Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law Keyed to Ohlin
People v. Breton
Citation:237 Ill. App. 3d 355, 603 N.E.2d 1290 (1992)
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:
The defendant sold cocaine to Gary Wehrmeister multiple times. Wehrmeister agreed to work with the authorities and testify against the defendant at trial. A fellow inmate of the defendant told the State’s Attorney’s office that the defendant was looking for a hitman to kill Wehrmeister.
The State’s Attorney’s office implemented a plan to allow the defendant to contact an undercover investigator, Callahan, posing as a hitman.
The defendant first called Callahan on June 15, 1989. Defendant told him “I gotta have a job done” and that the job involved a guy named Wehrmeister. Defendant told Callahan that “I want him out. I only got about five days. He goes to trial . . . He’s gotta go.” Defendant indicated that Wehrmeister had set him up for a drug charge, that he was not guilty, but that he did not want to take a chance of Wehrmeister testifying against him.
The defendant agreed to pay Callahan $5,000 up front and stated that he would need a day to make arrangements for the delivery of the money. He called him again the next day to tell him that the money was coming from out of town and that Callahan could pick it up from Ken Drost, an attorney, at his downtown Chicago office. Callahan told defendant when you are “payin’ me to kill somebody I need to know everything I can.” In response, defendant told Callahan where Wehrmeister lived, discussed Wehrmeister’s habits, and described Wehrmeister’s living arrangements.
Defendant called Callahan again on June 19, 1989. He told him that the money was now available and gave him Drost’s phone number. He told him that Callahan should tell Drost that he was an investigator working on something for the defendant if Drost asked what the money was for.
At defendant’s request, defendant’s wife had sent $ 2,500 in the form of a money order to Drost. On June 20, 1989, Callahan went to Drost’s office and met Drost. At that time Drost endorsed the money order and delivered it to Callahan for the defendant.
Defendant made his fourth call to Callahan on June 21, 1989. Callahan told defendant he received the money order from Drost and said that he was concerned that a paper trail had been established. Defendant replied that he had told Drost to cash the money order and give Callahan cash. Callahan told defendant Wehrmeister’s murder was “set for tonight.” Defendant told Callahan he could pick up the rest of the money from Drost the next day.
On June 22, 1989, a different investigator talked to the defendant by phone when the defendant called the undercover phone number and asked for Callahan. The investigator told the defendant he was working with Callahan. The defendant asked if he knew whether Wehrmeister had gone to court and the investigator replied that the had not. The defendant said “Good” and asked whether Wehrmeister was taken care of. The investigator answered yes and said that Wehrmeister would never go to court. The defendant said the rest of the money would be available on Friday.
At his trial, defendant contended he did not really intend to have Wehrmeister murdered. He testified that he knew the hit man was a phony he went along with the scheme knowing no one would really be hurt. The defendant was then convicted of solicitation of murder for hire and sentenced to a term of 30 years imprisonment. He appealed, arguing that the State failed to prove the “agreement” element of solicitation of murder for hire.
- 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.