Write this as if it were 3 separate papers, so one page for each topic. If you have any question feel free to message me. Thank you.
Format: There will be four (4) one- page papers briefing one different case each due as a weekly assignment on the day before the next class by 11:59 p.m. For example, Chapter 13, Theft will be covered April 1, 2020, with the paper due April 7, 2020, by 11:59 p.m. The case will be posted to Blackboard at 9:30 a.m. the day the class is taught. Each paper is worth 5 points toward the final grade.
1. Title of the case
2. Legal citation
3. Statement of Facts
5. Majority holding
6. Minority opinion (if any)
7. Your opinion as to whether the majority got it right or not.
8. For each day the paper is late, one point will be deducted.
Tyrone Sims v. the State of Indiana
Douglas SIMS v. STATE of Indiana, No. 16S00-9101-CR-42
Supreme Court of Indiana
January 23, 1992.
Statement of Facts
In this case, the State of Indiana charges Douglas Sims with a Class A misdemeanor theft and Level 5 felony burglary. The jury hearing the case found Sims to be guilty of both of these charges. Sims is sentenced to 1 year for theft and three years for burglary with the court giving orders that the sentence should be served concurrently. Sims now appeals.
1. Was there sufficient evidence to support Sims convictions for both Class A misdemeanor theft and Level 5 felony burglary?
2. Did the state succeed to prove that Sims committed the crimes of theft and burglary?
The court ruled that when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence cannot be reweighed nor the credibility of witnesses determined. Instead, the evidence that is most favorable for the verdict and reasonable inferences are drawn from the evidence are considered. As such, the circumstantial evidence available was deemed sufficient to sustain a conviction. For this reason, the evidence available was sufficient enough to support Sims’ burglary and theft convictions.
To sustain a Level 5 felony burglary conviction, the state must succeed to prove that Sims committed the crimes and that he broke into the building to commit theft. However, a reasonable fact-finder might establish that Sims was guilty for the offense because the store’s entrance was locked and undamaged, and Sims broke the glass window to find an entry. As such, the state succeeded in proving that Sims committed the crimes of theft and burglary because a reasonable fact-finder concluded that Sims broke through the window to enter the store, and the stolen jack was found in his possession.
Based on the evidence presented before the court it was sufficient enough to support Sims’ burglary and theft convictions. The fact that Sims was found in possession of the stolen items and the store had been accessing through breaking the glass windows is clear evidence that his intentions were to theft and burglary. As such, the court ruling should stand.
Kansas v. Garcia
Kansas V. Garcia
Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas
Argued October 16, 2019, and Decided March 3, 2020
Statement of Facts
Ramiro Garcia was flagged down for over-speeding in Overland Park, Kansas. Garcia told the officers that the reason for his speeding was because he was late for work. Further record checks showed that he was already under investigation, and the police made contact with his employer to obtain employment documents. These documents included a federal Form I-9 listing his social security number. Further investigation showed that Garcia had already used the name on other state and federal forms. As such, Garcia was charged under the state law for identity theft.
Do the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) impliedly or expressly preempt states from applying the information on the federal Form I-9 to prosecute any individual when similar information is also appearing on non-IRCA documents?
The court ruled that the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) do not expressly nor impliedly preempt Kansas’s application of the state fraud statutes and identity theft to noncitizens. The IRCA express preemption provision applies only to the employers. At the same time, those refer prospective employees don’t apply to state laws like the issue described in this case where criminal or civil sanctions on applications for employment or employee have been made. As such, IRCA doesn’t expressly preempt state law. Since IRCA didn’t expressly or impliedly preempt Kansas’s laws, the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision was reversed.
I think the court was right to rule that the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) do not expressly nor impliedly preempt Kansas’s application of the state fraud statutes and identity theft to noncitizens. Given the fact that IRCA doesn’t explicitly preempt the state law, it was necessary to reverse the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision.
Boyle v. the United States
Boyle v. the United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009)
Statement of Facts
Boyle engaged in several bank robberies involving enterprises with loosely-defined roles. As a consequence, he was convicted for having violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act)
Should an enterprise have a structure ascertainable beyond the original pattern of racketeering activity that it engages in?
In a 7–2 decision, the majority led by Justice Samuel Alito argued that the instructions of the jury were correct, and proofing the racketeering activity pattern was sufficient enough to permit warrant for a jury’s inference on the existence of the association-in-fact enterprise. As such, the majority held that structural components proposed by the petitioner were necessary by the statute. However, since the court found the language of the law as being ambiguous, the court failed to consider the arguments made about legislative history.
Justice Stevens, arguing for the minority, descended that Under the RICO Act, the interpretation of an association-in-fact enterprise should be that of a business-like activity that holds a formal structure. As such, the majority’s decision was a misinterpretation of an association-in-fact enterprise under the RICO Act since it allowed for the establishment of an enterprise through racketeering activity presence.
The district court findings were correct in how it analyzed the association-in-fact enterprise and by stating that it is a must for the enterprise to be evaluated based on its actions instead of the association’s structure. As such, Under the RICO Act, the association-in-fact enterprise doesn’t need to have designated roles.