Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law keyed to Dripps
State v. Duncan
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:
Norman Duncan (Defendant) was president of Smart Pak, Inc., a subsidiary of Survival Heat Products, Inc. Smart Pak produced and marketed a dry granulated charcoal lighter (Smart Start) and a combination package of Smart Start and charcoal briquettes (Smark Pak). After Defendant discovered that automated packaging machines could not properly seal the special “child proof” paper used in the products, Defendant and other employees sold “package sealer agreements” in Gallatin County to those who paid between $500 to $5,000 to be exclusive sealers for Smart Pak. The sealers received all materials from Smart Pak, sealed the packages, and then sold the sealed bags back to the company. Shortly thereafter, Smart Pak came under federal and state investigation as to whether the sealer agreements were investment contracts which Defendant had failed to register. After Smart Pak ceased operations and went into receivership, the State charged Defendant with a four-count information, namely: (1) deceptive practices; (2) fraudulent securities practices; (3) failure to register securities; and (4) issuing a bad check. The trial court dismissed count 4 and Defendant pled not guilty to the other three counts. After Defendant waived his right to a trial by jury, the court found Defendant guilty on counts 1 and 3 and dismissed count 2. Defendant was sentenced to five years imprisonment on count 1 and three years imprisonment on count 3. The sentences ran concurrently. 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.
- 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.