Criminal Law Keyed to Johnson
State v. Bautista
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:
Eryck Bautista (Defendant) went to a Maui Toyota dealership to buy a new truck. After agreeing on the final price, Defendant wrote a check to the dealership for $29,865.83. Maui Toyota did not call Defendant’s bank to ensure that the check would be covered by Defendant’s account. Defendant left the dealership with the vehicle. Three days later, Maui Toyota learned that Defendant’s check had bounced. A salesperson for Maui Toyota informed Defendant that the check had not cleared and told Defendant to return the truck. Defendant returned the truck and told Maui Toyota that he was trying to secure a loan to pay for the vehicle. Shortly thereafter, Maui Toyota called the police, and Defendant was charged with first-degree theft of the vehicle. The prosecution was required to establish that Defendant intended to deprive Maui Toyota of property with a value of more than $20,000. Evidence at trial showed that Defendant had closed his account over five months before actually writing the check and that the highest balance ever recorded in the account was only $200. Evidence also showed that Defendant had provided his correct name and address in all interactions with Toyota. Toyota’s finance manager testified that the actual loss suffered by Maui Toyota could not be determined in the case for various reasons that made the sale complex. Two witnesses also testified that, after the attempt to purchase from Maui Toyota, Defendant went to two other dealerships and similarly purchased cars with bad checks written on closed accounts, returning the vehicles as soon as the dealerships found out that the checks had not cleared. Defendant was 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.