State v. Donaldson case brief summary
F:Donaldson entered a van owned by the other person, who did not give Donaldson a permission to take possession or control of the van. Upon checking the van by the police, he recognized the steering column had been dismantled; there were wires hanging from the column; the ignition switch had been removed; wires protruded from the ignition. The brake lights flashed. The radio worked. The check engine sign was lit . Donaldson was convicted of second-degree theft.
Donaldson filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal. The district court denied the motion. Donaldson appealed. I:Whether the defendant possessed or controlled the van under the Iowa code
R:Donaldson controlled the van within the meaning of Iowa Code
A:We find Donaldson took possession or control of another’s property with the intent to steal.
C:Affirmed
Not found in guilty (taking) in California.
Iowa followed MPC (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, NJ, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Penn, Tex, Wash, Wiscon, Mich, Oklahoma, and West Vir.)
B. Notes and Questions
a. legislative intent
b. plain meaning
c. role of legislative history
d. other statutory interpretation tools
- Ejusdem Generis: this rule limits the general language to the specific terms. - statutory title
- expression unius est exclusion alterius: The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. This is used by D when a statute contains a list of acts or circumstances and they argue that
by enumerating specific items the legislature intended to exclude anything that falls outside the list.
e. rule of lenity: criminal statutes should be interpreted narrowly in order to ensure that a D is not convicted for a crime about which the person may have been unaware.
f. international law
F:Donaldson entered a van owned by the other person, who did not give Donaldson a permission to take possession or control of the van. Upon checking the van by the police, he recognized the steering column had been dismantled; there were wires hanging from the column; the ignition switch had been removed; wires protruded from the ignition. The brake lights flashed. The radio worked. The check engine sign was lit . Donaldson was convicted of second-degree theft.
Donaldson filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal. The district court denied the motion. Donaldson appealed. I:Whether the defendant possessed or controlled the van under the Iowa code
R:Donaldson controlled the van within the meaning of Iowa Code
A:We find Donaldson took possession or control of another’s property with the intent to steal.
C:Affirmed
Not found in guilty (taking) in California.
Iowa followed MPC (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, NJ, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Penn, Tex, Wash, Wiscon, Mich, Oklahoma, and West Vir.)
B. Notes and Questions
a. legislative intent
b. plain meaning
c. role of legislative history
d. other statutory interpretation tools
- Ejusdem Generis: this rule limits the general language to the specific terms. - statutory title
- expression unius est exclusion alterius: The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. This is used by D when a statute contains a list of acts or circumstances and they argue that
by enumerating specific items the legislature intended to exclude anything that falls outside the list.
e. rule of lenity: criminal statutes should be interpreted narrowly in order to ensure that a D is not convicted for a crime about which the person may have been unaware.
f. international law
No comments:
Post a Comment