Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law Keyed to Weaver
Suprenant v. State
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:
Jack Suprenant (Defendant) suspected that partner Kerry Bruckman(Bruckman) was having an affair. The couple argued for several days until Bruckman decided to leave with Defendant’s children. Bruckman told Defendant the relationship was over and began to pack some belongings. Defendant pleaded with Bruckman to stay. When Bruckman refused, Defendant became enraged and began stabbing Bruckman. Bruckman’s screaming awakened the children, who ran into the couple’s bedroom. Defendant chased the children back to bed, returned to the couple’s bedroom, and continued to stab Bruckman until Bruckman died. At Defendant’s murder trial, the court refused to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. The court found Bruckman’s statement that the relationship was over insufficient to support a finding that Defendant committed the murder in a sudden heat under the voluntary-manslaughter statute. A jury convicted Defendant of murder. Defendant appealed, arguing that Bruckman’s words—combined with Bruckman’s gathering of her belongings—constituted sufficient provocation to warrant a jury instruction on manslaughter.
- 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.