Wallie Howard was a Syracuse police officer who was shot and killed during a cocaine bust. Luther Gregory was Wallie Howard’s confidential informant. Davidson was the head supplier of the cocaine conspiracy. Parke was the chief lieutenant of Wallie Howard also the deliveryman for Davidson. Parke and Morales (Davidson’s deliverymen) frequently delivered cocaine to customers. Lawrence was a cocaine seller in one of the conspiracy drug apartments and was the muscles in the operation. Stewart had dealt cocaine in the past and he owed the group some money and needed to pay off his debt. Case History:
On October 18th and 22nd of the year 1990, a Syracuse police officer was working undercover for the DEA and confidential informant Luther Gregory made purchases of cocaine from Morales. While the transaction was going down, Parke was outside the facility conducting surveillance. On October 30, 1990, Wallie Howard (the Syracuse police officer) was shot and killed during a cocaine “buy-bust. ” Morales, Stewart, and Lawrence are tried and found guilty in a court of law. They attempted to appeal the conviction based on the defense of self-defense. They were denied but still able to be acquitted.
Legal Issue(s) on appeal: The legal issue in question (on appeal) is whether the defendants can claim the self-defense defense. The defendants wish to claim this defense because Agent Wallie Howard had opened fire on them during the third cocaine “buy-bust” deal. Appellate Court Decision: The Appellate Court’s decision was that the defendant(s) were not entitled to use the self-defense defense. Appellate Court’s Decision Rationale: The reason that Appellate Court made this decision on this case is because the defendant(s) were the first aggressors in the situation.
Even though Officer Howard drew and fired his weapon first, the defendants had arrived at the situation with the intention of performing a robbery, thus making it so that they could not claim the self-defense defense. Madera v. State Citation: Summary of Facts: Case History: Legal Issue(s) on appeal: Appellate Court Decision: Appellate Court’s Decision Rationale: Montana v. Engelhoff Citation: Montana vs. Egelhoff, 116 S. Ct. 2013 (1996) Summary of Facts: While camping in Montana in the northwestern region of yak the respondent was staying.
There at a camp site picking mushrooms and became friends with Roberta Pavola and John Christenson was doing the same thing. On the 12th of July, a Sunday, the three were Seen selling their mushrooms throughout the day and night they were seen drinking at bars and even a private party in Troy Montana the three left the party in Christenson’s 1974 Ford Galaxy station wagon. Sometime after 9pm, the respondent was seen buying beer to keep their drinking Binge up. The respondent was recalled saying he was “sitting on a hill or a bank, passing a Bottle Of black velvet back and forth” with Christenson.
Lincoln county officers of Montana Sheriffs’ department responded to reports of a possible drunk driver. At about midnight they discovered Christenson’s station wagon along the US highway 2 the station wagon was stuck in a ditch. Pavola and Christenson were in the front Seat each with a single gunshot to the head the respondent was in the back seat yelling obscenities over an hour later his blood alcohol was at . 36 percent the . 38 caliber handgun used Was near the brake pedal with two empty casings and four loaded rounds the respondent had gunshot residue on his hands.
The crime that the respondent was charged with in the state of Montana is “purposely” or “knowing” causing the death of another human being. The respondent was charged with two counts of deliberate homicide. Because of his extreme intoxication on the day of July 12, the respondent claimed he was physically incapable of committing the murders, and could not remember what he of did that night. The jury found the respondent guilty on both counts, and the respondent was sentenced to eighty four years in prison. Case History:
The Supreme Court of Montana reversed his sentence. It reasoned: (1) that respondent “had a due process right to present and have considered by the jury all relevant evidence to rebut the State’s evidence on all elements of the offense charged. . . ,” and (2) that evidence of respondent’s voluntary intoxication was clear[ly]. . . relevant to the issue of whether [respondent] acted knowingly and purposely. . . ” Sections 45-2-203 did not allow the jury to consider that evidence with regard to the issue.
The Supreme Court believed the respondent was denied due process. Legal Issue(s) on appeal: The issue before the court is whether or not the respondent should be tried even though he was drunk the night he shot and killed two people. The respondent did not remember killing two people on the night of July 12, because he was highly intoxicated and could not remember anything the night he killed two people Appellate Court Decision: The issue before the court is whether or not the respondent should be tried even though he was drunk the night he shot and killed two people.
The respondent did not remember killing two people on the night of July 12, because he was highly intoxicated and could not remember anything the night he killed two people Appellate Court’s Decision Rationale: After the evidence was presented in court, the jury decided that the evidence was sufficient to prove the respondent was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury found the respondent guilty of first degree murder. Miller v. State Citation: Summary of Facts: Case History: Legal Issue(s) on appeal: Appellate Court Decision: Appellate Court’s Decision Rationale: References.