Shopping Bag

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

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.
Your Price: $10.00

Select Usage (details) :

Related Cartoons

State v. Verive
State v. Verive
Conviction for conspiracy requires an agreement to commit a criminal act and some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Corroboration; double jeopardy clause; immunity; perjury.
United States v. Diaz
United States v. Diaz
Participant in a conspiracy is criminally liable for all acts that are done by other members in furtherance of the conspiracy and that are reasonably foreseeable as a necessary consequence of the unlawful agreement.
The King v. Pear
The King v. Pear
If one rents property under false pretenses and fails to return it at the end of the lease time, and instead sells the property and keeps the money, he has committed a felony.
In the Interest of M.T.S.
In the Interest of M.T.S.
Sexual assault consists of any act of sexual penetration done without the affirmative and freely given permission of the victim. Juvenile delinquency.
People v. Wilhelm
People v. Wilhelm
Rape shield; evidence of victim's sexual conduct with a third party is irrelevant to the issue of whether she consented to sexual intercourse with the defendant; public, provocative displays may or may not be admissible in rape trials.
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.
People v. Burton
People v. Burton
The underlying felony sufficient to trigger the felony-murder rule must involve an independent felonious purpose, lesser included offense.
Evidence of Intoxication Is Admissable Sometimes
Evidence of Intoxication Is Admissable Sometimes
United States v. Veach; Intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary, may preclude the formation of specific intent and thus serve to negate the mens rea element of specific-intent crimes; field sobriety test.
Death Penalty for Child Rape
Death Penalty for Child Rape
Kennedy v. Louisiana; court says child rape not heinous enough for the death penalty; disproportionate.
Question of Possession
Question of Possession
State v. Barger; new technology complicates questions of possession sufficient to establish criminal liability.
Continuous Conspiracy
Continuous Conspiracy
Pinkerton v. United States; When there is a continuous conspiracy, and no evidence of affirmative action to establish withdrawal, as long as the partnership in crime continues, the partners act for each other.
Substantial Factor Test
Substantial Factor Test
Valazquez v. State; but-for test and substantial factor test to determine liability as cause in fact; must also be the proximate cause or no liability.