Intoxication and Entrapment (A-L, M-Z) Due 3/22/06 at 7 PM
If your last name begins with A-L, answer questions 1 thru 4 on page 267, dealing with voluntary/involuntary intoxification.
If your last name begins with M-Z, answer questions 1 and 2 on page 271 about entrapment.
22 Comments:
1) According to the Nevada law, the test for entrapment must contain two elements.
1)the opportunity to commit
a crime must be presented by
the state
2)to a person not prediposed to
commit the act."thus, this
subjective approach focuses
upon the defendant's
predispostion to commit the
crime
2) The facts that led the court to conclude that Oliver was entrapped but DePasquale wasn't was the in Oliver's case, "the decoy portrayed himself as comletely susceptible and vulnerable." When Oliver tried to wake him telling him to move to another spot so that he wouldn't be arrested there was no response. Also, "the decoy diplayed his ten dollar-bill in a mannar calculated to temt any needy person in the area, whether immediately disposed to crim or not. The police succeeded in tempting a man who apparently did not approach the decoy with larceny in mind, but to help him. After being lured into petty theft by the decoy's open display of currency and apparent helplessness, Oliver did not continue to search his pockets or proceed to remove his wallet." However, in DePasquale's case, the money was exposed but was "zipped tightly to the dege of a zippered pocket and not hanging temptingly from the pocket of an unconscious derelict." Yes the money was exposed; however, it was "presented in a realistic situation, which was an alert and well-dressed woman walking on the open side-wald in the casino area. The fact that the money was exposed simply presented a generally identified social predator with a logical target." Also DePasquale had no contact with the decoy and was not entrapped but just simply gave in to temptation.
1)The test of entrapment:
This test focuses on the predisposition of the defendent to commit a crime the defense has to prove they would have never committed the crime had they not been pressuered by a government agent.
2)Entrapment containes 2 elements #1 the oppurtunity to commit the crime is presented by the state an #2 to a person who is not predisposed to commit the act.
In the case of Oliver , Oliver was homeless and had no intention to rob the man but given the fact that he was homeless the oppurtunity was presented by the officer so he took it .any needy person under the circumstances would have most likely took the money after trying to wake the man
In the case of Depasquale the men got together with the intentions of stealing from the officer and the way the money was( although exposed it was zipped tightly) this was a normal thing that could happen. Depaquale had no prior contact with the officer he and his pals stalked her distracted her and took her money all was intentionaly planed. unlike the first case the fact is they had every intention of robbing the officer.The only contact the defendent had with the officer in this case was to rob her nothing more .
Junu Lassiter
Q1)Define involuntary and voluntary intoxication as the court defines them.
A1) Voluntary intoxication includes the voluntary ingestion of any intoxicating drug. Involuntary intoxication is when the defendant is unaware that they are taking intoxicants, or know but they are forced to take it.
Q2) List all the evidence supporting the conclusion that Velez was voluntarily intoxicated.
A2) The facts that Veles smoking marijuans with a group of people, He is the only person that smoked to become enraged and hallucinate.
Q3) List all the evidence supporting the conclusion that Velez was involuntary.
A3) He was unaware that the marijuana cigarrette contained PCP. He became wild and no one helped him.
Q4) Summarize the courts reason for it's decision.
A4)The court's decision was affirmed due to the fact that the defendants actions were a result of voluntary intoxication and since the victim did not die he will be charged as directed by the lower court.
1. Entrapment encompasses two elements. 1) an opportunity to commit a crime is presentes by the state. 2) to a person not predisposed to commit the act."thus, this subjective approach focuses upon the defenant's predisposition to commit the crime.
2. The fact that the money was exposed simply presented a generally identified social predator with a logical target. This fact suggest that De Pasquale was predisposed to commit this crime. De Pasquale had no contract with the decoy but rather succumbed to the apparent temptaion of his co-defendant to systematically stalk their target.
1.)The test for entrapment in Nevada "encompasses two elements
1)An opportunity to commit a crime is presented by the state
2)to a person not predisposed to commit the act." This focuses on the person's predisposition to commit the crime
2.) The court concluded Oliver was entrapped because the decoy provided the opportunity to him to commit a crime and he did not show any disposition that he was looking to commit a crime, only that he succumbed to temptation. Depasquale on the other hand was predisposed to commit the crime, evidenced by the fact that he was talked into stalking the target by his co-defendant. The fact that the money was exposed in a realistic situation, a well dressed woman walking toward a casino, presented a social predator with a target.
1. Voluntary- temporary intoxication from voluntarily consuming, inhaling, or digesting an illegal substance.
Involuntary- coerced or tricked into intoxication. The defendant may not have known or they knew, but was forced.
2. Valez started with a beer, then joined in with smoking marijuana. Also this was not his first time smoking marijuana.
3. Valez was not really familiar with these people. He was in the other room watching T.V. when one of the new aquaintances offered Valez some marijuana. No one mentioned that the marijuana was laced with PCP. Valez took 2 puffs and started acting strange, something he believed to have never experienced before when he would smoke marijuana.
4. The courts decision was voluntary. Because it fell under section 22 as a matter of law. Valez admitted he smoked an illegal substance and smoked it in the past. Marijuana is a drug that causes hallucinations and it illegal to posess it in California.
1) The test for entrapment is
a) an opportunity to commit a crime is presented by the state
b) to a person not predisposed to commit the asct. "Thus, this subjective approach focuses upon the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime.
2) The reasons why Oliver was entrapped were for one it was done in an area where so-called "vagrants", "street people" and "derelicts" hung out. Which is a given were everyone is on the same social level and are giving an opportunity to better themselves probably will or as the decoy says "to provide an opportunity for a dishonest person to prove himself".
In the DePasquale case I believe that after the three gentlemen preety much stalked the officer and after asking her questions to try and get a feel for her and also conversing amungst each other they preety much knew what they were going to do. That leads to the three gentlemen to knowingly and willingly commit a crime.
1. The court refers involuntary intoxication to "innocent" intoxication. They also state that with involuntary intoxication the victim must become intoxicated without fault. Intoxication caused by force, duress, fraud by another without choice is involuntary. Voluntary intoxication is defined by the court as voluntary ingestion of any drug that is known to be intoxicating
2. Velez voluntaried intoxidation when he agreed to smoke the marijuana cigarette after they offered it to him. And not to mentioned he just consumed a beer. When Velez consumed the drug he knew it would get him intoxicated so he has no right to expect a different intoxication. Getting high is getting high.
3. When the men invited Velez to smoke they offered him some of their "marijuana cigarette" not K.J. If they would offered Velez K.J and Velez accepted then that would of been an voluntary act. But since he didn't know it should be considered as a involuntary intoxication because after drinking a beer taking two puffs he never intended to be that intoxicated. The method of smoking PCP is also with a joint, which mislead Velez because he knew what a marijuana cigarette looked like and what he looked like a marijuana cigarette.
4. The court found that Velez was voluntarily intoxicated because he still consumed illegal drugs into his system and may marijuana cigarettes contain PCP. They also included that when purchasing illegal drugs there is "no warranties of purity or quality lawfull acquired drugs". The court also applied that " whether defendant was voluntarily intoxicated as a matter of law" and jugding from Section 22 The court found his intoxication voluntary.
The test for entrapment according to Nevada Law is 1. an opportunity to commit a crime is presented by the state in this case the under cover officers 2. to a person not predisposed to commit the act. meaning the defense has to prove the government pressured them to commit crimes they wouldnt have commited without the pressure. being as though the money was showing it could of pressured them into taking it.
2. Oliver case got overturned because the decoy portrayed himself as completely susceptible and vulnerable. and oliver tried to help him at first he had no intentions to commit a crime. it states "that no ready acquiescence is shown:on the contrary,the defendant acts...demonstrate only that he succumbed to temptation."
DePasquale wasn't entrapped because that the money alone fails to cast a pall over the defendants predisposition. the money was presented in a realistic situation.
1. The court defines voluntary intoxication as willingly ingesting, consuming, inhaling and or digesting an illegal substance. They define involuntary intoxication as, cases in which the defendants are unaware of taking intoxicants or know but were forced to take them. “It is induced through the fault of another and without any fault of the part of the accused”.
2. The evidence supporting the conclusion that Valez was voluntary intoxicated are the following:
a. He took smoked the cigarette knowing he was using a hallucinogenic drug (marijuana).
b. After the first puff he knew it wasn’t an ordinary marijuana joint and yet he continued to smoke the substance.
c. A reasonable person has common knowledge that illegal street drugs are not 100% pure and are contaminated with other substances.
3. The evidence supporting the conclusion that Valez was involuntary intoxicated are the following:
a. He was expecting to smoke marijuana a drug that he has used before and knew the effects and after effects it would have on him.
b. He was invited to smoke a marijuana joint and was not told that the joint contained PCP also.
4. The court ruling was that Valez was voluntary intoxicated as per Section 22. He admitted to knowingly using a controlled substance that is grouped with hallucinogens in the state of California, and was also illegal (marijuana). Therefore when he possessed and consumed the controlled substance he broke the law. If the defendant had died, Valez could use voluntary intoxication as a partial defense “precluding specific intent, such as premeditation, deliberation, or malice”.
1.)The courts define involuntary intoxication as cases in which defendants don't know they are taking intoxicants, or know yet are forced to take them. Voluntary intoxication is when someone voluntarily consumes an intoxicant.
2.)Evidence that supports the conclusion that Velez was voluntarily intoxicated are how he simply volunteered to involve himself in this act which is illegal, regardless of what was laced on the marijuana cigarette, and his negligence to ask what exactly it was that he was smoking. It wasn't his first time smoking what he believed to be only marijuana anyway, and prior to smoking, he also voluntarily drank a beer.
3.)Evidence that you must consider when arguing that Velez was involuntarily intoxicated are how brief he was acquainted with these people whom he smoked with as well as the fact that he had smoked marijuana before, however, this time he was oblivious to there being PCP laced on the joint.
4.)Courts decided that Velez's intoxication was voluntary. He will be charged accordingly to the assault on the 64 year-old victim. Section 22 of the Penal Code governs and explains unconciousness caused by voluntary intoxication.
1. "The defense has to prove that the government pressured the defendants to commit crimes they wouldn't have committed without the pressure." In other words, the defendant wouldn't have any intent to commit the crime had it not been for the government.
2. Oliver was entrapped because he had no intentions on doing any wrong, even when he first saw the decoy, he tried to HELP him by telling him that the police would get him if he didn't move. Secondly, the money was placed in such a way that it wasn't necessary for a struggle to occur to take it, whereas in DePasquale's case, he planned his attack and had to but force into taking the money.
1. Involuntary can be defined as unknowingly to a person or against a persons will, while involuntary intoxication was defined by the courts as intoxication caused by the force,duress,fraud,or contrivance of another,for whatever purpose,without any fault on the part of the accused,is uniformly recognized as invoultary intoxication.
2.Marijuana being cabale of intoxicating, which is the reason must people take them or perhaps to get high justifies the fact that defendant was voluntarily intoxicated because he knows the effects of smoking marijuana wether it contains PCP or not.Furthermore when the cigarrette was passed to him, he did not refuse it and he puffed it twice before he passed it on to the next person.
3.The defendant thought he was smoking marijuana but did not know it contained PCP.
4.The courts reason for arriving at their decision was based on the believe that most marijuana smokers know that marijuan contains some intoxicating ingredients and the defendant had no right of assuming that the drug would produce any predictable intoxicating effect.Furthermore, they based their decision on the fact that defendant's own evidence showed that he was voluntarily intoxicated.
The test for entrapment regarding the Nevada law states:
1."The defendant has to prove that the government persuaded the defendant to commit a crime they would have not normally committed." meaning entrapment comes in two elements:
a)"an opportunity to commit a crime is presented by the state"
b)to a person not predisposed to commit the crime
"The subjective test focuses on the criminal intent where did it originate from the defendant or the government."
2.The reason why Oliver was entrapted is because "the decoy officer was disguished as a vagrant in an old Marine jacket,and slumped against a tree,pretending to be asleep. Oliver attempted to help the decoy officer. Oliver was under the temptation of the money sticking out of the pocket of the vagrant lying on the ground asleep. He tried to urge the vagrantr to move to another location to avoid arrest. The ten dollar-bill was diplayed in a manner to tempt a needy person in the area. Which it so happen to be Oliver that approached to help. He did not have larceny in his mind yet he was engaged to abliged to participate in the criminal activity. Once he lifted the money out of the pocket he was arrested he thought the the officer was just a drunken bum on the street. His entrapment was a seduction to commit a crime on the behalf od the government."
DePasquale was not entrapted he was trying to rob Officer Gautwier he of course did not know that she was an officer but the evidence shows that it was an conspired act with the intent to take what cleary did not belong to him. Yes, a sting operation was going on but he fell for the bait and got suckered into thinking that he could rob the wrong person. He purposely stalked the decoy officer and called for her to stop for the purpose of a robbery.
1)Voluntary Intoxication is the volutary consumption or use of an intoxicant. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense but it can reduce the degree of the crime, and can negate specific intent.
Involuntary Intoxication is when a a person is forced to take , or given intoxicants that they are not aware of.
2)Velez choose to smoke the marijuana cigarette that was being smoked by his friends.
3)Velez was unaware that the Marijuana cigarette contained PCP, which is a power halicuinagen.
4)According to the courts they decieded that Velez actins were due to voluntary intoxication because he did smoke an illegal substance, and is illegal regardless of containing PCP or not. (Section 22)
1)Voluntary intoxication is when alchol,inhalants or any other illegal drug is digested into someone's body with his/her own consent,but its trying to be used as an excuse for actions committed while under the influence of the drug that was taken or used eventhough it wasn't against their will.Whoever takes the chance of being intoxicated at their own will is taking another chance at putting themselves in a uncontrollable state which should make them liable.Involuntary intoxication is an excuse,well defense for defendants because they either didn't know they were taking drugs or someone forced them into it.You can't blame involuntary intoxicants for the actions they commit because the things they do are out of their control due to substances taken against their will and consent. 2)The fact that he had no right to expect the substance he consumed was other than it was supports he was voluntarily intoxicated (266).Also, he knew smoking marijuana is against the law,but he had no problem with taking a few puffs with the consent from himself. 3)The fact that he didn't know that the marijuana cigarette he was smoking was loaded with PCP supports the conclusion that he was involuntarily intoxicated.Eventhough Velez knew he was taking an unlawful drug he reasonably believed that it was just marijuana,he had no knowledge of the fact that he was taking a even bigger.more harmful,unlawful drug. 4)The reason for the courts decision was based on the fact that street drugs don't come with instructions or warning signs and besides the fact of marijuana being against the law Velez took this drug willingly with disregard for himself.The court believes that no reasonable person has the right to believe that at a social gathering where marijuana is being passed around may not contain PCP(266).
1.)Involuntary – According to the courts, “where the intoxication is induced through the fault of another and without any fault on the part of the accused, it is generally treated as involuntary” (266).
Involuntary Intoxication – The courts also makes note that “intoxication caused by the force, duress, fraud, or contrivance of another, for whatever purpose, without any fault on the part of the accused, is uniformly recognized as involuntary intoxication” (266).
2.)All of the evidence supporting the conclusion that Velez was voluntarily intoxicated:
- The court brings up the fact that the defendant “knowingly consumed marijuana” (265).
- Also, the court talks about how the defendant possessed, consumed, and/or gave and furnished the drug to others. By doing this, Velez broke California’s laws (265).
3.)All of the evidence supporting the conclusion that Velez was involuntarily intoxicated:
-On page 264, section 22 holds that no individual can be responsible for a crime if the accused is voluntarily intoxicated because, “there is no intent, premeditation of the crime, or acts of deliberating, or harbored malice aforethought, when a specific intent crime is charged” (264).
- Chief Justice Traynor states, “The union or joint operation of act and intent or criminal negligence must exist in every crime…and is deemed to exist irrespective of unconsciousness arising from voluntary intoxication” (265).
- Also, the defendant chose to smoke the cigarette because he believed it only contained marijuana and was unaware that the cigarette also contained PCP (265).
4.)Summary of the court’s reasons for its decision:
-The court concludes that due to the fact that defendant, Velez, was “voluntarily intoxicated as a matter of law” he was not permitted to defend himself with the excuse of unconsciousness (266).
1.A)Voluntary: Willingly and knowingly did the act.
B)Involuntary Intoxication:(1) Innocent Intoxication.(B) Based on the ingestion of an unlawful drug where the defendant resonably belived he was consuming a lawful drug was placed without defendant's knowledge in a lawful substance.
2. He was walking around with new acquaintances, they whent to one of there brother in law's house and there the defendant had one beer and started watching t.v. then later on the group call him in the kitchen and when he got there they offered him a pot cigarette witch they were smoking witch he aggreed so he took 2 puffs.
3. He was at the house of one of the members of the group's brother in laws house, he really didn't know them that much and he knew the pot cigarette but they never told him that the cigarette had pcp.
4. Basickaly the courts desicion was that he was under the influence of pcp witch he did know at that time.
1. the test for entrapment according to nevada law, is the subjective test wich looks at the prediposition of defendants to commit a crime, and the objective test which looks at the government's take to induce individuals to commit a crime.
2. the facts the led the court to conclude that Oliver was entrapped but DePasquale wasn't; in oliver case "there was no evidence of any prior conduct of the defendant that would have shown predisposition, and there is no evidence that he was engaging in criminal activity before he took the money from the decoy", and in DePasquale case " He had no contact with the decoy but rather succumbed to the apparent temptation of his co-defendant to systematically stalk their target, evidences his predisposition".
1.Define *involuntary and involuntary intoxication as the court defines them.
(note; i take it the book means "voluntary")
Involuntary intoxication is when the defendant doesn't know he/she is taking intoxicants, or are forced.
Voluntary intoxicantion is when you are aware you are taking intoxicants nad aren't forced.
2.list all the evidence that Velez was voluntarily intoxicated.
Because velez consumed an alcohlic beverage, and smoked what he thought was "marijuana" with others.
3.List all evidence supporting the conclusion that velez was involntarily intoxicated.
Velez can only argue that he involuntarily took the drug PCP which has much worse effects than marijuana because he didn't see what was put in the marijauna cigeratte that he believed to be the drug marijauna.
4.Summarize the court's reasons for it's decision.
Using the case State v. Hall, the court basically said that Velez voluntarily took a drug knowing it would have a mind altering effect. whether or not it had the effect velez expected becomes errelevant to the case, and therefore is liable for his actions.
1. Involuntary intoxication is when the defendant doesn't know he/she is taking intoxicants, or are forced to do so.
Voluntary defendant is doing drugs willingly.
2. The court states that the defendant “knowingly consumed marijuana” (265). Also, it talks about the defendant having possession, consuming, and giving the drug to others. With his actions Velez broke California's law(265).
3. Velez being unaware that the marijuana ciggarete contained PCP.
4. In the case State v. Hall, the court said that Velez voluntarily took drugs knowingly, knowing it would have a mind altering effect. If it had the effect he expected becomes irrelevant to the case, and therefore Velez is liable for his actions.
1.) Voluntary intoxication is knowing that you are taking an intoxicant.
Involuntary intoxication is unknowingly taking an intoxicant or you know that you are taking them, but are being forced to do so.
2.) Velez was voluntarily intoxicated because he knew that he was smoking the marijuana, and did it about three times a month, and he also was drinking beers.
3.) Velez was involuntarily intoxicated because he knew that he was smoking marijuana but he didnt know that it was laced with PCP.
4.) The court looked at section 22 and found that Velez was voluntarily intoxicated. This is also proven because marijuana is an illegal drug he already broke the law when he brought, sold it, offered it to others and smoked it. Also street drugs do not come with a garuntee and you are voluntarily taking a chance using them.
Post a Comment
<< Home