Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law keyed to Dripps
State v. Carroll
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:
Early one morning, an individual noticed Alfred Kapala Carroll (Defendant) was attempting to start a fire at a school. Defendant was arrested. During a routine search of Defendant for weapons at the scene, a police officer found a canister. Believing it was a container of nasal spray, the officer returned it to Defendant. About an hour later Defendant was booked on the charge of second-degree attempted criminal property damage in violation of HRS §§ 700-705 and 708-821(1)(b). Around that time, a custodial search of Defendant again revealed the presence of the canister. Upon closer inspection, however, the container was identified as Mace. Defendant was then charged with possession of an obnoxious substance in violation Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (ROH) § 13-21.3(a). Two months later, Defendant was tried on the misdemeanor Mace possession charge and acquitted. Thereafter, Defendant was brought to trial on the attempted property damage charge. At trial, Defendant moved the court to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the two offenses were part of a single “episode” within the context of HRS § 701-109(2) and should have been prosecuted in a single proceeding. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment and the State 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.