Criminal Law keyed to Dripps
State v. Ouellette
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:
Mike Nadeau and another individual were driving around town when they learned that Kenny Ouellette (Defendant) was also driving around with a fifteen-year-old girl that Nadeau knew. After calling the girl’s cell phone, Nadeau told Defendant that he was going to find him and hurt him. After the conversation, Defendant took the girl back to her home and drove away. A short time later, Defendant’s vehicle crossed paths with the one driven by Nadeau. Nadeau turned his vehicle around and began to closely follow Defendant. After both cars stopped at a red light, Nadeau and the passenger got out of their vehicle and approached Defendant. Defendant, who later testified that he felt scared and threatened that the two men were going to jump him, stepped out of his vehicle with a baseball bat and began swinging it. Defendant hit Nadeau on the wrist and smashed the taillight on Nadeau’s truck and then returned to his car and drove away. Defendant later reported the incident to a police officer and stated that he had acted in self-defense. Defendant was charged with assault, reckless conduct, and criminal mischief. Prior to trial, the court dismissed the criminal mischief charge because Defendant and Nadeau had entered into an accord and satisfaction. At the close of the evidence Defendant requested that the judge instruct the jury on self-defense as justification for the reckless conduct count and also asked the court to inform the jury that the criminal mischief count was dismissed due to the out-of-court accord and satisfaction. The court denied both requests and a jury convicted Defendant of reckless conduct but found him not guilty of assault. 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.