Facts of the Case
Paul Blackmer appeals his conviction for the conspiracy of possessing marijuana in April 1994. The defendant was arrested by the police officers when they saw him receiving two packages of 50 pounds containing marijuana from the United Parcel Service (UPS) office in Laconia, New Hemisphere. In June 1994, Blackmer was prosecuted for having marijuana for sale (Brock & Broderick, 2003). He was later reindicted in October the same year and in May 1996 for the same charges. In 1997, Mr. Blackmer was tried and convicted for the same charges; he was sentenced to prison. However, the defendant raised concerns about violation of his rights to the dismal of the conspiracy to possess the drug, questions concerning the legitimacy of his sentencing, and speedy trial.
Legal Issues
- Was the failure to deliver testimony an abuse of the appellant’s rights to a speedy trial?
- Does the imprisonment fall under the law of Massachusetts because the charges in question were the object of the conspiracy committed in Massachusetts?
- Could the charges of conspiracy be brought to justice if one of the parties involved (conspirators) is safeguarded from criminal liability?
Holding
No
Reasoning
The supreme court ruled that Michael’s documents were not related to Mr. Blackmer’s appeal for the inattention of speed trial because the Michael provided the testimony before the grand jury concerning the UPS incident and respect to the issues in his appeal (Brock & Broderick, 2003). He failed in his argument concerning conspiracy because Massachusetts and the New Hemisphere law apply the same crime. Also, the sentence for conspiracy applies equality for the offenses that were the object of conspiracy under the New Hemisphere law.
Student Analysis, Opinion
In my view, the supreme court’s holding was effective because the appeals were unsatisfying based on the law. The conspiracy charges present a critical decision-making scenario in the case, but the court clarified and indicated that the offense was the object of the conspiracy. The defendant’s arguments lacked legal support to justify the appeals. The court played a significant role in clarifying the same law applies in the two states.
People v. Hernandez – 82 N.Y.2d 309, 604 N.Y.S.2d 524, 624 N.E.2d 661
Facts of the Case
Hernandez and his accomplice planned to rob a cocaine dealer in an apartment in New York through an ambush. Santana, Hernandez’s accomplice, called the drug dealer for the deal in the apartment as he waited with a gun on a stairwell. The dealer, however, was a Trooper working with the police. The incident ended in a confrontation when the Trooper (Aversa) disclosed his cover, and he was shot in the process (Justia, 2021). The felons were captured and accused of attempted second-degree murder, illegal possession of weapons, illegal use of guns, attempted assault of the police officer, and second-degree murder. They were found guilty of the charges after trial. However, on the appeal, the defendants disputed the charges claiming despite firing fatal shots, none of them killed Aversa, and therefore the court should dismiss the murder charges. They argued that the use of felony murder convictions was not proper (Justia, 2021). However, the court ruled that they were both responsible for the murder and consequently judged for felony murder.
Legal Issues
Does the murder of Aversa warrant the conviction of the defendants under the law of felony murder rule even though the evidence in the trial proved that the bullet that killed the victim was from one of the police involved in the incident?
Holding
Yes
Reasoning
Although the defendants did not kill the victim, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict them under the felony murder. That law provides that the felons can be charged for murder only if their acts were sufficiently the direct cause of the murder (Justia, 2021). To affirm this conviction, the court stated that the intervention of the police to shot was unforeseeable, and the casual chain was bot exposed; therefore, the felons were liable for the death of the victim.
Student Analysis, Opinion
In my opinion, the court ruling was right and served justice effectively. Indeed, the application of felony murder law is critical in the case. Still, the rule clarifies that law applies to felons because they were directly involved in the incident leading to the murder of the victim. Based on historical facts, the court’s resolution was factual and reasonable.
References
Justia. (2021). People v. Hernandez – 82 N.Y.2d 309, 604 N.Y.S.2d 524, 624 N.E.2d 661 (1993). https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/1993/82-n-y-2d-309-0.html
Brock & Broderick. (2003). State v. Blackmer, 149 N.H. 47, 816 A.2d 1014. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10340846332108789820&q=State+v.+Blackmer&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5
