Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Law Keyed to Ohlin
State v. Pacheco
Citation:125 Wash. 2d 150 (1994)
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 1985, the defendant worked for about 2 months at Thomas Dillon’s private investigation firm. While working, the defendant bragged to Dillion about his involvement in illegal activities, including enforcement, collecting debts, procuring weapons, providing protection, and performing “hits.”
In 1989, Dillon learned that Pacheco was a deputy sheriff. He contacted the FBI and volunteered to gather information about him. The FBI began an investigation and Dillon called the defendant and told him he would like to meet to discuss a possible deal. Dillon said he had ties to the mafia and offered the defendant $500 in exchange for protection during a cocaine deal. Dillon told him that a buyer (an undercover FBI agent) would arrive shortly, and the defendant was to protect Dillon during the transaction. He agreed. The undercover agent arrived and the purported drug transaction took place. Afterward, Dillon paid the defendant $500.
The defendant was convicted of conspiracy. He appealed, arguing that he did not commit conspiracy within the meaning of RCW 9A.28.040 because no genuine agreement existed between him and his sole coconspirator, an undercover agent.
- 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.