Criminal Law Keyed to Weaver
Washington v. Workman
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:
Lawrence Workman and Steven Hughes (Defendants) decided to rob a gas station while driving home from a night of entertainment. While both of their wives slept in the car, Defendants parked in an alley behind the station, took a rifle from the car, and loaded the rifle. Defendants also took from the car a gunny sack and a knit cap to use as masks. Defendants hid behind the station’s pay booth, trying to gather the nerve to carry through with the plan. The gas-station attendant went outside, saw Defendants, and called the police. An unmarked police car pulled up and parked across the street from the gas station. A second police car pulled into the alley behind the station. When the first police car pulled into the gas station, Defendants, who had decided not to commit the robbery, began to walk away. Both defendants claimed not to have seen the police cars before abandoning the planned robbery. Defendantswere arrested. The rifle was recovered from under Hughes’s clothes. Defendantswere charged with attempted first-degree robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. At separate trials, Defendants requested the trial court instruct the jury that abandonment of criminal purpose was an affirmative defense to the crime of attempt. The trial courts refused, and both defendants were convicted. On appeal, Defendants argued that the trial courts erred by refusing to give the requested instruction on abandonment of criminal purpose.
- 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.