

Facts: At an intersection in Las Vegas, Defendant approached a disguised police officer, the Decoy. Decoy pretended to be intoxicated and asleep. He had a ten dollar bill noticeably sticking out of his pocket. Defendant attempted to wake the decoy and move him from the street, trying to warn him of possibly getting arrested. Until this point, defendant did not display and predisposition to commit larceny. When Defendant saw the ten dollar bill, he reached down and grabbed it, saying “Thanks, home boy”. He was then apprehended

Issue: Was the defendant a victim of entrapment, meaning that the officer employed extraordinary temptations and inducements to persuade the defendant to commit the crime?

Holding: Yes. The defendant approached the officer with the intent to aid him, not to commit larceny. Due to an extraordinary temptation, created by the officer, the defendant was entrapped.

People v. Poplar Minnesota 1970

Facts: Defendant acted as a lookout while his companions broke in and entered the recreation building of Oak Park. The co-defendants shot the manager of the bowling alley in the face with a shotgun, killing him, after being discovered.

Issue: Was there enough evidence for the defendant to motion a directed verdict for the case of being charged with aiding and abetting and assault with intent to commit murder?

Holding: No, there was not enough evidence for a motion by the defendant. The jury had enough reason to infer that the defendant had knowledge of the robbery and the presence of a shotgun in the car and was aware that his companions might have motive to use it during the crime.

People v Davis California 1994

Facts: The victim went to a check-cashing store with her 20 month old son to cash a welfare check. As victim left the store, defendant pulled a gun from his waistband and demanded the victim give him her purse. Victim refused and Defendant shot her in the chest. Fetus was killed due to the victims blood loss, low blood pressure, and shock.

Issue: Was the defendant guilty of murdering a viable fetus?

Holding: Yes. The trial court did not instruct the jury as to how to judge the viability of the fetus. It was proven to have a possibility of surviving outside of the uterus with artificial medical aid.

State v. Pranckus Connecticut (2003)

Facts: Defendant was watching a house for a friend. He went to watch fireworks and returned to the home he was tending to finding that the daughter of the homeowner had thrown a party. He mingled with the guests, smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol. At 0300 the party had almost dispersed with only the two victims and 6 other people still there. The victims were in the kitchen break dancing when the defendant ran in yelling and swearing for them to leave. Victims approached Defendant in an attempt to calm him. This caused a fight to ensue. Defendant grabbed a knife with an eight inch blade after stumbling into the kitchen and walked six feet, stabbing each victim twice. The stab wounds killed both victims. Defendant remained in the house and called the police while everyone else ran outside.

Issue: Was the defendant the initial aggressor, meaning that he acted in a manner that created reasonable belief in another’s mind that physical force was about to occur based on the aggressor and that he was not justified to use physical force?

Holding: Yes, the defendant was the initial aggressor. The defendant was swearing while one victim was trying to calm the defendant down when the defendant punched him. He is not entitled to claim self-defense under these circumstances.

State v. Shelley Washington 1997

Facts: Defendant and Victim were playing a non refereed game of basketball when Defendant’s face was cut by Victim. Defendant left the game briefly then returned to play. During the game, Defendant suddenly punched Victim in the face, breaking his jaw in three places and requiring emergency surgery.

Issue: Did the defendant have consent to punch the victim in the jaw, due to the fact that they were engaging in a sport?

Holding: No, Defendant did not have consent from victim, even while engaging in a sport. Defendant’s conduct was not expectable behavior for the game. There is a limit to consent in the magnitude and severity of a blow during game-play. The nature of the game, participants expectations, the location of the game, and the game’s rules must be taken into account to determine this limit. Consent was not a defense in this case because there is nothing in the game of basketball that would permit Defendant’s conduct.

State v. Nesbitt South Carolina 2001

Facts: Defendant and three other males conspired to rob the Fast Stop convenience store. A victim was approached by black male, an accomplice to the robbery, and asked when the store was going to close. Victim re-entered store after telling accomplice the that he was closing. Defendant and a black male stood in the doorway with intent to rob the store. Defendant wore a mask, goggles, and waved a gun in the air. He left approximately two seconds later without stealing anything or physically injuring anyone. Defendant fled from a patrol car and discarded the evidence. He was later caught by a K-9 unit.

Issue: Did defendant have enough evidence to motion for a directed verdict, claiming insufficiency of evidence, to attempted armed robbery?

Holding: No, the defendant did not have enough evidence to motion for a directed verdict. The statement made by the perpetrators of “do the store” involves direct evidence that intent to rob the store did exist. Defendant was aware that an armed robbery was impending or that an attempt had begun.