In State v. Stanley, the Kansas Court of Appeals held that a defendant’s previous Missouri conviction for driving while intoxicated (“DWI”) would “not qualify as a prior conviction under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(i),” the Kansas DUI statute, representing an important development in the law. The court compared the relevant Kansas and Missouri statutes and relevant case law to determine if the statutes were “equivalent.” The court determined the Kansas statute criminalizes both “operating or attempting to operate a vehicle with a blood- or breath-alcohol level in excess of .08 or more; and . . . operating or attempting to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving the vehicle.” In comparison, the Missouri statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. 557.010, criminalizes “operat[ing] a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition.” Thus, the court reasoned, “[t]he Missouri statute, on its face, is too broad to count as a prior conviction under” the Kansas statute because it criminalized “a wider range of activity” than the Kansas DUI statute by focusing on “the fact . . . of intoxication,” not on the degree of intoxication as the Kansas statute …show more content…
The court ultimately concluded that “it is clearly conceivable that an act that would be considered a DWI in Missouri would not be DUI in Kansas,” and the defendant’s prior Missouri DWI should not count as a prior conviction under the Kansas DUI
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
The case of the State of Florida vs. Chad Heins happened in 1994 in Mayport, Florida. It was on April 17, 1994 that Tina Heins, who was pregnant at the time, was found stabbed to death in her apartment. She shared an apartment with her husband Jeremy Heins and Jeremy’s brother Chad Heins. At the time of the incident Jeremy Heins was on a ship because he worked in the navy but Chad Heins was at the apartment. Before the incident happened Chad Heins, the defendant, who was nineteen at the time, used his brothers license to buy alcohol at a strip club near the apartment. After that Chad Heins had went to another bar where his brothers license got confiscated. He left the bar around 12:45 a.m. and went back to the apartment. He then washed his
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir. 1979) The appellant court held that it was not. According to rule 404 under the Federal Rules of Evidence, “evidence of a person 's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait”. Fed. R. Evid. 404 Under this rule the evidence of Reyes prior convictions admitted by the trial court, “purpose of showing that he was intoxicated on the night that he was run over by defendant-appellee 's train” proves to be inadmissible under Rule 404(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 792 (5th Cir. 1979) The courts due mention the exceptions on the admission of character evidence. However the court did not use the evidence of Reyes past drunkenness to prove some other criminal purpose. Since the trial court failed to do the latter, and instead entered evidence on the basis of character to prove that the plaintiff acted in accordance with his character trait during the night in question, it went against the modern rules set out in FRE 404 and is therefore
According to the Justice Kagan, in the case of Florida vs. Harris, “we considered how a court should determine if the “alert” of drug-detention during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle” (Kagan).
On September 4, 1958, Dollree Mapp’s was convicted in the Cuyahoga County Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Mapp v. Ohio - 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). On March 29, 1961, Dollree Mapp v. Ohio was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States after an incident with local Ohio law enforcement and a search of Dollree Mapp 's home (Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)). In the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment protects and prohibits all persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, can evidence obtained through a search that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights still be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This is the issue that will be thoroughly examined in the landmark case of Dollree Mapp v. the State of Ohio (henceforth
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
The case, Kansas v. Cheever, came about after Scott D. Cheever murdered Sheriff Matthew Samuels on January 19th, 2005. Samuels was with two of his deputies at the Cooper home in a rural part of Greenwood County, Kansas to execute a warrant for Scott Cheever’s arrest when Cheever shot and killed him. After Cheever was arrested, he was charged with capital murder and attempted capital murder and was also charged with various other drug charges and criminal possession of firearms. Cheever was first on trial in federal court because it was a capital case and Kansas had just ruled Capital punishment unconstitutional and was under then under review. Cheever used a voluntary intoxication defense claiming he was so high on methamphetamines he could not have premeditated the murder. In return the court ordered a mental...
In the United States Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons of 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in a five to four ruling that the death sentence for minors was considered “cruel and unusual punishment,” as stated by the Eighth Amendment, according to the Oyez Project online database. Christopher Simmons, the plaintiff, was only seventeen at the time of his conviction of murder. With the Roper v Simmons, 2005 Supreme Court ruling against applying the death penalty to minors, this also turned over a previous 1989 ruling of Stanford v. Kentucky that stated the death penalty was permissible for those over the age of sixteen who had committed a capital offense. The Roper v. Simmons is one of those landmark Supreme Court cases that impacted, and changed
...e that prevents drunk driving offenders from operating motor vehicles while intoxicated by requiring a breath test from the driver before the vehicle will start.
The case of United States v. Virginia (1996) deals with the issue on male only admissions for the Virginia Military Institute (VMI). The issue presented itself as a tricky one because there are still a lot of female only admission schools and VMI was the only male institution at the time. The case began its life in the Virginia Circuit Court and the issue was about VWIL not being equal to VMI. VMI’s admissions were for male only at the time. This case having an issue of constitutionality comes from the 14th amendment's equal protection clause being violated. This whole issue began in 1990 when a high school challenged the single sex admission policy while trying to enter VMI. The female high school student filed a complaint to the attorney
Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote a dissent where he argued that the protective sweep represented the type of intrusive unwarranted search that the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent (Maryland v. Buie, n.d.). He also argued that the majority opinion’s limits as to the scope and timeliness of the protective search are not enough to prevent the police from abusing such an unwarranted search (Maryland v. Buie, n.d.). After Justice Brennan wrote his dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall joined the dissent (Maryland v. Buie, n.d.). In my opinion, I disagree with Justice Brennan. From the facts of the Maryland v. Buie case, on February 3, 1986, two men robbed a Godfather’s Pizza in Prince George’s County, Maryland (Maryland v. Buie, n.d.).
This is an example of federal government overreach into state affairs. This federal pressure has manipulated states into raising the drinking age so that they would not lose millions of dollars in highway funds. The reason that the drinking age was raised to 21 is because the government promised a 10 percent increase in highway funds to each state if they did so. The main reason the drinking age was increased was the persuasion by large interest groups, such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). Their main arguments for raising the legal drinking age to 21 was so that the law could protect people under that age and keep them safe. Authorities state that they enforce the underage drinking law for our own personal safety. MADD’s goal is to put “mandatory ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers and the development of advanced technology that will one day make cars inoperable by someone who is drunk.” They believe this will save hundreds of thousands of
The growing awareness of alcohol hazards has made people more cautious of their drinking habits, particularly young adults. At present young adults have the highest prevalence of alcohol consumption than any other age group. They also drink more heavily, experience more negative consequences, and engage in more harmful activities, specifically drunk driving. Although surveys have documented a decline in recent years, consumption rates remain highest from late teen years to the late twenties (Johnston1-3). Despite the long-term decline since 1982 in alcohol related traffic deaths, a 4 percent increase occurred between 1994 and 1995 among young adults age 21 and over (Hingson 4). As alcohol-impaired driving persists, legal and community initiatives intervene to help reduce the problem, as well as, continuing research on possible solutions.