Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law keyed to Dripps
People v. Crane
Facts
David Crane (Defendant) was arrested on traffic violations in New Mexico, but because there was a notice of his probation violation and an outstanding warrant for him in relation to the murder of Robert Gahan in Illinois, he was arrested and held there. Thereafter, Illinois detectives Roger Costello and Larry Schultz interviewed Defendant in New Mexico about his relationship to Gahan. Defendant told the detectives that he had been hitchhiking and that Gahan gave him a ride. While driving, Defendant said Gahan asked him if he wanted to smoke some marijuana. Defendant said he did. Defendant directed Gahan to a secluded area where they parked, got out, and began smoking the marijuana. Thereafter, Gahan began to choke Defendant. Defendant reacted by repeatedly striking Gahan with numchucks until he fell to the ground. Thinking Gahan was dead Defendant took the car to a friend’s house and told him what had happened. Defendant’s friend told him to destroy the evidence. Defendant returned to where Gahan was, poured gasoline over him, and lit him on fire. Defendant later learned that Gahan may not have been dead at the time of the burning. Defendant was charged with two counts of murder. Both counts alleged that Defendant beat and burned Gahan, thereby causing his death. Count I charged that Defendant acted “with intent to kill or do great bodily harm."Count II charged that Defendant acted “knowing such acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm."At trial, Defendant requested that the jury be instructed on self-defense as well his primary theory of defense, mistake of fact. The trial court instructed the jury on self-defense but refused to give the requested mistake of fact instruction. Defendant was convicted and he appealed. The appellate court reversed the conviction and the Illinois Supreme Court granted review.
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.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.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.