For Your Data Republic V. Hathaway Illustration Brief
March 18, 2020
Edit
Commonwealth v. Hathaway case brief summary
500 A.2d 443 (1985)
CASE FACTS
Defendant shot his married adult woman ane morn later she dropped off the couple's nipper at twenty-four hr catamenia care. As the married adult woman attempted to function from defendant, he pursued her as well as fired several shots, causing her to autumn to the ground. He reloaded the gun as well as fired several to a greater extent than shots at her head. Defendant was convicted for commencement bird murder as well as possession of firearms without a license. Defendant claimed on appeal the trial gauge erred conducting a collective voir dire, that testimony from a psychiatrist regarding defendant's might to command his actions should bring been admitted, that the jury should bring been charged amongst diminished capacity as well as a sympathy verdict of voluntary manslaughter, as well as that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed defendant's convictions for first-degree murder as well as possession of a firearm without a license. The courtroom ruled that the trial courtroom did non abuse its discretion during voir dire, that accused was non entitled to acquaint an irresistible impulse defense, as well as that accused was non denied effective assistance of counsel.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
500 A.2d 443 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant sought review of a judgment from the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (Pennsylvania), which convicted accused of commencement bird murder as well as possession of firearms without a license.CASE FACTS
Defendant shot his married adult woman ane morn later she dropped off the couple's nipper at twenty-four hr catamenia care. As the married adult woman attempted to function from defendant, he pursued her as well as fired several shots, causing her to autumn to the ground. He reloaded the gun as well as fired several to a greater extent than shots at her head. Defendant was convicted for commencement bird murder as well as possession of firearms without a license. Defendant claimed on appeal the trial gauge erred conducting a collective voir dire, that testimony from a psychiatrist regarding defendant's might to command his actions should bring been admitted, that the jury should bring been charged amongst diminished capacity as well as a sympathy verdict of voluntary manslaughter, as well as that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
DISCUSSION
- The courtroom rejected defendant's claims as well as affirmed the convictions.
- The courtroom ruled that the trial courtroom did non abuse its discretion inwards the trend that voir dire was handled, that the psychiatric prove was non admissible because the irresistible impulse was non a recognized defense, that the diminished capacity accuse was non permissible to the specific intent crimes at issue, as well as that accused was non denied effective assistance of counsel.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed defendant's convictions for first-degree murder as well as possession of a firearm without a license. The courtroom ruled that the trial courtroom did non abuse its discretion during voir dire, that accused was non entitled to acquaint an irresistible impulse defense, as well as that accused was non denied effective assistance of counsel.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law