Shopping Bag

0 item(s) in cart/ total: $0    view cart
Free Instant Delivery  |  No Sales Tax
Home > Case Law > Criminal Law  >  Pierce v. Commonwealth
Pierce v. Commonwealth
Pierce v. Commonwealth Cartoons

Pierce v. Commonwealth

Home rule ordinance. Local municipalities may not enact local legislation directly conflicting with state statutes establishing a comprehensive scheme for criminal punishment.
Your Price: $10.00

Select Usage (details) :

Related Cartoons

McCleskey v. Kemp
McCleskey v. Kemp
Repeat.
State v. Leidholm
State v. Leidholm
battered-woman syndrome. In claim of self-defense, defendant conduct is evaluated according to what she in good faith honestly believed and had reasonable ground believe necessary protect defendant from death or great bodily injury.
Smith v. State
Smith v. State
Irresistable impulse test. Person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at time act was committed mental disease or defect caused lack of capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of conduct or conform his conduct to law. Substantial capacity.
State v. Etzweiler
State v. Etzweiler
Accomplice will be liable only for crimes that he or she intended to facilitate. Negligent homicide.
Clark v. Arizona
Clark v. Arizona
Mott Rule; mental illness short of insanity does not bear on mens rea according to Arizona state Mott Rule; court will not allow evidence of a mental disorder short of insanity as bearing on a defendant's capacity to form specific intent.
People v. Robertson
People v. Robertson
Felony murder instruction not proper when underlying felony is integral part of the homicide; shooting to scare off burglars can result in a murder conviction.
Criminal Laws on Homosexuality
Criminal Laws on Homosexuality
Lawrence v. Texas, state laws criminalizing homosexual relations violate substantive due process.
The Rule of Lenity
The Rule of Lenity
United States v. Dauray, The rule of lenity requires that ambiguities in a criminal statute be resolved in the defendant's favor, noscitur a socis.
Atkins v. Virginia
Atkins v. Virginia
The execution of a mentally retarded person is "cruel and unusual punishment" and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment.
United States v. Thompson
United States v. Thompson
Downward departure, under federal sentencing guidelines, courts may order a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines based on extraordinary family circumstances.
Liability For Ownership of Vicious Dogs
Liability For Ownership of Vicious Dogs
People v. Knoller; Malice, to satisfy the elements of second-degree murder, requires a defendant's awareness of the risk of death to another; objective; subjective.
Breach of Duty
Breach of Duty
Jones v. United States; must establish a duty before breach of duty can support a criminal conviction.