JUS430_T5_Memorandum of Law

docx

School

Grand Canyon University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

430

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MagistrateHippopotamus8548

Whalling Law Group, PLLC 3300 West Lakeview Blvd. Office 221B Phoenix, AZ 85017 Memorandum of Law To: Kevin Whalling, Esq. From: Niko DiNunno Date: 11/12/2023 Subject: Issue The Carson case is dependent on Mr. Whaling's ability to provide Mr. Carson with a credible defense to the charge of armed robbery. If Mr. Whaling is unable to achieve his client's exoneration from this heinous crime, Mr. Carson faces a prison sentence for the conduct of robbing a woman with a fatal weapon. Regardless of the outcome of Mr. Whaling's efforts to get exoneration, the sentence will be imposed, emphasizing the seriousness of the repercussions Mr. Carson may face in connection with this terrible conduct. Facts The crime of theft can take many forms, including shoplifting, armed robbery, embezzlement under false pretenses, and dishonest stealing. Despite its broad classification as theft, each of these behaviors has distinguishing qualities that designate it separate. Larceny is defined by Lippmann (2019, page 979) as the illegal taking of another person's personal property with the goal to permanently deprive them of it. This category includes a variety of behaviors such as shoplifting and pickpocketing. Embezzlement and shoplifting by deceptive methods are examples of crimes conducted under false pretenses, with embezzlement including the theft of money or property entrusted to an individual for personal advantage (Lippmann, 2019, p. 973). Financial misconduct, such as a financial adviser diverting cash for personal gain, is considered embezzlement (Lippmann, 2019, p. 979). Larceny by trick is defined as the unauthorized acquisition of another person's property by deception (Lippmann, 2019, p. 979). Deception theft happens when a person convinces another person to let them take ownership of their car, only to break their promise to restore it to the rightful owner. Robbery, commonly known as "big theft," is defined as the taking of property by physical force or the threat of physical force (Lippmann, 2019, p. 1028). Crimes against personal property are punished in society because they infringe on both the property itself and the owner's right to enjoy it. A robbery's severity is determined by elements such as the worth of stolen items, the magnitude of any damages sustained, and the possibility of further injury (Lippmann, 2019, p. 1048). Mr. Carson's involvement in armed robbery jeopardizes not only the safety and security of persons, but also the integrity of property. The penalties imposed on those found guilty of such offenses are designed to be proportionate to the moral harm caused. The worth of stolen things, the level of damage inflicted, and the possibility of further injury all contribute to the seriousness of the violation (Lippmann, 2019, p. 1048). Criminal punishment acts as a deterrence, lowering the chance and frequency of

future criminal activity. Intoxication, false charges, lack of purpose, or the return of stolen objects before the accused individual became aware of their acts can all be used as defenses in theft prosecutions. Substance abuse or mental illness may result in reduced sentences or mandatory rehabilitation. Furthermore, misidentification cases can put the prosecution's duty of proving each part of the allegation to the test, since defenders may submit several defenses to refute the claims. Discussion Mr. Carson is charged with armed robbery, a class 2 felony, in violation of Arizona State Statute 13-1904 (n.d., page 1). According to ARS 13-1904, armed robbery occurs when an individual commits a robbery while armed with a deadly weapon or simulated deadly weapon, or while using or threatening to use such weapons. The Arizona State Legislature clarified this legislative rule (n.d., page 1). Mr. Carson's specific complaint concerns allegedly frightening a customer with a firearm and coercing her to hand up her wallet and pocketbook, in accordance with ARS 13-1904. Because Mr. Carson seized control of the objects and concealed them from the victim, his activities are classified as theft. Several techniques can be used on Mr. Carson's behalf to establish a defense against the armed robbery charge. One probable theory says that Mr. Carson did not have a firearm, which is supported by the lack of such a weapon after his arrest. If Mr. Carson was truly found in possession of the suspected weapon, a legal defense may be built on the grounds that the search and seizure violated his constitutional rights. According to the Law Offices of James E. Novak (n.d., Defense Section), there is a legal right to request the removal of illegally obtained evidence from court proceedings in such circumstances. Alternatively, if there was reasonable suspicion supporting the search, Mr. Carson's defense might use mistaken identification as a mitigating element in his case. Conclusion The seriousness of the accusation brought against Mr. Carson cannot be overstated, since it is classified as a heinous crime. Ordinary robbery, in which victims are verbally coerced into surrendering their belongings, and armed robbery, in which perpetrators use potentially lethal weapons to carry out their criminal activities, are the two primary types of robbery recognized by the law (Smith, 2022, para. 5). Mr. Carson's accusations are expressly tied to armed robbery, which greatly increases the gravity of the allegations against him. According to Arizona Revised Statute 13-1904, the prosecution is charged with establishing many critical components in proving Mr. Carson's guilt. These include proving that Mr. Carson committed robbery, was in possession of a deadly weapon at the time of the offense, and either used or threatened to use such fatal weapon (The Law Offices of James E. Novak, n.d., Armed Robbery Section). If Mr. Carson is found guilty of armed robbery, he may face a term of more than 12 years in prison (The Law Offices of James E. Novak, n.d., Armed Robbery Section). Furthermore, the length of Mr. Carson's incarceration would be based on an examination of his past criminal history. It is critical to realize that the United States Sentencing Guidelines, as stated by Fields (2019, p. 547), classify weapons as "inherently dangerous instrumentalities" because to their intrinsic lethality. This designation heightens the potential severity of Mr. Carson's accusations, as the legal system assigns a higher level of danger to offenses employing such intrinsically dangerous tools. As a result, the consequences of the armed robbery allegation are dependent not only on the act itself, but also on the current legal frameworks that classify specific items, such as weapons, as intrinsically dangerous in the conduct of criminal actions. Citations FindLaw. (2018). Arizona robbery laws. Retrieved fromhttps://statelaws.findlaw.com/arizona- law/arizonarobbery-laws.html

Justia. (2018). Theft crimes. Retrieved from https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/theft-crimes/Legal Match. (2020). False pretenses lawyers. Retrieved fromhttps://www.legalmatch.com/lawlibrary/article/false- pretenses.html

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

JUS430_T5_Memorandum of Law

Related Documents