Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Trespass to Chattels
Issue. Arthur and Carl will be charged with chattel trespass on the account of their illegal encroachment into the yacht, which was in the possession of another person.
Rule. Their crime has been identified based on the U.S. Tort Law: “dispossesses the other of the chattel, or (b) the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value” (U.S. Tort Law, 1993, § 218).
Analysis. Since the process of intrusion was carried out without the knowledge of the owner of the yacht and was not mandated in any way, it fits the existing definition of trespassing (U.S. Tort Law, 1993). Seeing that one of the burglars damaged the property of the owner, i.e., the mirror that was broken by the burglars, the crime in question can be identified as a trespass to chattels (U.S. Tort Law, 1993).
Conclusion. Therefore, both Arthur and Carl are legally responsible for trespassing to chattels.
1 Burglary
Issue. After locating the yacht that they considered to contain a range of valuable objects, Arthur, Ben and Carl planned a break-in with the following fraudulent conversion.
Rule. The U.S. Common Law defines burglary as the entry into an establishment “with intent to commit larceny” (California Penal Code 1872, § 495.5).
Analysis. Although the definition provided by the California Penal Code applies to the property that is in possession of legal persons and not natural persons, it has been proven that the criminals entered the yacht intending to commit larceny. Therefore, their actions qualify as burglary.
Conclusion. According to the case description, Arthur and Carl managed to steal the goods as planned; therefore, they will be accused of burglary.
Property Damage
Issue. On their escape from the yacht, Arthur and Carl break a mirror, which can be considered an instance of property damage.
Rule. The U.S. Common Law states that the people, who are in a temporarily possession of a certain property, are legally eligible for the state of the property in question (U.S. Tort Law, 1993, § 218).
Analysis. The reasons for listing the aforementioned event concern the fact that the damage was done to the owner of the mirror and that the specified damage should be refunded.
Conclusion. Arthur and Carl are legally responsible for property damage and must pay the price of the mirror to the owner.
1st Degree Murder
Issue. As soon as the burglars run into the watchman, who starts investigating the strange noise coming from the yacht, they start a fight and Carl shoots the watchman accidentally.
Rule. The U.S. law defines the homicide of a person, which did not occur as a result of self-defense and was “perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing” (California Penal Code, 1872a, §187–199), a first-degree murder.
Analysis. It could be argued that the case under analysis could be classified as exceeding the minimum level of self-defense, the latter being an attempt to “defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes is the imminent use of deadly force” (Criminal Code, 1981, § I). However, the case under consideration cannot be viewed as an instance of self-defense, as the watchman did not abuse his authority and did not threaten the lives of the burglars.
Conclusion. The burglars are responsible for a 1st degree murder and deserve a corresponding sentence.
2nd Degree Murder
Issue. On his way home, being drunk, Ben ran over Sally, leading to her untimely death.
Rule. According to the U.S. Civil Law, the murder that “does not require a fixed intent to kill a specific person after considering the specific act” (Core Criminal Law, 2006, Article 118) is identified as unpremeditated murder.
Analysis. Ben’s crime is characterized by aggravated circumstances, i.e., his drunk driving. However, the absence of the intent to murder reduces the degree to the second one.
Conclusion. Even though Ben is entirely responsible for the accident, he did not plan to murder the woman; therefore, the crime should be classified as a second degree murder.
Negligent Homicide
Issue. Having learned about her husband’s death, his wife Tiffany dies of a heart attack.
Rule. According to the Tennessee definition of criminally negligent homicide, “Any person who commits criminally negligent homicide is guilty of a crime” (Criminal Code, 2012a, § 7.07).
Analysis. In the given case, no direct harm was caused to Tiffany by either of the burglars. Nevertheless, the latter created the premises, which triggered the accident.
Conclusion. Since the death of Tiffany, the wife of the man murdered by Arthur and Carl, was induced by shock, which the woman suffered on learning about the watchman being dead, the specified case falls under the category of a negligent homicide in accordance with the U.S. Common Law.
Accessory
Issue. Though Ben was not present at the scene of the crime, he still must be viewed as the accomplice in the burglary case, as he helped Arthur and Carl prepare for the burglary, e.g., delivered the plan.
Rule. The U.S. Common Law states that “A person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible, or by both” (Penal Code, 1994, 7.01).
Analysis. Ben may be charged with accessory, as he was involved into planning the burglary and, therefore, was eligible to inform the police about it, yet never confessed. The subject matter can be defined as trivial assistance (Penal Code, 1994, 7.01).
Conclusion. Based on the U.S. Penal Code, Ben is guilty of accessory.
Drunk Driving
Issue. Refusing to participate and feeling emotional, Ben got intoxicated and decided to drive home in his car.
Rule. The violation of the traffic rules triggers legal repercussions for Ben according to the U.S. Common Law (U.S. Common Law, 2015, §08 BAC).
Analysis. The guilt of the accused is quite obvious in the given case. By choosing to drive willingly, he violated the basic principles of security, thus, having posed a threat to both drivers and pedestrians.
Conclusion. Ben is to be accused of driving while intoxicated and punished accordingly.
Felony (Vehicular Assault)
Issue. While driving intoxicated, Ben hit a stranger and killed her.
Rule. The breach of the traffic regulations with the following murder of a stranger is defined as a felony and an aggravated vehicular assault while driving intoxicated (U.S. Common Law, 2015, §08 BAC).
Analysis. According to the existing information, Tiffany was complying with the key traffic regulations when crossing the road. Ben, in his turn, disregarded the key rules, thus, failing to stop the car and hitting a pedestrian, which triggered the latter’s death.
Conclusion. Ben must be considered legally liable for the murder that he committed when driving under the impact of substances (alcohol).
Reference List
California Penal Code. 495.5. (1872). Web.
California Penal Code. 187–199. (1872). Web.
Core Criminal Law. Article 118 – murder. (2006). Web.
Criminal Code. 627:5 Physical force in law enforcement. (1981). Web.
Penal Code. 7.01. Parties to offenses. (1994). Web.
U.S. Common Law. 08 (BAC) [55-10-401] [55-10-403]. (2015). Web.
U.S. Tort Law. 218. Liability to person in possession. (1993). Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.