Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. STAFFORD 223 Kan. 62, 573 P.2d 970 (Kan. 1977) Case Brief.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re Richard A. ALCORN and Steven Feola Supreme Court of Arizona, 202 Ariz. 62, 41 P.3d 600.
Advertisements

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. U.S. v. JIMENEZ RECIO 537 U.S. 270 (2003) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. U.S. v. Willard JOHNSON U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 327 F.3d 554 (2003) Case Brief.
Chapter 4: Enforcing the Law 4 How Can Disputes Be Resolved Privately?
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. BUTLER 19 Ohio St.2d 55, 249 N.E.2d 818 (1969) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. TWEEDY, Supreme Court of Oklahoma 2000.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. DECK v. MISSOURI 125 S.Ct (2005) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. POHLE v. CHEATHAM Court of Appeals of Indiana, 724 N.E.2d 655 (2000) Case Brief.
BBCB Points Relied On Points and Critique Dean Ellen Suni Fall 2014 These materials are for teaching purposes only. I hope using these slides is helpful.
The Process of Litigation. What is the first stage in a civil lawsuit ?  Service of Process (the summons)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. DLUGASH 41 N.Y.2d 725, 363 N.E.2d 1155 (N.Y. 1977) Case Brief.
+ The Criminal Trial Process. + The Charter Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that a person charged with an offence is to be.
Litigation and Alternatives for Settling Civil Disputes CHAPTER FIVE.
The Court System.  Judge: decide all legal issues in a lawsuit. If no jury, the judge’s job also includes determining the facts of the case.  Plaintiff.
Chapter 3, Court Systems 3-1 Forms of Dispute Resolution
Introduction to Law II Appellate Process and Standards of Review.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. COHEN v. BAYSIDE S&L 62 Misc.2d 738, 309 N.Y.S.2d 980 (1970) Case Brief.
Question #7 If the President and Congress disagree over a tax bill, the President can veto the bill. Which of these applies to a presidential veto? A.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BLANTON v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 489 U.S. 538 (1989) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. COLBY v. CARNEY HOSPITAL 356 Mass. 527, 254 N.E.2d 407 (1969) Case Brief.
1 Appellate Courts Chapter Appellate Courts Appellate courts decide far fewer cases than the trial courts. Appellate courts subject the trial court’s.
Hon. Mary Jane Theis Justice, Illinois Supreme Court.
From the Courtroom to the Classroom: Learning About Law © 2003 Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles, CA All rights reserved.
SUPA Forensic science September 20,  Both the Federal Government and New Jersey establish criminal laws  The United State Code U.S.C.A.  Title.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. GRIFFIN v. CALIFORNIA 380 U.S. 609 (1965) Case Brief.
Part I Sources of Corrections Law. Chapter 4 - Going to Court Introduction – Chapter provides information on appearing in court, either as a witness or.
2 Copyright and Terms of Service Copyright © Texas Education Agency, These materials are copyrighted © and trademarked ™ as the property of the.
Mr. Valanzano Business Law. Dispute Resolution Litigate – ________________________________________________ In some cases, people decided too quickly to.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. MOSELEY v. ZIEG 180 Neb. 810; 146 N.W.2d 72 (1966) Case Brief.
Court Procedures Chapter 3.
Legal Document Preparation Class 14Slide 1 Parties to an Appeal The appellate court is the court to which a case can be appealed to. Examples are circuit.
Chapter What would likely happen to Anthony if he turns to the courts for help in ending the discrimination? 2. Does Anthony have a duty to anyone,
State Court System By: Ashanti, Glenn, Timmy, Julie.
© 2005 by Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 CALIFORNIA CIVIL LITIGATION TRIAL PROCEDURES.
Courtroom Terms Twelve Angry Men. 10/18/2015 copyright ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2 Amendments 5 th Amendment: Guarantees due process—each.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PENNSYLVANIA v. BRUDER 488 U.S. 9 (1988) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. Pamela L. PETERS Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 263 Wis.2d 475, 665 N.W.2d 171 (2003)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. MASSACHUSETTS v. SHEPPARD 468 U.S. 981 (1984) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. CARRUTHERS v. STATE Supreme Court of Georgia, 528 S.E.2d 217 (2000) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL 538 U.S. 408 (2003) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. LYNCH v. LYNCH 164 Ariz. 127 (1990) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. LOWE v. QUINN 27 N.Y.2d 397, 267 N.E.2d (N.Y. 1971) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PEOPLE v. MITCHELL 58 N.Y.2d 368, 448 N.E.2d 121 (1983) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. WYMAN v. NEWHOUSE 93 F.2d 313 (2d Cir. 1937) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. GUFFEY 262 S.W.2d 152 (Mo.Ct.App. 1953) Case Brief.
Law and Justice Chapter 14 - Trials. Due Process of Law Due Process of Law Due Process of Law Means little to people unless they are arrested Means little.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. UNITED STATES v. JEWELL 532 F.2d 697 (2d Cir. 1976) Case Brief.
 The United States has an adversarial court system. › This means that two opposing sides must argue their cases before a judge in order to find the truth.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. NEWMAN v. SUMMY CO. 133 F.2d 465 (2d Cir. 1943) Case Brief.
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study of Evidence The primary purpose of the rules of evidence is to help ensure a fair trial. Copyright © 2015 Carolina.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BUSBY v. STATE 894 So.2d 88 (Fla. 2004) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. WILLIAMS Supreme Court of Iowa 695 N.W.2d 23 (2005) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. ISHMAEL v. MILLINGTON 241 Cal.App.2d 520, 50 Cal.Rptr.592 (1966) Case Brief.
Chapter 3-1 Forms of Dispute Resolution Pages
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OREGON STATE BAR v. SMITH 149 Or.App. 171, 942 P.2d 793 (1997) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. FINE v. DELALANDE, INC. 545 F.Supp. 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. RIEMERS v. GRAND FORKS HERALD 688 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 2004) Case Brief.
STATE v. WINDER 348 N.Y.S.2d 270 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1973)
Pretrial Conference After discovery, a pretrial hearing is held to clarify the issues, consider a settlement, and set rules for trial Once the trial court.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
CAMPBELL SOUP CO. v. WENTZ 172 F.2d 80 (3d Cir. 1948)
BROWN v. BROWN 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. DCA 1974)
STATE v. KINGMAN 463 P.2d 638 (Wash. 1970)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
ARENA LAND & INV. CO., INC. v. PETTY 69 F.3d 547 (10th Cir. 1995)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
Courts and Court Systems
PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER 53 Ill.App.2d 299, 202 N.E.2d 841 (1964)
Presentation transcript:

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. STAFFORD 223 Kan. 62, 573 P.2d 970 (Kan. 1977) Case Brief

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. STAFFORD PURPOSE: Although serious felony cases are scrutinized carefully for error, the Stafford case illustrates that even the loss of part of the trial transcript may be deemed nonprejudicial.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. STAFFORD CAUSE OF ACTION: Second degree murder.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. STAFFORD FACTS: The State’s case came from twelve witnesses. Defendant was the only person to testify on his own behalf. Thirty pages of defendant’s testimony were transcribed, but another 50 were lost. On order of the district court an attempt was made to reconstruct the missing transcript through testimony of defendant’s trial attorney. The defendant was convicted of second degree murder and seeks a new trial based on the lost transcript.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. STAFFORD ISSUES: 1. Whether missing a portion of trial transcript precluded effective appellate review. 2. Whether trial court’s failure to define “heat of passion” was prejudicial error warranting a new trial.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. STAFFORD HOLDING: 1. No. 2. No. Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. STAFFORD REASONING: 1. The inability of the state to provide a full transcript of the trial proceedings does not entitle a defendant to a new trial per se. Defendant failed to demonstrate that despite a good faith effort it was impossible to reconstruct the missing portion of the record, precluding effective appellate review of the issues.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. STAFFORD REASONING: 2. None of the objections to instructions raised on appeal were presented to the trial court. Therefore, the scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the instructions are “clearly erroneous.” An instruction is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court reaches a firm conviction that if the trial error had not occurred there was a real possibility the jury would have returned a different verdict, not apparent in the instant case.

Feedback: Privacy Policy Feedback
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
About project: SlidePlayer Terms of Service

© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc. All rights reserved.