Description
1.Capstone Case: Montana v. Egelhoff
In July 1992, while camping out in the Yaak region of northwestern Montana, Respondent Egelhoff made friends with Roberta Pavola and John Christenson. On Sunday, July 12, the three spent much of the day and evening drinking, in bars and at a private party. At about midnight that night, officers of the Lincoln County, Montana, sheriff’s department, responding to reports of a possible drunk driver, discovered Christenson’s station wagon stuck in a ditch along U.S. Highway 2. In the front seat were Pavola and Christenson, each dead from a single gunshot to the head. In the rear of the car lay Egelhoff, alive and yelling obscenities. His blood-alcohol content measured .36 percent over one hour later. After being charged with two counts of homicide, Engelhoff attempted to assert an intoxication defense, but this was denied by the trial court.
- How does a claim that (a) an intoxicated defendant should not be held responsible for his or her criminal activity because of the inability to form the requisite mens rea for a specific crime differ from the claim that (b) an intoxicated defendant should be excused because he or she had lowered inhibitions and impaired judgment as a consequence of ingesting alcohol? Do both claims carry the same moral weight?
- Do you believe that, as a matter of fundamental due process rights, a defendant should be given the opportunity to present “all relevant evidence to rebut the State’s evidence on all elements of the offense charged”? Why or why not?
Minimum word count of 600, not including references. Cite references in APA format. include intext refernces.
2.
Read the Court’s opinion in Carter v. State, 710 So. 2d 110 (Fla. App. 1998). Based on this opinion, explain why involuntary intoxication is treated differently from voluntary intoxication as a criminal defense.
Minimum word count of 500, not including references. Cite references in APA format. include intext refernces.
3.Capstone Case: Commonwealth v. Schnopps
On October 13, 1979, Marilyn R. Schnopps was fatally shot by her estranged husband George A. Schnopps. A jury convicted Schnopps of murder in the first degree, and he was sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment. Schnopps claims that the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Schnopps claimed that he was provoked into killing his wife after learning of her marital infidelity.
- Were the wife’s comments so shocking as to be tantamount to the defendant’s actually catching her in an adulterous act with her lover?
- What are the implications of extending the provocation doctrine in infidelity cases from actually witnessing a spouse committing adultery to learning about it verbally?
Minimum word count of 500, not including references. Cite references in APA format. include intext refernces.
4.Read the two other “provocation” cases in your textbook—People v. McCarthy, 547 N. E. 2d 459 (Ill. 1989) and Girouard v. State, 583 A. 2d 718 (Md. App. 1991)—where defendants asserted victim provocation as mitigation against homicide charges. What conditions or circumstances do the courts identify as being adequate enough to constitute possible reduced charges in homicide cases?
Minimum word count of 500, not including references. Cite references in APA format. include intext refernces.
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
Running Head: CARTER V. STATE
1
Carter v. State
Institutional Affiliation
Date
CARTER V. STATE
2
The case facts as provided in this case revolves around the defendant who had been
arrested at about 3.00 am. The arrest was made after an observation was conducted by a
deputy who also noticed that the defendant was stumbling. No breath alcohol test was done,
and the defendant failed the sobriety tests which had been carried out. Furthermore, the
defendant also provided an admission which was recorded in a video that he had not only
smoked cannabis but had had a total of three drinks. He was arrested and charged with
violating some of the legal provisions which can be found in Florida Statutes (Ingle, 2002).
Furthermore, the conviction focused on the said charges, and the imprisonment term
which was given was 17.3 months. During his trial, Carter provided a testimony that he had
only drunk one beer and had also taken ibuprofen tablets which had been given because he
was suffering from pain. However, the defendant's friend mistakenly gave the defendant
Amitriptyline which was a drug prescribed for depression. The evidence provided by the
director of DUI showed that the intoxication level was due to the drug which had been
offered by the friend, alcohol, and cannabis (Ingle, 2002). A request was made regarding jury
instruction which revolved around involuntary intoxication. The request was denied even
though there had been no intent element when it comes to DUI. The opinion provided by the
District Court of Appeal of Florida found that the defendant's instruction on involuntary
intoxication should have been given since the denial violated the defendant's due process
rights (Haque, & Cumming, 2003).
Involuntary intoxication, which is one of the defense brought up in the court
proceedings focuses on the unknowing consumption of the substance. The person may be
forced to take the substance or may be tricked as was seen in the case since the defendant
CARTER V. STATE
3
took the depression drug by accident. A charged crime will require specific intent crime for a
guilty conviction. However, involuntary intoxication will not establish any intent since the
individual will not be capable of understanding his actions. Involuntary intoxication will be
regarded as a defense when a person is facing criminal charges since the individual can claim
that he did not fully comprehend his actions. A specific or general intent will have to be
established by the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant will have to provide that he did not
understand whether his actions could be considered as right or wrong (Haque, & Cumming,
2003).
Voluntary intoxication will be hard to establish as a defense in a court of law.
However, the defense will apply to certain crimes such as murder where a specific intent has
to be established for a guilty verdict. Juries will likely believe involuntary intoxication
defense more so when compared to voluntary intoxication since they will be of the view that
the individual voluntarily impaired himself. Voluntary intoxication will be used as an
affirmative defense in some of the states (Ingle, 2002). Hence, the burden of proof will fall on
the defendant who will have to provide relevant evidence that will show that he had no intent
or mens rea to commit the offense he is being charged with. The lack of intent will lead to a
lesser crime and furthermore a lesser sentence. Hence, the main reason as to why the two
defenses will be treated differently will be because of voluntary intoxication will focus on the
deliberate consumption of alcohol and controlled substances whereas involuntary will
concentrate on the consumption of drugs or alcohol unknowingly (Paulsen, 1961).
CARTER V. S...
