Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law Keyed to Ohlin
State v. Birthmark
Citation:369 Mont. 413 (2013)
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:
In November of 2010, the defendant stayed at a house shared by his mother, brother, and sister. One night, after getting into an argument with someone at a party, he returned to the house at around 1:30am, drunk and angry. He woke up his mother and then began calling his family “inbreds” and snitches. He grabbed a piece of lumber and said that he was going to bash their heads in, slice their necks and kill them, and that he would do the same to the people at the party.
When the defendant went into the kitchen, his mother left the house and called the police. The State charged the defendant with Partner or Family Member Assault (PEMA). At trial, the defendant testified that he was jumped at the party and that his anger displayed at his mother’s house was not directed at his family, but towards the people at the party.
The District Court instructed the jury that they may infer the defendant’s state of mind, including his purpose and knowledge, from the defendant’s acts and all other facts and circumstances in evidence.
He was found guilty. He appealed, arguing that the District Court’s jury instructions were improper because it did not require the jury to find that he intended to cause his mother and brother to have reasonable apprehension of bodily injury.
- 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.