Criminal Law Keyed to Johnson
State v. Irons
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:
Brandon Irons (Defendant) was sent to the Wichita Community Residential Center (CRC), a work-release facility for inmates. One day, Defendant signed out to go to work but failed to return the next morning. Defendant was eventually charged with aggravated escape from custody. Prior to trial, the State made a motion requesting that the court exclude any evidence pertaining to Defendant’s motives for escaping. During the motion hearing, Defendant testified that the other inmates had become angry about an interview he had given about the CRC. After Defendant signed out to go to work, he was chased by two inmates and ran into a store for safety. The inmates told Defendant that they were going to kill him when he returned. While at work, Defendant called the CRC and spoke to Ryan, the assistant administrator, who agreed to call Defendant later that evening but never did. Defendant called again a number of times but could not reach Ryan. Instead of returning to the CRC, Defendant went to Texas and stayed there until he was arrested five months later. Defendant argued that his testimony supported a defense of compulsion under Kansas law, which provided that a person was not guilty of a crime based on conduct performed under the compulsion or threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. The trial court granted the State’s motion and excluded Defendant’s testimony, concluding that the threats were not sufficiently imminent to allow for a compulsion defense. Defendant was convicted of aggravated escape. Defendant appealed the conviction.
- 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.