Criminal Law keyed to Dripps
Booth v. State
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
After Charley Stanford stole a topcoat from a car, he called John Fletcher Booth (Defendant) to try to sell it to Defendant for $20. Stanford and Defendant set up a meeting, but Stanford was arrested before their meeting once he was spotted with the coat. As part of an agreement with the police, Stanford did not tell Defendant about his arrest and met with him as planned. The police made this agreement with Stanford in order to apprehend Defendant. When Defendant came over to Stanford’s house, the police were hiding in the closet. Stanford told Defendant that the coat was stolen, and Defendant said that it was fine and bought it. The police subsequently arrested Defendant and charged him with receipt of stolen property. Defendant was later found not guilty for receipt of stolen property because when the police recovered the coat, it was no longer considered stolen. As such, when the coat was brought to Defendant with the intent of entrapping him, Defendant cannot be found guilty of receipt of stolen goods. However, the court found Defendant guilty of attempted receipt of stolen property, which Defendant appealed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.