So did he have intent did he have premed o Watson gets convicted of first

So did he have intent did he have premed o watson

This preview shows page 7 - 10 out of 20 pages.

So did he have intent, did he have premed? o Watson gets convicted of first degree murder and on appeal, Watson says no evidence of premed. o Judge denies Watson’s motion 7
Image of page 7
Appeals court reviews case to determine if it was reasonable for the jury to make the determination they did, to find him guilty. Not deciding if he did it but simply if it is within reason to find him guilty. Appeals court defers to the side of the government as the true facts of the case, b/c/ they are the ones who won the case originally. o What IS premeditation?: o (1) thought/deliberation/consideration/second thought o (2) Some appreciable time btw deliberation and execution o (3) Not impulsive, not in the heat of passion The court says 3 times where premeditation happened in this case possibly: When he sat at table with the girls; when he wrestled with police officer and officer says it wasnt worth it and Watson still grabbed the gun; when Watson stood over officer with gun and officer said again “it isn’t worth it” o You could argue no premeditation because he brings no weapon to the scene, especially during the first moment where he is sitting with the girls and supposedly “premeditates” But there are two key moments of premed. After he gets the weapon. Std. of review in cases working through the review/appeal system o Trial ct. (laws and facts covered) >>> Appeals Court (can decide to defer to the trial courts determination of the issue or can try the case “de novo ” and totally review the facts in the case and ignore the trial court) o Appeals court can review case by 1) De Novo; 2) deferential review; 3) “clear error” o Std. of review in appeals cases often treat cases like instant replay review in NFL – there must be indisputable evidence to change the outcome, otherwise you go with the “call on the field” – the trial court. Crim. Law – Vol. Manslaughter - 10.17.16 Voluntary manslaughter o Elements: Sufficient provocation – reasonable to be provoked )- An objective Standard - a standard outside of any one person ∆ actually was in the heat of passion/rage/fear/anger )- A subjective std. ∆ actually had not cooled off It was reasonable that ∆ had not cooled off People v. Walker Ex parte Fraley o ∆ had time to cool off and thus this Is murder MPC manslaughter o Doesn’t talk about provocation’ o Says a homicide which would otherwise be murder but happens under extreme emotional distress – has not be adopted by a state but has influenced that there does not have to be a single provocation but can be a series of provoking occurrences. 8
Image of page 8
Crim law – Invol. Manslaughter and Homicide review – 10.19.16 Commonwealth (mass.) v. Welansky o We cannot show that Welansky knew that his club was set up in a way that was dangerous.
Image of page 9
Image of page 10

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture