1697687666_pleg_230_finial_submisssion(1)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Bryant and Stratton College, Buffalo *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
230
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
19
Uploaded by BaronCaterpillarMaster621
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 1
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio Final Submission 10/19/2023
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 2
…
..................................................................................
..............................................
Dear Ms. Debee,
I have gone over the facts that we have in the pawn shop robbery case. I identified the proper charge for each defendant, differentiated the charges, and analyzed why a charge is or is not right
.
In criminal law, conspiracy, accomplice, and accessory are crucial concepts for finding and holding individuals accountable for their involvement in criminal activities. These terms define distinct roles and responsibilities, with varying degrees of culpability and legal consequences. Conspiracy involves planning and agreeing to commit a crime, accomplice status entails actively aiding in the commission of a
criminal and being an accessory refers to helping criminals after the unlawful act. I have thoroughly examined the criminal fact pattern involving Maria Carter, Lennie Lewis, and Will Davis in the pawn shop robbery and kidnapping case. The charges of conspiracy, accomplice, and accessory, analyze the applicability of these charges to each defendant, Conspiracy
:
TO: Lillian Debee, Attorney, lilliandebee@ldlawfirm.com From: Kristine Hubbert Paralegal.Khubbert@ldlawfirm.com RE: Charges for Pawnshop case
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 3
An agreement or plan between two or more people to commit a criminal offense. It involves an intentional agreement to engage in illegal conduct, even if the actual crime may never be carried out.
(Alabama Code § 13A-4-3):
Definition:
In Alabama, conspiracy refers to an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a criminal offense, coupled with an overt act in furtherance of that agreement.
Key Elements:
Agreement
: There must be a mutual understanding or agreement between two or more people to engage in a specific criminal act.
Overt Act: To establish a conspiracy charge, there must be evidence of at least one overt act taken in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if that act is not criminal.
Criminal Liability:
In Alabama, all parties to the conspiracy can be held criminally liable for the
intended crime, regardless of whether the crime is committed. Each conspirator can be charged and punished for their involvement in the conspiracy itself.
Accomplice
:
An accomplice is someone who intentionally aids, abets, or assists the principal offender in committing a crime. The accomplice may or may not be present at the scene of the crime but is criminally liable for the offense. Accomplice liability requires active participation or facilitation of the crime. Accomplices can be held criminally liable for the same crime as the principal offender, even if they did not directly commit the act. They share in the criminal responsibility for the entire offense and can be charged and punished accordingly.
(Alabama Code § 13A-2-23):
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 4
Definition:
In Alabama, an accomplice is someone who intentionally aids, abets, or assists another person
in committing a criminal offense.
Key Elements:
Intent:
The accomplice must have the specific intent to help or promote the commission of the underlying crime.
Assistance
: The accomplice provides assistance, which can include actions, encouragement, advice, or material support, to the principal offender during the commission of the crime.
Criminal Liability:
Accomplices in Alabama can be charged and held criminally liable for the same crime as the principal offender, even if they did not directly commit the criminal act themselves. They share legal responsibility for the entire offense and can be subject to penalties as if they were the principal offender.
Accessory After the Fact:
The accessory after the fact may provide assistance by hiding the person, providing them with transportation, or helping them dispose of evidence. By doing so, they are actively taking part in obstructing justice and can be charged with a separate crime. Accessories are charged with a separate offense for their actions after the commission of the crime, known as being an "accessory after the fact." Their liability is distinct from that of the principal offender and any accomplices who taken part in the initial crime. Penalties for accessories are typically less severe than those for the principal offender. (Alabama Code § 13A-10-60):
Definition: In
Alabama, an accessory after the fact is someone who, with knowledge that a felony has been committed, helps the principal offender in avoiding arrest, trial, or punishment.
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 5
Key Elements:
Knowledge:
The accessory must have knowledge that a felony has been committed.
Assistance:
The accessory aids or support after the felony has been committed, often by helping the principal offender evade law enforcement, hiding evidence, or supplying shelter.
Criminal Liability:
Being an accessory after the fact is a separate offense in Alabama. While the
accessory can be charged and punished, the penalties are less severe than those imposed on the principal offender or accomplices who actively took part in the commission of the crime. This offense focuses on aiding the offender after the crime's commission.
I believe the following charges will apply for each defendant in the pawn shop robbery and kidnapping case:
Maria'
s involvement in the planned armed robbery of the Capital Pawn Shop can lead to several potential
charges under Alabama law. Here are the charges that Maria could potentially face:
Conspiracy to Commit Armed Robbery
: Maria could be charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery. In Alabama, conspiracy involves an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a criminal offense, along with an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Maria's role in providing information about the layout of the building, security, and the guard could be seen as an act in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
Aiding and Abetting (Accomplice Liability): She knowingly and intentionally aided or abetted Stevie and Lenny in planning and executing the robbery, Maria could also be charged as an accomplice to the armed robbery. An accomplice is someone who knowingly and intentionally helps another person in committing a crime.
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 6
Lennie Lewis could potentially face several charges based on his involvement in the armed robbery and later events described in the events under Alabama law. Here are the charges that Lennie may be charged with:
Conspiracy to Commit Armed Robbery
: Lennie Lewis could be charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery. In Alabama, conspiracy involves an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a criminal offense, along with an overt act in furtherance of that agreement.
Lennie's role as a lookout and his active participation in planning and executing the robbery could
make him liable for conspiracy.
Accomplice to Armed Robbery:
Lennie may also be charged as an accomplice to armed robbery. An accomplice is someone who knowingly and intentionally aids, abets, or assists another person in committing a crime. Lennie's role as a lookout and his involvement in helping the robbery, such as waving frantically to signal Stevie, could lead to accomplice liability.
Kidnapping
: Lennie Lewis may face kidnapping charges. Kidnapping in Alabama involves the unlawful abduction or restraint of another person with the intent to inflict physical injury, terrorize the victim, or help the commission of a felony. Lennie's involvement in forcibly taking the security guard with Stevie at gunpoint after the robbery could lead to kidnapping charges.
Will Davis
transported Lennie Lewis and the security guard away from the crime scene, watched the situation, sought information, and helped after the robbery had been committed.
Kidnapping:
kidnapping in Alabama involves the unlawful abduction or restraint of another person with the intent to inflict physical injury, terrorize the victim, or help the commission of a felony. Will's involvement in driving the vehicle during the kidnapping of the security guard could lead to kidnapping charges.
Accessory After the Fact: Will assisted
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 7
Lennie and the security guard after they committed the armed robbery, fled the scene, or during their escape, he could also be charged as an accessory after the fact. This charge would apply if Will helped them evade arrest, trial, or punishment.
The specific charges for everyone would depend on the evidence presented in the case, including their knowledge, intent, and level of participation in criminal activities. Prosecutors would evaluate these factors to find the charges, and the outcome of the case would also depend on the strength of the evidence
and the defense strategies employed by their legal counsel. Legal systems rely on distinctions to assign responsibility and punishment, ensuring justice is served while respecting individual rights. By applying these principles with nuance, the law aims to support a delicate balance between accountability and fairness in the face of criminal wrongdoin
g. Miller v. State
, 264 So. 3d 907 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017)
If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know if any other research is needed. Sincerely, Kristine Hubbert
, Paralegal
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 8
IN THE DISTRIC CIRCUT COURT OF ALABAMA FOR
JEFFERSON COUNTY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRIAL BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT WILL DAVIS ON KIDNAPPING CHARGES AND
DOUBLE JE0PARDY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Introduction
This trial brief aims to address the questions raised by the court about the potential application of double jeopardy in the case of Will Davis, who is currently facing state kidnapping charges and is under investigation by the United States Attorney's Office for possible federal kidnapping charges under 18 USC Section 1201. Specifically, we will examine the main legal factors to consider in deciding if double jeopardy can apply when there are both state and federal causes of action, highlight the differences between state and federal kidnapping charges, and evaluate the facts and legal principles to decide if the federal prosecutor can make a prima facie case for federal kidnapping.
II. Legal Factors for Determining Double Jeopardy
Double jeopardy is a constitutional principle that protects individuals from being tried twice for the same offense. In determining whether double jeopardy applies when both state and federal charges are involved, several key factors should be considered:
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 9
1.
Separate Sovereigns Doctrine:
Under the "separate sovereigns" doctrine, dual prosecutions by state and federal governments are not considered double jeopardy because they are separate sovereign entities with distinct interests and legal systems. This principle is rooted in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
2.
Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion):
Double jeopardy can apply if a prior judgment in either the state or federal court resolves issues essential to the subsequent prosecution. If an issue has already been litigated and determined, it cannot be re-litigated in a later proceeding.
3.
Same Elements Test:
Courts may assess whether the state and federal charges involve the same elements of the offense. If they do, double jeopardy may apply.
4.
Blockburger Test
: To decide if double jeopardy applies, the Blockburger test is applied. This test assesses whether each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not. If there are
distinct offenses under this test, double jeopardy does not apply.
It is important to decide if the charges involve the same offense. Double jeopardy prohibits a person from being tried twice for the same offense. (“Amendment V – System”) If the state and federal charges are based on the same conduct or actions, then double jeopardy may come into play. III. Differences Between State and Federal Kidnapping Charges
In this case, we must consider the distinctions between state and federal kidnapping charges:
Alabama State Kidnapping Charges
:
Alabama Code § 13A-6-43 defines the crime of kidnapping in the first degree. According to this code, a person commits the crime of kidnapping in the first degree if they abduct another person with intent to:
Hold them for ransom or reward.
Use them as a shield or hostage.
Accomplish or aid the commission of any felony or flight therefrom.
Inflict physical injury upon them, or to violate or abuse them sexually.
Terrorize them or a third person.
Interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.
To convict, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements:
The defendant abducted another person, [name].
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 10
The defendant did so with intent to:
Hold them for ransom or reward.
Use them as a shield or hostage.
Accomplish or aid the commission of any felony, [name], or flight therefrom.
Inflict physical injury upon them, or to violate or abuse them sexually.
Terrorize them or a third person.
Interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.
“Abduct” means to restrain a person with intent to prevent their liberation by either:
Secreting or holding them in a place where they are not likely to be found; OR
Using or threatening to use deadly physical force 1
.
Federal Kidnapping charges
: § 1201. Kidnapping
“(a)
Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when
The person is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when transported across a state boundary, or the offender travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any means, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense; (“18 U.S. Code § 1201 - Kidnapping - LII / Legal Information Institute”)
Any such act against the person is done within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction
of the United States;
Any such act against the person is done within the special aircraft district of the United States
as defined in section 46501 of title 49;
the person is a foreign official, an internationally protected person, or an official guest as those terms are defined in section 1116(b) of this title [
18 USCS § 1116(b)
]; or
the person is among those officers and employees described in section 1114 of this title [
18 USCS § 1114
] and any such act against the person is done while the person is engaged in, or on account of, the performance of official duties;]
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 11
State and federal kidnapping charges differ primarily in terms of authority and the laws under which they are prosecuted. State kidnapping charges are filed under the criminal laws of a particular state, while federal kidnapping charges are filed under the federal criminal code.
The main distinction is that state kidnapping charges typically involve situations where an individual is unlawfully confined or taken against their will within the boundaries of a specific state. These charges are prosecuted by state authorities, such as district attorneys or state attorneys general, and are based on the kidnapping laws specific to that state.
Federal kidnapping charges come into play when the alleged kidnapping offense violates federal laws or involves certain interstate or international elements. These charges may be brought by federal agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and are prosecuted in federal courts.
Federal kidnapping charges often arise when the offense involves crossing state lines, kidnapping across national borders, transporting victims across state or international borders, or if
the crime affects interstate commerce or federal interests.
State kidnapping charges are prosecuted under state laws and typically involve offenses within a specific state, while federal kidnapping charges involve violations of federal laws or crimes with interstate or international aspects.
To determine if a federal prosecutor can make a case that a federal kidnapping occurred under 18 U.S.C. Section 1201, various facts and legal principles must be evaluated. These include:
To establish federal kidnapping, the government must prove the following elements:
a. The defendant knowingly and willfully transported, in interstate or foreign commerce, b. Another person, c. Against that person's will or without lawful authority, d. With the intent to hold that person for ransom, reward, or otherwise.
Facts to Evaluate
:
The federal prosecutor must prove that the kidnapping incident had an interstate nexus. This could involve proving that the victim was transported across state lines, that the abduction occurred on federal property, or that interstate commerce was affected.
Assess whether the incident falls within federal authority by examining whether any federal laws or regulations were implicated or whether the incident occurred on federal property.
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 12
Review any prior state court proceedings to find if any issues essential to the federal kidnapping charge were already litigated and resolved.
The government must show that the defendant physically restrained or abducted the victim against their will. This may involve presenting evidence of actions that unlawfully constrained the victim's freedom of movement or took them from one location to another without consent.
To prove federal kidnapping, the government must prove that the defendant had the specific intent to commit one of the acts listed in 18 U.S.C. Section 1201, such as holding the victim for ransom, using them as a shield, causing harm, or interfering with governmental functions. Evidence of the defendant's intent is crucial
Legal Principles to Consider
:
Specific Intent Requirement
: Federal kidnapping charges need proof that the defendant had the specific intent to commit one of the enumerated acts. This intent goes beyond a general criminal intent. In this case Will Davis had no idea that the other defendant had taken the victim, it was after picking up Mr. Lennie Lewis that Mr. David became aware of the situation. He took no part in taking the victim. Interstate Commerce
: interstate Nexus:
One critical factor in deciding whether federal charges can be brought is whether there is an interstate nexus to the alleged crime. If the kidnapping involved crossing state lines or otherwise affected interstate commerce or federal authority, federal charges may be proper.
Federal Jurisdiction
: The government must show that the offense occurred within federal authority, such as interstate or foreign transportation or within specific federal areas.
Separate Sovereigns Doctrine:
As mentioned earlier, the "separate sovereigns" doctrine allows both state and federal authorities to bring charges for the same conduct without violating double jeopardy protections. However, it is essential to decide if there is a legitimate basis for federal jurisdiction and whether the federal charges have a distinct legal basis from the state charges.
V. Conclusion
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 13
In summary, double jeopardy may not apply in this case due to the separate sovereign's doctrine, and the federal and state kidnapping charges have distinct elements and jurisdictions. To prove a federal kidnapping case, the federal prosecutor must show an interstate nexus, federal authority, and the elements
outlined in 18 USC Section 1201. Careful evaluation of the facts and legal principles will be necessary to decide if the federal prosecutor can make a prima facie case for federal kidnapping. Additionally, collateral estoppel may come into play if issues have already been resolved in the state court proceedings.
. Memo
To: Judge Bryan Stratton From: Lillian Debee, Attorney
CC: Dismissal of Will Davis Charges
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 14
Dear Judge Stratton,
I am writing on behalf of my client, Mr. Will Davis, in support of the Motion to Dismiss. The defense of infancy, intoxication, and duress provide compelling reasons why Mr. Davis should not be held criminally liable for the charges of armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, accessory after the fact to an armed robbery, and kidnapping. The defense of infancy argues that Mr. Davis was under the age of criminal responsibility at the time of the alleged offenses. The defense of intoxication asserts that Mr. Davis was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, impairing his ability to form the necessary intent for these crimes. The defense of duress contends that Mr. Davis was under the threat of serious harm or death, compelling him to participate in these criminal acts against his will. The evidence supporting these defenses will be presented to prove Mr. Davis's lack of criminal liability.
Infancy Defense
o
Alabama law recognizes infancy as a valid defense. Mr. Davis has admitted that he was 15 years old at the time of the alleged offenses, not 19 as initially recorded
by the police. This evidence proves his status as a minor. The Model Penal Code position is that “[a] person shall not be tried for or convicted of an offense if: (a) at the time of the conduct charged to constitute the offense he was less than sixteen years of age, [in which case the Juvenile Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction]” (Model Penal Code § 4.10(1)(a). Mr. Davis, as a juvenile, should not be held criminally liable to the same extent as an adult. This supports this defense. Mr. Davis's age, as disclosed, should prevent his criminal liability for the
alleged offenses
Intoxication Defense
o
Mr. Davis's state of intoxication during the commission of the alleged offenses is a valid defense. The security guard's testimony and Mr. Davis's admission confirm that he showed signs of intoxication, including slurred speech, stumbling,
and repeated drinking from a flask. The case law, including [insert relevant case law citations], supports this defense. Mr. Davis's impaired ability due to intoxication should prevent his criminal liability.
Duress Defense
o
The defense of duress is also applicable in this case. Mr. Davis disclosed that he received explicit threats from co-defendant Lennie Lewis, who demanded his participation in the robbery and specifically mentioned harming Mr. Davis's
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 15
younger sister if he did not comply at once. Mr. Davis's actions were the result of coercion and threats, which should prevent his criminal liability.
Considering the latest information about Will Davis, the testimony of the victim and the established defenses of infancy, intoxication, and duress, we respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant the Motion to Dismiss. The evidence presented conclusively supports Mr. Davis's claim that he should not be held criminally liable for any of the charges he is being charged with.
We thank you for your consideration and the court's attention to this matter. Sincerely ,Lillian Debee, Attorney UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY OF ALABAMA
State of Alabama )
Plaintiff
) VS
) Case Number 250205
Will Davis
)
Defendant )
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 16
MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGES
On behalf of the defendant, Will Davis, respectfully submit this Motion to Dismiss charges of armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, accessory after the fact to an armed robbery and kidnapping. We request this Honorable Court to dismiss the charges against Mr. Davis based on the following grounds: infancy, intoxication, and duress. The facts supporting these defenses are outlined below.
1.
Facts:
1.1.January of the year in question, Mr. Will Davis got involved in a pawn shop robbery when co-defendant Lennie Lewis called Mr. Davis after he had tried to rob the pawnshop.
Mr. Lewis then demanded Mr. Davis pick him up at a specific location. He was unaware at the time of the events that had taken place or that Mr. Lewis had the security guard. Lennie Lewis accepted a plea bargain and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Mr. Davis disclosed that on the day of the robbery, he had been drinking with friends when he received a call from Lennie Lewis, who threatened him, demanding his participation and emphasizing the harm that could befall Mr. Davis's younger sister if he did not comply. Testimony from a kidnapped security guard presented at a grand jury hearing shows that Mr. Davis confided in the guard during the incident, expressing regret for his actions and revealing the threats against his sister. The guard also seen signs of intoxication in Mr. Davis, including slurred speech, stumbling, and repeated drinking from a flask during the incident. The following facts are pertinent to the defenses raised in this motion:
Grounds for Dismissal: Mr. Davis initially claimed to be 19 years old when arrested but later revealed his true age as 15 years old
at the time of the alleged offenses.
1.
Lennie Lewis, a co-defendant, planned the robbery and coerced Mr. Davis into taking part by threatening to harm Mr. Davis's younger sister.
2.
Mr. Davis was under the influence of alcohol during the robbery, which impaired his judgment and ability to resist coercion.
3.
Testimony from a kidnapped security guard revealed that Mr. Davis showed signs of intoxication during the incident, including slurred speech, stumbling, and frequent consumption of alcohol from a flask. The guard also noted that Mr. Davis expressed remorse and mentioned the threats against his sister during the kidnapping.
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 17
The facts form the basis for the motion to dismiss based on the defenses of infancy, intoxication, and duress. Each of these defenses calls for the dismissal of the charges against Mr. Davis due to his limited culpability and inability to form the requisite criminal intent and the fear of something happening to his sister.
Infancy
(Model Penal Code § 4.10(1)(a))
The Model Penal Code position is that “[a] person shall not be tried for or convicted of an offense if: (a) at the time of the conduct charged to constitute the offense he was less than sixteen years of age, [in which case the Juvenile Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction]” Alabama law recognizes infancy as a valid defense. Mr. Davis has admitted that he was 15 years old at the time of the alleged offenses, not 19 as initially recorded by the police. Mr. Davis, as a juvenile, should
not be held criminally liable to the same extent as an adult. Model Penal Code § 4.10(1)(a) supports this defense. Mr. Davis's age, as disclosed, should prevent his criminal liability for the alleged offenses
Intoxication
AL Code § 13A-3-2 (2022)
Involuntary intoxication is a defense to prosecution if the actor lacks capacity to appreciate the criminality
of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. This refers to a disturbance of mental or physical abilities caused by the introduction of a substance into the body. Voluntary intoxication occurs when an individual knowingly introduces substances into their body that they are aware of can cause intoxication unless they do so under circumstances that would supply a defense to the charge. While voluntary intoxication does not excuse a crime, it can lead to such an excessive mental condition that makes the intoxicated person incapable of forming a specific intent. Intoxication is not a defense against an offense. However, the intoxication of the defendant, whether voluntary or involuntary, can be presented as evidence if it is relevant to negate an element of the offense,
such as intent. If a certain mental state is crucial to a crime, and the person was so intoxicated that they could not form that mental state, the crime could not have been committed. In this case, [insert the mental
state] is an essential element of the crime charged, Fletcher v. State, 621 So. 2d 1010 (Ala. Cr. 1993)
.
Mr. Davis's state of intoxication, as seen by the security guard and confirmed by his own admission, significantly impaired his ability and judgment during the commission of the alleged offenses, raising a valid defense under the circumstances.
The evidence presented, including Mr. Davis's intoxicated state during the robbery, clearly proves that his
ability to form the necessary criminal intent was severely impaired. Intoxication is recognized as a valid defense when it negates an individual's ability to understand the nature and consequences of their actions. Testimony from the kidnapped security guard was presented at a grand jury hearing he said that Davis had confided in him during the kidnapping incident that he was sorry for what he was doing, and that Will
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 18
had mentioned the threats against his sister. The guard also seen that Will Davis showed signs of intoxication, including slurred speech, stumbling, and repeatedly drinking from a flask during the incident.
In this case, Mr. Davis's intoxication prevented him from making informed and rational decision
Duress Al.
Code 1975, § 13A-3-30
Section 13A-3-30
(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by the threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to himself or another.
Under Alabama code 13a-3-20 A defendant acts under duress only, if at the time of the offense charged:
1. There was an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to [the defendant/a family member of the defendant] if the defendant did not [commit/take part in the commission of] the crime;
2. The defendant had a well-grounded fear that the threat of death or serious bodily injury would be carried out; (AND) 3. The defendant had no reasonable alternative to violating the law by avoiding the threatened harm. The defendant must have been coerced to act by the use or threat to use duress to excuse a criminal act, it “must be present, imminent and impending, and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done.” Trammell v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Alabama State Bar, 431 So. 2d 1168, 1170 (Ala. 1983)
The defense of duress is also applicable in this case. Mr. Davis disclosed that he received explicit threats from co-defendant Lennie Lewis, who demanded his participation in the robbery and specifically mentioned harming Mr. Davis's younger sister if he did not comply at once. Mr. Davis's actions were the result of coercion and threats, which should prevent his criminal liability. He feared if he did not comply, Mr. Lewis would hurt his sister, he felt he had no other choice. III. Conclusion C
onsidering the latest information about Will Davis, the testimony of the victim and the established defenses of infancy, intoxication, and duress, we respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant the Motion to Dismiss. The evidence presented conclusively supports Mr. Davis's claim that he should not be held criminally liable for any of the charges he is being charged with. We thank you for your consideration and the court's attention to this matter. Please reach out if you need more information or have any questions related to this case.
Respectfully Submitted:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Kristine Hubbert Pleg 230 Portfolio 10/19/2023 Final Submission 19
Will Davis-Defendant By: Attorney Lillian DeBee
Al.
Code 1975, § 13A-3-30
AL Code § 13A-3-2 (2022)
Model Penal Code § 4.10(1)(a))
Trammell v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Alabama State Bar, 431 So. 2d 1168, 1170 (Ala. 1983)
, Fletcher v. State, 621 So. 2d 1010 (Ala. Cr. 1993)
.