Criminal Law Commons^™

Imposing Punitive Damage Liabiliity On The Intoxicated Driver, Martin A. Kotler

Akron Law Review

It is important to keep in mind throughout this discussion that awareness and acknowledgement of the existence of a problem, even a very serious problem, should not make us overreact and thereby accept an unworkable solution in our zeal to do something. The imposition of punitive damages is, for the most part, just such an unworkable solution. More specifically, I will attempt to demonstrate that, with the possible exception of the case of the recidivist, non-alcoholic defendant, the imposition of punitive damages simply cannot be justified. That being the case, we must look elsewhere for a solution to an admittedly …

Escobedo And Miranda Revisited, Arthur J. Goldberg

Akron Law Review

Shortly before the close of the 1983 term, the Supreme Court of the United States decided two cases, U.S. v. Gouveia and New York v. Quarles, which in effect overruled Escobedo v. Illinois and undermined Miranda v. Arizona.

Children's Testimony In Sexual Abuse Cases: Ohio's Proposed Legislation, Deborah Mahusky

Akron Law Review

Legislatures are attempting to reduce the trauma to the child, and, at the same time, to increase convictions.

This legislation is often in the form of permitting videotaped pretrial statements and depositions to be admitted into evidence. Additionally, some legislatures are permitting testimony of the child at depositions or at trial to take place in a separate room from the defendant, the judge, the jury and the general public through the use of closed circuit television or monitors. However, this legislation may present an encroachment of sixth amendment guarantees.

Section I of this comment will discuss whether or not the …

Death Row Conditions: Progression Toward Constitutional Protections, Nancy Holland

Akron Law Review

Beginning with recapitulation of the quest for the meaning and scope of the eighth amendment, this comment will review both the evolution of judicial scrutiny and the constitutional limitations of criminal incarceration and will also analyze the narrow body of case law affecting the quality of life on America's death rows.

The Relevance Of Culpability To The Punishment And Prevention Of Crime, R. J. Spjut

Akron Law Review

It follows that if a legal system may fairly punish only a person who culpably violated the law, a preventive restraint like self-defense is also fair only when it is used against a person whose offense or imminent offense is culpable. Such measures as punishment and prevention are justified because "a person who violates the order of fairness, which can be described as a system of rights,forfeits certain of his own rights." The forfeiture theory implicitly associates A's loss of rights with his deserts and suggests some analogy with punishment. Finnis' argument both makes explicit the analogy and shifts attention …

Ohio's "Sacred Seal Of Secrecy": The Rules Of Spousal Incompetency And Martial Privilege In Criminal Cases, Wilson R. Huhn

Akron Law Review

In the remainder of this essay the rules of spousal incompetency and marital privilege are compared and contrasted, the history of the rules in Ohio is traced, the underlying justifications for the rules are discussed, and a pitch is made for repeal of both rules, substituting the single rule of spousal immunity described above.

The Constitutional Right Of The Indigent Facing Involuntary Civil Commitment To An Independent Psychiatric Examination, Scott F. Uhler

Akron Law Review

The recently established constitutional right to an independent psychiatric examination for a criminal defendant, when the defendant's sanity is at issue,' has not been extended to the involuntary civil commitment process However, for the following reasons, the right should be so extended.

First, the interpretation of due process in the involuntary commitment procedure, as construed by lower federal courts and state courts to require an exam, shows greater uniformity and logical cohesiveness than that defined by applicable Supreme Court decisions. Second, the area of juvenile adjudication presents great similarity of purpose to civil commitment, yet the due process protections deemed …

The Ohio Supreme Court's Move Toward Quality Control Of Court-Appointed Counsel For Indigent Defendants Charged With Capital Offense Crimes, George J. Ticoras

Akron Law Review

This comment outlines the law in Ohio concerning court-appointed representation of indigent defendants in capital offense cases. A brief look at Ohio's "pre-C.P.Sup.R. 65" period provides the proper backdrop in which to examine C.P.Sup.R. 65's relation to the Ohio Public Defender's Regulations and the impact this rule may have throughout the State.

Winking Through The Blindfold: What Motivates The White-Color Criminal?, Paul E. Fiorelli

Akron Law Review

Many legal scholars have discussed different facets of white-collar crime. The question of whether the offending individual or the corporation should be punished to deter white-collar crime has been discussed. There have also been articles dealing with whether monetary fines, or prison terms, act as more effective sanctions. This article will attempt to identify and analyze the motivations and different character traits exhibited by many white-collar criminals and offer some suggestions to attempt to decrease the incidence of white-collar crime.

Mental Sanity And Confessions: The Supreme Court's New Version Of The Old "Voluntariness" Standard, Alfredo Garcia

Akron Law Review

Although the voluntariness standard has not been entirely superseded by Miranda v. Arizona because it is applicable to confessions obtained through police coercion, in spite of compliance with Miranda's technical requirements, it has receded into relative obscurity in the wake of Miranda. In Colorado v. Connelly, however, the United States Supreme Court confronted a novel case which neatly juxtaposed questions relevant to the voluntariness test with issues arising from Miranda's dictates. This article will examine the issues raised in Connelly, critique the Court's application of both the voluntariness standard and Miranda to the facts of Connelly, …

Existence Of A Suicide Pact As A Complete Defense To A Survivor's Criminal Liability: State V. Sage, Diana M. Keating

Akron Law Review

Can one who encourages another's suicide through a suicide pact be absolved of criminal liability? The Ohio Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative in State v. Sage. The court held that a suicide survivor's proof that another's death resulted from a mutual suicide pact acts as a complete defense to criminal liability. Not since 1872 has the Ohio Supreme Court discussed criminal liability for suicide pact members who aid and abet another's suicide. The Sage court did not differentiate between classic suicide pacts where each member agrees to commit suicide, and suicide-murder pacts where one person agrees …

The Sentencing Legacy Of The Special Court For Sierra Leone, Shahram Dana

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Bad News: Privacy Ruling To Increase Press Litigation, The Florida Star V. B.J.F., Mary Ellen Hockwalt

Akron Law Review

This note analyzes the history and precedent upon which the Court relied in reaching Florida Star's "harsh outcome." Next, the note discusses how the Court, by refusing to extend its holding beyond the facts of the case and give broad Constitutional protection to publications of truth, failed to provide lower courts with any guidance in deciding future invasion of privacy actions. Finally, the note examines the Court's balancing test: weighing the privacy interests of a crime victim against the newspaper's freedom to print truthful information.

Wiggins V. State: Receiving A Fair Trial Under The Specter Of Aids, Charles Zamora

Akron Law Review

Wiggins v. State presented two unique issues: (1) whether it was proper to authorize courtroom security personnel to use prophylactic apparel while escorting a defendant merely suspected of having acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and (2) the extent to which this handling procedure impacted the jury.

This Note will analyze the Wiggins decision, emphasizing the court's reasoning as it pertains to the following: (1) the guarantee of a fair and impartial jury trial for defendants either having or being suspected of having AIDS; (2) the permissible exercise of discretion by the trial judge in authorizing precautions during the course of the …

State V. Stewart: Self-Defense And Battered Women: Reasonable Perception Of Danger Or License To Kill, Barbara A. Venesy

Akron Law Review

First, this Note explores the criminal justice system's ineffective response to wife abuse, the law of self-defense, and the impact of battered woman syndrome on the doctrine of self-defense. Then, the Note evaluates the Kansas court's denial of self-defense instructions in view of its previous holdings on quantity of evidence and imminent danger. The remainder of the Note analyzes the unfounded fear that the battered woman syndrome could become an independent form of self-defense and sanction unnecessary self-help. The Note concludes that successful use of battered woman syndrome testimony ensures the woman's right to act in self-defense and restricts only …

Edmonson V. Leesville Concrete Co.: State Action Or Inaction - Does It Matter?, Chad Murdock

Akron Law Review

This note first reviews the facts of Edmonson. Second, this note examines the history of judicial inquiry into the use of peremptory challenges. Third, this note reviews the application of Batson to civil cases. Finally, this note analyzes the extension of the state action doctrine in Edmonson and discusses an alternative to the Edmonson approach to state action

State V. Sorenson: The Adequacy Of The Residual Exceptions In Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Five-Part Test Puts An End To The Criticism, Robert G. Renis

Akron Law Review

In State v. Sorenson, a seven-year-old girl's father and uncle had sexual intercourse with her. The court allowed a social worker to testify as to what the girl had told her. Finally, a court has set forth a detailed test for use in determining the admissibility of hearsay evidence in child sexual abuse cases. This casenote will analyze the court's five-part test, and discuss how it was applied in Sorenson. The casenote will then compare the Sorenson test (used in conjunction with the residual exceptions) to statutes providing for specific hearsay exceptions in child sexual abuse cases.

Civil Rico: The Legal Galaxy's Black Hole, Virginia M. Morgan

Akron Law Review

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute' was enacted as part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Congress passed it in response to a growing concern over the pervasive influence of organized crime in America? The statute contains both criminal penalties and civil sanctions, and civil RICO actions are available to both the government and to private individuals. It is a complex, powerful, and controversial law. In its private civil version, RICO is evolving into something quite different from the original conception of its enactors? It offers a federal forum and mandatory treble damages with attorneys fees …

Has The Replacement Of "Probable Cause" With "Reasonable Suspicion" Resulted In The Creation Of The Best Of All Possible Worlds?, Robert Berkley Harper

Akron Law Review

Police officers sometimes need flexibility to respond appropriately to a variety of factual situations confronting them in street encounters. It is a huge task to promulgate a set of rules which will be flexible enough to cope with the enormous variations in police-citizen encounters, but which at the same time, the police can easily and effectively apply. It is not the purpose of this article to criticize the court's efforts in this area. It is the purpose of this article to evaluate investigatory stops by police officers as they perform their duties with this lesser standard than probable cause. The …

Summary Of Barral V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 52 (July 23, 2015), Aleem Dhalla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Defendant Dustin James Barral was convicted of two counts of sexual assault with a minor under 14 years of age by a jury. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the trial court committed a structural error by failing to administer an oath or affrimation to the jury panel prior to commencing voir dire. This error required reversal and a new trial.