PART 1
Facts of the Case:
A worker at a fast-food joint left the back door unlocked so that Jack could enter before operational hours. After entering jack pushed one employee and held the manager at gun point and forced them to open the safe getting $5,000.00. Jack then proceeded to lock the employees into a cooler.
Issues:
1) Did Jack commit a crime or multiple crimes?
Decision:
1) Jake has committed a crime of armed robbery and will be convicted of a second-degree felony.
Rationale:
Elements of a Crime:
The Ohio Revised Code Annotated § 2901.21 (A)^1 through and including (B)^2states that a person is not guilty of an offence unless both conditions are met:
“(1) The person's liability is based on conduct that includes either a voluntary act, or an omission to perform an act or duty that the person is capable of performing;(2) The person has the requisite degree of culpability for each element as to which a culpable mental state is specified by the language defining the offense.”
In the facts of the case Jack entered the back door and forced his way to the safe to take the money fulfilling condition (1). Jack prearranged with an accomplice to have the back door unlocked with the intent to go through with the crime fulfilling condition (2).
Elements of Robbery
The Ohio Revised Code Annotated § 2911.02 (A)^3 through and including (C)^5 states that no person attempting or committing a theft offense shall do any of the following:“(1) Have a deadly weapon on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control; (2) Inflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten to inflict physical harm on another.”
In section (B)^4 states that whoever violates this section is guilty of robbery and if (1) and (2) are both committed it is a felony of the second degree.
Section (C)^5 defines “deadly weapon” from Ohio Revised Code Annotated § 2923.11 (A)^6 as any “instrument, device, or thing capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon.”
In the facts of the case Jack had a handgun and put it on the neck of the manager forcing them to open the safe. Jack also pushed another employee when entering the building inflicting physical harm. Jack fulfilled both criteria with his actions.
Theft Over $5,000
In The STATE of Ohio v. Lang^7Lang was originally convicted from a second-degree felony to third degree because of being sentenced for both robbery and theft. The theft was in excess of $5,000. The State found that Lang could only be charged with the robbery because the two crimes are allied and you can only charge someone once for the one crime.
In the facts Jake committed the robber and theft of over $5,000. Because these two crimes are allied and are the same crime he can only sentenced for one.
1ORC Ann. 2901.21 (A)
2ORC Ann. 2901.21 (B)
3 ORC Ann. 2911.02 (A)
4 ORC Ann. 2911.02 (B)
5 ORC Ann. 2911.02 (C)
6 ORC Ann. 2923.11 (A)
7 The STATE of Ohio v. Lang, Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, Hamilton County,102 Ohio App. 3d 243; 656 N.E.2d 1358; 1995 Ohio App.
PART 2
Facts of the Case:
Peter was sentenced to Ohio State Penitentiary where a riot broke out with the prisoners holding staff members as hostages. The warden agreed in writing that nothing would happen to the inmates if they were to release the hostages. After the hostages were released the warden punished inmates, Peter being one of them. Peter was put into solitary for thirty days, 180 days of administrative segregation and a loss of 1,283 days of goodtime earned.
Issues:
1) Was there a contract between the warden and the prisoners?
2) If so, did the warden breach the contract?
Decision:
1)The contract made between the warden and inmates was not valid.
2) Because the contract was not valid, the warden did not breach.
Rationale:
Elements of a Contract:
As noted in PERLMUTER PRINTING CO. v. STROME, INC.^8
“contract is generally defined as a promise, or set of promises, actionable upon breach. Essential elements of a contract include an offer, acceptance, contractual capacity, consideration, (the bargained for legal benefit and/or detriment), a manifestation of mutual assent and legality of object and of consideration.”
In the facts if the case the warden made the offer of a contract in writing. This offer had serious intent by the warden to be bound to the agreement, reasonable definitive terms and was properly communicated to the inmates. The inmates accepted that offer of the contract by performance when they released the hostages to the warden. The next element is capacity and both parties have the mental ability to understand their rights and obligations under the contract. In this bilateral contract there is consideration because both parties are giving a promise for a promise. The next element is legality. The contract that was being made between the prisoners and warden was not legal. The inmates were holding the prison staff members hostage, which is false imprisonment. As noted in Rogers v. Barbera^9“False imprisonment is defined by statute as the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.” The last part of a contract that needs to stand is genuine decent. The warden made the contract under duress for the safety of the employees. Because the inmates had the lives of the staff members, it made the inmates a dominant party forcing the warden into a contract. The contract would be able to be voidable because the prisoners were partaking in an unlawful act and the warden was under duress.
8 PERLMUTER PRINTING CO. v. STROME, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION, 436 F. Supp. 409; 1976 U.S. Dist.
9 Rogers v. Barbera, Supreme Court of Ohio, 170 Ohio St. 241; 164 N.E.2d 162; 1960 Ohio
PART 3
Facts of the Case:
Jack a prisoner at the Ohio state penitentiary retained Cynthia Johnson an attorney to bring a lawsuit against the penitentiary. Cynthia failed to learn the new legislation on the statute of limitations on the subject matter. The lawsuit was filed past the time frame that it needed to be and was dismissed.
Issues:
1)Does Jack have the right to sue Cynthia for a legal malpractice claim?
2)Can Jack still file the lawsuit?
Decision:
1) Jack has the right to sue Cynthia for legal malpractice liablility.
2)
Rational:
Elements of Legal Malpractice Liability
In the case of Vahila et al. v Hall et al.^10, it is noted that,
“To establish a cause of action for legal malpractice based on negligent representation, a plaintiff must show:
(1) that the attorney owed a duty or obligation to the plaintiff,
(2) that there was a breach of that duty or obligation and that the attorney failed to conform to the standard required by law, and
(3) that there is a causal connection between the conduct complained of and the resulting damage or loss.”
In the facts of the case, Cynthia was rendered by Jack for her duty to represent him. It is her responsibility to stay up to date with the current legislation. When the lawsuit was not filed in a timely matter she breached her duty to Jack.
10 Vahila et al. v. Hall et al., SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, 77 Ohio St. 3d 421; 1997-Ohio-259; 674 N.E.2d 1164; 1997 Ohio