Negotiation Results. Dismiss Counts I-III Plead Counts I-IV. Plead to Count I. 2ys on burg. 3 on poss. 6 m. jail w/wk release 3 year probation w/

Transcription

1 Negotiation Results Plead to Count I Dismiss Counts I-III Plead Counts I-IV 6 m. jail w/wk release 3 year probation w/ Continued drug tx Drug testing (3x/wk) AA meetings Psychological tx 2ys on burg. 3 on poss. (consecutive) 90 days inpatient 1 yr home confinement Time/stress management counseling for 6 m.

2 Plead to Counts I-IV 4 1 yr sentences served cons. in county w/work release 2 yrs prob. after release Parole not possible In-house tx 1-2 yrs in drug rehab? 10 yrs/9 suspended 1 yr county jail w/wr Violations = 9 yrs Drug counseling & testing for 10 years

3 ? Plead Counts II & IV Dismiss Counts I & III 3 yrs in med-security prison, WR after 2 yrs Educational & rehab programs in prios 4 yrs prob. W/drug tests Violation = 10 yrs 5 yrs probation 11 months in county jail Violation triggers deferred sent. For Count IV = 5 yrs Phone check every 2 weeks Officer visit once a month Drug test once a month No less than 8 random drug tests per year Drug counseling 3 yr evaluation/ possible reduction

4 Plead Counts I-IV? 1 yr each, conc at min security, w/wr, tx release Tx includes med/psych eval w/stress management & drug rehab Pros will ask for investigation of Miranda violation 6 m. no WR 6 m. WR & school release if clean evaluation by arbitration panel: monthly evaluations to follow 2 yrs prob. W/drug testing and reports of employment changes

5 U.S. Department of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics

6 Principals of Criminal Liability Traditionally broken down into: 1. Forbidden act 2. Attendant circumstances 3. Result Accompanied by some level of mens rea (I.e. purpose, knowledge, reckless, negligence) Law requires certain relationship among the elements: Mens rea ordinarily must accompany the act; & mens rea must relate in a particular way to the result) NO ELEMENT IS INVARIABLY REQUIRED FOR CRIMINAL LIABILITY

7 Martin v. State Parties: Martin and the State of Alabama Facts: Martin was drunk and at home. He was arrested by the police at his home. The police transported him onto the highway, where he used loud and profane language. Procedural History: Convicted in Circuit Court, appealing his conviction to the COA. At original hearing in COA, conviction was upheld. ( ) Martin requested a rehearing. ( ) Issue: Is a voluntary appearance required in order to be convicted of drunkenness in a designated public place? (Narrow) Was evidence sufficient to support a conviction?

8 Rule: (explicit) Code 1940, Title 14, Section 120. Any person who, while intoxicated or drunk, appears in any public place where on or more persons are present and manifested a drunken condition by boisterous or indecent conduct, or loud and profane discourse shall, on conviction be fined. (implicit) An accusation of drunkenness in a designated public place cannot be established by proof that the accused while in an intoxicated condition was involuntarily and forcibly carried to that place by the arresting officer, citing Thomas etc. Application/Rationale: No evidence that Martin appeared on the highway voluntarily -- he was arrested at his home and taken onto the highway by the police. Therefore, the conviction cannot stand.

9 Holding: A voluntary appearance is required under the plain terms of the statute. The evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. Judgment: Original opinion of the court is withdrawn. Case is reversed and rendered, discharging appellant. (i.e. Martin will not be prosecuted again)

10 Thomas v. State Parties: Thomas and the State of Georgia Facts: Thomas traveled to a church on a highway. He was arrested at the church by an officer. On the way to jail, in the officer's custody, he used vulgar, profane and unbecoming language and manifested his drunkenness in other ways. There was no evidence that he manifested drunken behavior before being arrested. Procedural History: Thomas was convicted of being drunk on a public highway and his motion for a new trial was denied. His is appealing the denial of his motion for a new trial to the Georgia Court of Appeals.

11 Issue: Does the crime require that the appearance on the public highway be a voluntary appearance? (Narrow) Did trial court give an erroneous jury instruction? Rule: (explicit) Section 442 of the Penal Code 1910: If any person shall be and appear in an intoxicated condition on any public street or highway****which said drunkenness or intoxication may be caused by the excessive use of intoxicating wines, beers, liquors, or opiates and must be made manifest by boisterousness, or by indecent condition or acting, or by vulgar, profane, or unbecoming language, or loud and violent discourse of the person or persons so intoxicated or drunken, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (implicit) Drunkenness is an indictable offense only when the drunken person appears at some one or more of the places specified in the statute, citing Burkes, etc.

12 Application/Rationale: A voluntary appearance is required under the statute since every crime or misdemeanor requires union or the joint operation of act and intention. No witness testified that Thomas drunkenness was manifested prior to his arrest. However, the evidence at a new trial may not be the same as that which was presented at the previous trial so no ruling is made as to the sufficiency of the evidence. Holding: The involuntary appearance of a drunken person on the public road is not a crime. The court did not properly instruct the jury on the issue of voluntary appearance. Judgment: Reversed and remanded to court for trial with proper jury instructions.