SmartBrief
0
Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law Keyed to Kennedy
State of Maine v. William Linscott
Citation:
520 A.2d 1067 (1987)Facts
On December 12, 1984, the defendant’s friend suggested that they, and two others, drive to the house of a reputed cocaine dealer, Norman Grenier and rob him. The defendant agreed to the plan, reasoning that Grenier, being a reputed drug dealer, would be extremely reluctant to call the police. The friend stated that Grenier had purchased two kilograms of cocaine that day, and that Grenier had been seen with $50,000 in cash. The friend guaranteed the defendant $10,000 as his share of the proceeds of the robbery.
The four drove up to Grenier’s house. The defendant and the friend left the car and approached the house. The defendant carried a hunting knife and switchblade, and Fuller was armed with the shotgun. The other two men drove off in the defendant’s car and returned later to pick them up.
The defendant and his friend walked around to the back of Grenier’s house. At that time, Grenier and his girlfriend were watching television in their living room. The defendant and his friend intended to break in the back door in order to place themselves between Grenier and the bedroom, where they believed Grenier kept a loaded shotgun. Because the back door was blocked by snow, the two men walked around to the front of the house. Under their revised plan the defendant was to break the living room picture window whereupon his friend would show his shotgun to Grenier, who presumably would be dissuaded from offering any resistance.
The defendant subsequently broke the living room window with his body and his friend immediately fired a shot through the broken window, hitting Grenier in the chest. Grenier did not survive.
At trial, the defendant testified that he knew his friend was a hunter and that it was not unusual for him to carry a firearm with him, even at night. He nevertheless stated that he had no knowledge of any reputation for violence that he may have had. The defendant further testified that he had no intention of causing anyone’s death in the course of the robbery. The defendant was convicted of murder. He appealed, arguing accomplice liability violates due process.
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.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.
Topic Resources
8m 43sTopic Outline 
Topic Refresher Course 