1 / 33

Judge Peter A. Cahill

Legal Framework for State of Ashlandia v. Tyler Blunt MSBA 2009 State High School Mock Trial Competition Case. Judge Peter A. Cahill. Pretrial Order. Pages 57 and 58 of materials Stipulations: Authenticity but not foundation for all exhibits

keelia
Download Presentation

Judge Peter A. Cahill

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Legal Frameworkfor State of Ashlandia v.Tyler BluntMSBA 2009 State High School Mock Trial Competition Case Judge Peter A. Cahill

  2. Pretrial Order • Pages 57 and 58 of materials • Stipulations: • Authenticity but not foundation for all exhibits • Exhibit 9 is a fair and accurate representation of the lightning bolt report, but the accuracy of the report has not been stipulated to. • Each witness has reviewed and signed their affidavit

  3. Indictment Count 1: Manslaughter (Bill Hudson) Count 2: Manslaughter (Carol Hudson) Count 3: Negligent Homicide (Bill Hudson) Count 4: Negligent Homicide (Carol Hudson) Count 5: Reckless Burning of Wild lands Count 6: Burning of Wild lands with Criminal Negligence

  4. STATE OF MINDA. Recklessness Counts 1, 2, and 5B. Criminal Negligence Counts 3, 4 and 6CAUSATIONA. Death Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4B. Burning of Wild lands Counts 5 and 6

  5. Indictment “RECKLESS” COUNTS Count 1: Manslaughter (Bill Hudson) Count 2: Manslaughter (Carol Hudson) Count 5: Reckless Burning of Wild lands

  6. Indictment “CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE” COUNTS Count 3: Negligent Homicide (Bill Hudson) Count 4: Negligent Homicide (Carol Hudson) Count 6: Burning of Wild lands with Criminal Negligence

  7. “Recklessly” or “Reckless Disregard” • “Recklessly” or “Reckless Disregard” means that a defendant is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or the circumstanceexists. • The risk must be such that disregarding it is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do in the situation

  8. “Recklessly”

  9. “Recklessly” or “Reckless Disregard” • “Recklessly” or “Reckless Disregard” means that a defendant is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or the circumstanceexists. • The risk must be such that disregarding it is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do in the situation

  10. “Criminal Negligence” • “Criminal negligence means with respect to a result or a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, that a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. • The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

  11. “Criminal Negligence”

  12. “Criminal Negligence” • “Criminal negligence means with respect to a result or a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, that a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. • The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

  13. “Recklessly” or “Reckless Disregard”-Counts 1 and 2 • “Recklessly” or “Reckless Disregard” means that the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would result. • The risk must be such that disregarding it is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do in the situation.

  14. “Criminal Negligence” – Counts 3 and 4 • “Criminal negligence” means that the defendant failed to recognize a substantial risk of causing the death of another person. P. 64 • The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to recognize it constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would do in this situation.

  15. Count 1: Manslaughter Defendant recklessly caused the death of Bill Hudson, on or between July 4, 2007, and July 15, 2007. • Defendant caused the death of Bill Hudson • Defendant caused the death recklessly • Defendant’s acts occurred on or between July 4 and July 15, 2007, in Burnett County, State of Ashlandia

  16. Count 3: Negligent Homicide Defendant , with criminal negligence, caused the death of Bill Hudson, on or between July 4, 2007, and July 15, 2007. • Defendant caused the death of Bill Hudson • Defendant caused the death with criminal negligence • Defendant’s acts occurred on or between July 4 and July 15, 2007, in Burnett County, State of Ashlandia

  17. Count 2: Manslaughter Defendant recklessly caused the death of Carol Hudson, on or between July 4, 2007, and July 15, 2007. • Defendant caused the death of Carol Hudson • Defendant caused the death recklessly • Defendant’s acts occurred on or between July 4 and July 15, 2007, in Burnett County, State of Ashlandia

  18. Count 4: Negligent Homicide Defendant , with criminal negligence, caused the death of Carol Hudson, on or between July 4, 2007, and July 15, 2007. • Defendant caused the death of Carol Hudson • Defendant caused the death with criminal negligence • Defendant’s acts occurred on or between July 4 and July 15, 2007, in Burnett County, State of Ashlandia

  19. POSSIBLE RESULTS If defendant caused the death of Bill and Carol Hudson: • If RECKLESS: Guilty Counts 1 and 2 • If NOT RECKLESS, but CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT: Not Guilty Counts 1 and 2, but Guilty of Counts 3 and 4. • If neither RECKLESS nor CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT: Not Guilty Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4

  20. POSSIBLE RESULTS If defendant not proven to have caused death: Defendant is not guilty of Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, but may be guilty of Counts 5 or 6

  21. Count 5: Reckless Burning of Wild lands Defendant , without lawful authority,recklessly set or caused to be set on fire wild lands other than the defendant’s own, on or between July 4, 2007, and July 15, 2007. • Defendant set, or caused to be set on fire, wild lands other than the defendant’s own. • Defendant set, or caused the fire to be set, recklessly. • Defendant did not have lawful authority to set or cause the fire to be set. • Defendant’s acts occurred on or between July 4 and July 15, 2007, in Burnett County, State of Ashlandia.

  22. Lawful authority? See Exhibits 3 and 4

  23. “Recklessly” or “Reckless Disregard”-Count 5 • “Recklessly” or “Reckless Disregard” means that the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a burning of the wild lands would result. • The risk must be such that disregarding it was a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do in the situation.

  24. Count 6: Burning of Wild lands with Criminal Negligence Defendant , without lawful authority,and with criminal negligence set or caused to be set on fire wild lands other than the defendant’s own, on or between July 4, 2007, and July 15, 2007. • Defendant set, or caused to be set on fire, wild lands other than the defendant’s own. • Defendant set, or caused the fire to be set, with criminal negligence. • Defendant did not have lawful authority to set or cause the fire to be set. • Defendant’s acts occurred on or between July 4 and July 15, 2007, in Burnett County, State of Ashlandia.

  25. “Criminal Negligence” – Count 6 • “Criminal negligence” means that the defendant failed to recognize a substantial risk of setting a fire or causing the setting of a fire to the wild lands. (I made this up, it’s not in the materials). • The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to recognize it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would do in this situation.

  26. POSSIBLE RESULTS If defendant set or caused the wild lands to be set on fire: • If RECKLESS: Guilty Counts 5 and 6 • If NOT RECKLESS, but CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT: Not Guilty Count 5, but Guilty of Count 6 • If neither RECKLESS nor CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT: Not Guilty Counts 5 or 6

  27. POSSIBLE RESULTS If defendant did not set or cause the wild lands to be set on fire: • Not Guilty Counts 5 or 6

  28. What caused the Burning? • What caused the Deaths? • What was Tyler Blunt’s Level of Carelessness, if any?

  29. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Such proof as ordinarily prudent men and women would act upon in their most important affairs. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It does not mean a fanciful or capricious doubt, nor does it mean beyond all possibility of doubt.

  30. Presumption of Innocence The defendant is presumed innocent of the charges. This presumption remains with the defendant unless and until the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

  31. Presumption of Innocence The burden of proving guilt is on the State. The defendant does not have to prove innocence.

  32. Judge Peter A. CahillC-12 Government CenterMinneapolis, MN 55487(612) 596-8733peter.cahill@courts.state.mn.us

More Related