I ATTACHED SAMPLE AND TEXTBOOK TO IT. THE CASES WILL START ON PAGE 450 TO PAGE 454. (22-1 to 22-4)
Case Summary Clarification - Samples
Posted on: Friday, January 25, 2019 9:11:57 AM EST
Below are samples of thorough case summaries in the correct format. Please review the end of Chapter 1. As a reminder the format required is:
PROVIDE ME WITH (one paragraph each)
1. THE FACTS OF THE CASE
2 THE ISSUE AT THE LAW THE COURT IS CONSIDERING
3. HOW THE LAW WAS APPLIED IN THIS CASE
4. CONCLUSION OF THE COURT
STATE v. KELM
THE FACTS OF THE CASE
In February 1991, the defendant needed a loan in order to complete a real state transaction. Ms. Joan Williams, in good faith, ended up lending $6,000 dollars which the defendant needed to complete an escrow, otherwise she would lose the pending deals. On February 15th, 1991, Ms Williams got from the defendant’s attorney a check for $6,000 as a payment of the loan. That same day, the defendant requested the plaintiff not to deposit the check until she made sure the account had funds. After several attempts to cash the check, Ms. Williams found out the account was closed since March 8, 1991 and a month prior to its closure it had negative balance. The defendant claimed the check was postdated for February 15, but delivered on February 10th. She denied any intention to defraud the plaintiff.
THE ISSUE AT THE LAW THE COURT IS CONSIDERING
The issued in this case surges from the law N.J.S.A 2A:111-15 which claims a person is guilty of issuing a bad check and can be prosecuted, unless the check is proven to be postdated. The defendant claim the check was postdated and never had the intention to defraud MS Williams, therefore she shouldn’t have been convicted for violating this criminal statute.
HOW THE LAW WAS APPLIED IN THIS CASE
The Defendant had a misunderstanding of the old back check statute N.J.S.A 2A:111-15. First, there isn’t a requirement in the statute claiming the check must be given with the intention to defraud. Moreover, the mention that postdated checks are exempts from this law is only valid if the drawer is willing to honor the check. The trial judge asked the jury to look at the facts in regards of the previous conditions. The State just needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the check was issued for the payment of the debt without the intention to honor it.
CONCLUSION OF THE COURT
The Jury was instructed to look at the situation. Considering when the check was issued is important. If it was issued the 15th, the State only needs to prove the intent of not honoring the check. However, if the check was issued the 10th and postdated for the 15th, the State needs to prove that the defendant knew by the time of issuing the check that it would not be honored on a later date. The intent to defraud is not relevant in this case. The Supreme Court of California ruled the jury was correctly instructed.
PEOPLE v FARELL
THE FACTS OF THE CASE
On April 18, 1997 a defendant was accused of theft of a trade secret causing loses exceeding 2.5 million dollars. Due to exceeding the amount of $100,000, Penal Code section 1203.044 could be applied to his sentence. The Defendant didn’t deny the theft, however he objected this application because the property stolen wasn’t money, but a design of a chip.
THE ISSUE AT THE LAW THE COURT IS CONSIDERING
The question in this case is if section 1203.044 could be used in the theft of a property other than money. The Superior Court concluded that any property, including trade secrets fell under this section and placed the sanctions according to the law. However, The Court of Appeal reversed this decision claiming that theft can only apply to monetary property. The Attorney General petitioned a review on this case.
HOW THE LAW WAS APPLIED IN THIS CASE
Under the California Statute, anyone is guilty of theft if engages in the activity of depriving or taking control of someone else’s trade secret. This includes techniques, designs, and programs, among other things. The trial court applied the sanctions following the guideline under The Economic Crime Law of 1992. This law is applied to anyone who makes a theft over $50,000. However, the Court of Appeal used the rule of lenity and gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt in this case since the statute was ambiguous.
The Supreme Court took this statute for interpretation and found that words “convicted of a felony for theft of an amount exceeding fifty thousand dollars” can be interpreted in context. It also don’t specify cash or monetary property. The statute was left this way, thus it could include anything related to theft. In addition, limiting this statute to cash would not address its legislative intent.
CONCLUSION OF THE COURT
White Collar Crime involves many activities which aren’t just limited to cash. Fraud, embezzlement and bribery are some examples. Since White Collar Crimes are a broad subject, the legislative intent of the statute in discussion shouldn’t be limited to just theft of cash. Furthermore, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed.
PEOPLE v. FARRELL
FACTS OF THE CASE
In this case they determined whether Penal Code section 1230.044, which requires the imposition of a minimum county jail sentence as a condition of probation upon conviction of certain theft offenses, applies to the theft of property other than money, including trade secrets. On April 18.1997 a complaint was filed charging defendant with the theft of a trade secret. It was further alleged as a sentence enhancement that the loss exceeded &2.5 million and as a restriction on the granting of probation that the theft was of an amount exceeding $100,000. Defendant pleaded no contest to the theft charge. He objected, however to the potential application of the section 1203.044 to his sentence.
THE ISSUE AT THE LAW THE COURT IS CONSIDERING
A hearing was held in the superior court on the limited question of whether section 1203.044 applies to the theft of property other than money including trade secrets. The court concluded that the provision applies to the theft of all property of a certain value, including trade secrets. In accordance with the requirements of section 1203.044 the court suspended imposition of sentence. They placed the defendant on probation for a period of three years on condition that he serve three months in county jail with credit for time served of seven days. The court granted a stay of the jail term pending appeal.
HOW THE LAW WAS APPLIED IN THIS CASE
The court of Appeal reversed concluding that section 1203.044 applies only to the theft of what it termed “monetary property.” They granted the Attorney General’s petition for review. Defendant stands convicted of theft, specifically a violation of California statue which provides, “every person is guilty of theft who, with intent to deprive or withhold the control of a trade secret from its owner, or with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another, does any of the following, steals, takes, carries away, or uses without authorization, a “trade secret.” The statue defines the term “trade secret” as follows: “information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that: derives independent economic value, actual or potential. From not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. Also is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”
CONCLUSION OF THE COURT
Since the crime of theft includes a wide range of property and the term “white collar crime” has a broad meaning, we find it improbable that the Legislature intended to address only the theft of cash or cash equivalent. It is more reasonable to conclude that the Legislature intended the provision to apply to all thefts of property of a particular value. Any other interpretation would permit many white-collar thieves to continue to receive light probationary sentences and to evade strict restitution requirements. From the usual meaning of the terms used in section 1202.044, the purpose of the enactment and the Legislature’s parallel use of the same terms in other statues, one must conclude that section 1203.044 is not limited to thefts if cash or cash equivalents. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed.
STATE v. KELM
FACTS OF THE CASE
Following a jury trial defendant was found guilty of issuing a bad check, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-5. She was sentenced to concurrent custodial terms of four years consecutive to any sentence imposed by the State of Delaware for violation of probation. The state’s evidence depicted the following account. In early February 1991, through a local attorney, defendant sought a short-term loan of a few thousand dollars which she said she needed to complete an escrow for an absent buyer in a real estate transaction in which defendant was the broker. Based in information obtained from the attorney, Ms. Joan Williams believing the amount to be $2500, agreed to meet with defendant to make such a loan. When the parties met on February 10,1991, Ms. Williams was told by defendant that she was involved in a real estate deal for a manufacturing plant and that she would lose a real estate commission if she did not obtain sufficient money to complete escrow, the buyer she represented being out of town and unavailable. She said she needed $6000 and would repay the loan either from reimbursement from the buyer or from commissions from a Florida sale. On that day Ms. Williams loaned defendant $6000 and five days later she went to the attorney’s office and found a check from the defendant for $6000. The following week Ms. Williams learned that the check was uncollectible. Ms. Williams went to the police and was advised to deposit the check and let it be dishonored. When it was returned Ms. Williams filed a criminal complaint against defendant.
THE ISSUE AT THE LAW THE COURT IS CONSIDERING
Records of the bank testified to at trial showed that defendant’s account had negatives balances from February 10,1991 until it was closed on March 8,1991. For her part defendant admitted the making and delivery of the check for $6000 but claimed it was delivered on February 10,1991 and had been post-dated. She denied any intention to defraud Ms. Williams. The principal issue on appeal is whether an intent to defraud the victim is an element of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-5. Defendant contends that the issuance of a post-dated check cannot be found to be a violation of the criminal statue and that proof of an intent to defraud is required for a conviction. In support of that defendant relies heavily on a predecessor bad check statue, N.J.S.A. 2A:111-15, and case law interpreting that former law.
HOW THE LAW WAS APPLIED IN THIS CASE
N.J.S.A. 2C:21-5 in pertinent part, reads as follows: A person who issues or passes a check or similar sight order fro the payment of money, knowing that it will not be honored by the drawee, commits an offense. For purpose of this section as well as in any prosecution for theft committed by means of a bad check, an issuer is presumed to know that the check or money order would not be paid if: payment was refused by the drawee for lack of funds, upon presentation within 30 days after issue, and the issuer failed to make good within 10 days after receiving notice of that refusal or after notice has been sent to the issuer’s last known address. Notice of refusal may be given to the issuer orally or in writing in any reasonable manner by that person. Defendant’s reliance on N.J.S.A. 2A:111-15 is misplaced. The need to show that the check was drawn “with intent to defraud” was specifically set fourth in the statue.
CONCLUSION OF THE COURT
In his trial judge instructed the jury: the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict the defendant under this bad check count. The state must prove that the defendant knowingly issued or passed the checks for the payment of money and two that the defendant knew at the time that she issued or passed the check the check that it would not be honored by the drawee. Two things must occur at the same time, the defendant knowingly passed the check for the payment of the money and knew at the time she gave the check over to Ms. Williams that would not be honored by the bank. The state is not required to prove under the statue that there was any intent to defraud. The state need only prove that the defendant knew that the check would not be honored in the future.
Mann, R. and Roberts, B. (2012). Smith & Roberson's Business Law. 15th ed. Mason: OH.
