State V Marshall Case Study

1625 Words4 Pages

State v. Marshall, 179 N.C 427 (1935). Opinion by: Stacy, C.J. 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. Preceding History: Marshall was convicted of manslaughter and it was affirmed. Issue: From Marshalls own testimony it’s clear …show more content…

Miller v. State. 110 Nev. 536 (2005). Opinion by:Per Curiam. Facts: On July 29,2003 Detective Jason Leavitt was doing his usually undercover work, dressed in all black with twenty on dollar bill hanging out his pocket. Leavitt was then approached by the Miller (defendant) asking him for money. The detective refused to give him the money, in return the appellant put his arm around the detective’s neck taking the cash out of his front pocket. The arrest time the pulled up and took Miller into custody and charged him with larceny. Miller was convicted, and sentenced by the district courts to spend up to thirty two months, but no less than 12 months in jail. Procedural History: Miller filled for an appeal claiming that he was entrapped, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct. Issue: Can the defendant be found guilty of the charges, because he was caught by a decoy? Miller believes that the Officer entrapped him, by tempting him with exposed …show more content…

Application/Analysis: While using a previous case DePasquale v. State 757.1988, that court held in this case that the defendant was not entrapped when he robbed that undercover female decoy. The court held that the officers committed no misconduct, they also put five factors that show that Miller intended to steal from the decoy. The fact that Mill asked Officer Leavitt for money first and after Leavitt told him no; Miller took it upon himself to take the money away. This act was enough to show Miller intentionally committed larceny, the court held that Miller was not

Open Document