Criminal Law Keyed to Johnson
People v. Kunkin
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:
Arthur Reznick, an employee at the Los Angeles attorney general’s office (the Office), took a copy of a personnel roster from the office that listed the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of undercover narcotics agents throughout the state. Reznick took the roster to the Los Angeles Free Press (Free Press) (Defendant) and met with a reporter, Gerald Applebaum (Defendant). Although Applebaum did not promise that the Free Press would publish the roster, Reznick left the paper on the reporter’s desk. At that time, Reznick was no longer working for the attorney general’s office. No agent of the newspaper promised to pay, and Reznick was never paid, for the roster. Shortly afterward, the Free Press published the roster. Reznick went to Applebaum and asked for the document back. Applebaum refused. The fingerprints of Reznick, Applebaum, and Arthur Kunkin (Defendant), the editor and owner of Free Press, were found on the document. Free Press, Kunkin, and Applebaum were charged with receiving stolen property. California Penal Code § 496 provides that a person is guilty of receiving stolen property if: (1) the property was received, concealed, or withheld by the accused; (2) the property was obtained by theft or extortion; and (3) the accused knew that the property was illegally obtained. The jury was instructed on the elements of theft by larceny, including a specific intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of property. Free Press, Applebaum, and Kunkin were convicted and 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.