Attached.

Question Responses - Outline
Thesis Statement: Responses to the questions highlighted in the paper.
1. A case brief of Ravin vs State
2. Distinction between general intent crimes and specific intent crimes
3. Doctrine of transferred intent
4. Distinction between an act and a status important in considering whether a crime has occurred
5. The general elements of a crime


Running head: UNIT 3 RESPONSES

1

Unit 3 Responses
Name
Institution

UNIT 3 RESPONSES

2

Unit 3
1. A Review of Kusmider v State
Ravin Kusmider v the State of Alaska is a groundbreaking piece of jurisprudence. The
subject matter revolved around the constitutional right to privacy as enshrined in the Fourth
Amendment The constitutionality of the Fourth Amendment was litigated on through the
spectrum of recreational use of marijuana. The decision led to a spirited public discourse that
even led up to a vote to undo this case’s decriminalization of personal recreational marijuana use.
Facts of the Case
Irwin Ravin was a public interest attorney who wanted to litigate on constitutionality and
the privacy of an individual who intends to use marijuana for personal recreational purposes. He
intentionally got arrested in Anchorage when he committed a traffic offense and then refused to
sign the resultant traffic ticket. When he got arrested and came into custody, the police found
him in possession of five ounces of marijuana. The discovery led to charges and a conviction
based on the evidence. This case is about the appeal of the matter. In it, the petitioner sought to
convince the court to aver that it was against the Alaskan and American Constitutions to
prosecute individuals whose Fourth Amendment rights had suffered a violation. The breach in
contention was possession of marijuana for personal recreational use. The amount that formed
the threshold was five ounces.
The Legal Issue
In other words, the matter that was at issue in the case was the constitutionality of
possession of marijuana. The context of the question was the assertion that it was

UNIT 3 RESPONSES

3

unconstitutional for the statute in Alaska to criminalize possession of marijuana for recreational
purposes. The Fourth Amendment right to privacy was also a central theme in the litigation and
rationale. The issue had brought before the court was that it was illegitimate to violate the
privacy of a citizen when the offense in question is possession of recreational marijuana less than
five ounces.
The petitioner brought two issues to the fore. The first was that the Alaskan statute
framework denied the citizens...