View
224
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Phosphorus:Phosphorus: DQ19 (Wanie)
Wanie must have argued:
• L-Boys did not mortally wound wolf
• L-Boys did not continue pursuit
BEST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING?
Phosphorus:Phosphorus: DQ19 (Wanie)Wanie must have argued:
• L-Boys did not mortally wound wolf• L-Boys did not continue pursuit
BEST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING?• Wanie testimony re wound
• Earlier pursuit & shots that hit wolf
OTHER?
ZINC:ZINC: DQ19 (Liesners)
Liesners must have argued:
• L-Boys did mortally wound wolf
• L-Boys did continue pursuit
BEST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING?
DQ20: Trial Judge’s Perspective
• He must believe:
– Abdomen shot was mortal wound (“gut shot”; wolf’s behavior)
– Only evidence of shot that could have made that wound was Liesner shot (bullet/angle)
• Keep in Mind
– Judge probably had experience with guns & hunting
– Judge could see pelt & holes
Why No Ratione Soli?
• Apparently not claimed
• Maybe: Lawyer’s Mistake or Owner Unaware
• Maybe: Unowned or unclaimed land or custom to allow hunt
• Maybe 1st Liesner shot on Liesner land & death on Wanie land
PHOSPHORUS:PHOSPHORUS: DQ21
What relevance do the additional facts found in the trial record have for how you should read the appellate opinion?
Calcium: Shaw Brief
STATEMENT OF THE CASE?
CRIMINAL CASE
Government always brings the suit• State charged X with [name of crime]
• Criminal action against X for [name of crime]
Relief requested always is incarcera-tion or fines; can leave unstated.
Calcium: Shaw Brief
STATEMENT OF THE CASE?
State charged 3 defendants (including Thomas & Shaw) who removed fish from nets belonging to others with grand larceny.
Calcium: Shaw Brief
PROCEDURAL POSTURE?
• Thomas was indicted and tried.
• At the close of the state’s evidence, the Court directed a verdict for Thomas.
• The state excepted [appealed].
Calcium: Shaw Brief
ISSUE: PROCEDURAL PART?
Did the trial court err in directing a verdict for the defendant …
Calcium: Shaw Brief
ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART?• Directed verdict means state’s
evidence was insufficient to show the crime. –What did Trial Court think was
missing here? –Why did it matter?
Calcium: Shaw Brief
ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART?
• Trial Court held that fish caught in nets are not the property of the net-owner if some fish can escape from nets (perfect net rule)
• What does state say is wrong with Trial Court’s position?
Calcium: Shaw Brief
ISSUE: SUBSTANTIVE PART?• Trial Court held that fish caught in nets are
not the property of the netowner when some fish can escape from nets (“Perfect Net Rule”)
• State says net need not be perfect to create property rights in net-owners.
Calcium: Shaw Brief
ISSUE: Did the trial court err in directing a verdict for the defendant
on the grounds that defendant did not commit grand larceny because
owners of nets cannot have property rights in fish found in their nets where
the fish can escape from the nets?
Discussions of Shaw Next Week
FOCUS ON “PERFECT NET RULE”• Do our other cases support the rule?• Policy arguments for and against the
rule.• When the Ohio Supreme Court
rejects the rule, what does it leave in its place?
LIESNER PREVAILING RULE:COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES
1. Actual Possession Likely
2. Actual Possession Practically Inevitable
3. Actual Possession Inevitable
COMPARE POSSIBLE RULES
1. Actual Possession Likely
2. Actual Possession Practically Inevitable
3. Actual Possession Inevitable
NEON: DQ17: Policies Supporting Choice of #2?
Recommended