Shopping Bag

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

State v. Cushman

When, by statute, recklessness is established without existence of actual danger, defendant may not escape liability because he was without power to cause danger to his victim. Reckless; reckless endangerment.
Your Price: $10.00

Select Usage (details) :

Related Cartoons

Atkins v. Virginia
Atkins v. Virginia
Execution of mentally retarded person is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment. deterence; retribution.
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.
Rex v. Chisser
Rex v. Chisser
Taking goods without paying for them is treated as a felony even though the store clerk voluntarily handed the merchandise to the customer for inspection as part of an anticipated transaction. Felleo amimo incohate.
Common Law Misdemeanors
Common Law Misdemeanors
Commonwealth v. Mochan, misdemeanors may arise under state common law, acts against the public morality, Lawrence v. Texas, homosexuality.
Uses or Carries Firearm in Drug Trafficing Crime
Uses or Carries Firearm in Drug Trafficing Crime
Muscarello v. United States; The word "carry," in ordinary sense includes carrying in car neither basic purpose nor legislative history 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) supports circumscribing scope word "carry" by applying "on the person" limitation; lenity.
But-For-Cause of Injury
But-For-Cause of Injury
People v. Rideout; For a defendant's conduct to constitute the proximate cause of an injury, the victim's injury must be a direct and natural result of the defendant's actions; but-for-cause.
Accomplice Liability Requires Act, Not Mere Presence
Accomplice Liability Requires Act, Not Mere Presence
State v. V.T; Passive behavior, such as mere presence or even continuous presence, absent evidence that the defendant affirmatively did something to instigate, incite, embolden, or help others in committing a crime, is not accomplice liability.
Involutarily Commit Sexual Predators
Involutarily Commit Sexual Predators
Kansas v. Hendricks; Where a civil commitment statute does not seek retribution or deterrence, it does not establish punitive criminal proceedings necessary to uphold double jeopardy and ex post facto claims.
Attempted Murder
Attempted Murder
People v. Stone; an attempt to kill anyone is an attempted murder.
Withdrawing From Complicity Requires Affirmative Act
Withdrawing From Complicity Requires Affirmative Act
State v. Formella; withrawal from consipiracy requires an affirmative act and communication to the other consipirators is helpful.
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.
Accomplice Liability
Accomplice Liability
Commonwealth v. Roebuck; An accomplice is accountable for contributing to criminal conduct to the degree his culpability equals what is required to support liability of a principal actor.