Summary: The Case Of R. V. Macdonald

Stacey McAlpine who helped Danny Heatley, a former Senator forward rebuild his career after a deadly car crash was charged with a lawsuit for defrauding his clients, Danny Heatley and Chris Philips and laundering the proceeds of the crime. In a statement by the lawsuit, Stacey McAlpine provided Danny Heatly with emotional support and advice during his recovery after the accident. At that time friendship flourished and Danny Heatley trusted and relied on Stacey. In the lawsuit filed at the court, Danny Heatly said that Stacey McAlpine represented him in his career as an NHL player before becoming his business adviser on a salary of $30 million a year.

Case 41 Tenn. 290, 1860 WL (Tenn.) Tally’s Ex’rs v. Smith Year: 1860, September Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee Parties Appellant: HENRY SMITH Respondent: The executors of DUDLEY TALLY, deceased Facts On October 1854, Dudley Tally entered into a Bill of Sale (a contract of sale), selling his property of seven slaves to Henry Smith. Tally was, at the time of sale, deteriorating in physical and mental capacity due to chronic illness and old age. Tally died in December 1854, just two months after the Bill was signed.

MILLERSBURG — A Millersburg man on last week admitted to selling drugs, passed off as Xanax, to a confidential informant. Darrin Brodie Neville, 22, of 4775 County Road 400, pleaded guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to two counts of trafficking in drugs. In exchange for his guilty plea, a third charge of trafficking in drugs and three counts of trafficking in counterfeit controlled substances were dismissed. Neville is next scheduled to appear in court for sentencing on May 2, at which time he faces up to two years in prison.

Citation: Morgan v Sate, 537 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1989) Facts: James A. Morgan, the appellant, who at sixteen was diagnosed as organically brain-damaged and brain-impaired, murdered the elderly woman with whom he was employed to perform manual labor. Morgan is described as a teenage alcoholic, who since the age of four sniffed gasoline on a regular basis.

Prior to the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, defendant Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in the state of Florida. This crime is a felony according to Florida state law. Unable to pay for defense counsel, Gideon requested that the court grant him one for free. The court denied Gideon his request of being granted defense counsel. The court stated, “Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person charged with a capital offense.”

The Trinity Western v. Law Society of Upper Canada case occurred between Trinity Western University and the Law Society of Upper Canada. To begin the appellant Trinity Western University (“TWU”) is a long established and well respected private university located in British Columbia. The school's mandate is anchored in an evangelical Christian philosophy. Which means that TWU’s education is to be taught with “a fundamental philosophy and viewpoint that is in accordance with the Christian tradition.” Accompanying the school's core Christian beliefs is their community covenant, The Community Covenant is a code of conduct which encompasses TWU’s Christian religious values.

The Canadian case I selected in which a wrongful conviction occurred was of Robert Baltovich. In 1992 Baltovich was wrongfully convicted of the murder of his girlfriend Elizabeth Bain and he was sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole for the next 17 years (Innocence Canada, 2016). This case took place in Scarborough, Ontario and Baltovich spent eight years behind bars for a crime he did not do. Baltovich got a retrial and he was finally released on April 22, 2008. Bain’s murder still remains a mystery, her car was found with a bloodstain on the back seat but her body was never discovered.

In the case of Timothy Ivory Carpenter V. UNITED STATES Did the government overstep its bounds in Detroit without getting a probable cause warrant, and did the government violated the 4th amendment of Timothy Ivory Carpenter? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,but upon probable cause, the police have the right to searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That is the 4th amendment. So what are the facts of the case then? (“United States v. Carpenter.”

It was Ricky Franklin Smith fourth offense, in which he was known as a habitual offender. He pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking and entering. During his hearing in the Court of Appeals, Smith suggested that he deserve a resentence due to the fact his charges was base upon his expunged juvenile criminal record. The Court of Appeals referred back to the case in People v. Price, 172 Mich App 396, 399-400; 431 NW2d 524 (1988) that suggested that in pursuant to MCR 5.913 when a juvenile record is expunged it cannot be used in a sentencing. Whereas, People v. Jones 173 Mich App 341, 343;433 NW2d 829 (1988) states that an expunged juvenile record can be included in an investigation report and in a sentencing(People v. Smith, 2017).

The Scopes Trial John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, who found himself at the center of one of the 20th century’s most famous life-changing court hearings; The Scopes Trial. It was also known as the Monkey Trial, where biology teacher John Scopes was prosecuted for teaching evolution in a public school located in Tennessee (Kemper). Prior to the trial, there was a anti-evolution law that was passed making Scopes actions illegal, this was known as The Butler Act. As a matter of fact, when Scopes went against this law it was the first step in moving towards modernism. As well as, causing America to move away from traditional values.

The issue of law that is being argued is whether Francis ‘attempted to murder’ Udris. This report will look at the definition of attempted murder and attempts to commit offences through s306 and s4 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). S 306 and s 4 sets out the principles of law on these two areas and how they relate to the matter of R v Francis. Legal Issue:

7)"The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions." Henrietta Muir Edwards and others (Appeal No. 121 of 1928) v The Attorney General of Canada (Canada) [1929] UKPC 86 (18 October 1929). Accessed May 25, 2017.

The Canadian Supreme Court case R. v. Smith (2015 SCC 34) involves the accused, Owen Smith, not only producing edible and medical marijuana products but also selling it as well. Marijuana is prohibited under the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act with the exemption of medical marijuana in its dried form. Smith supplied medical marijuana derivatives that were not dried, such as cookies and ointments. In addition, Smith violated the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations, which restrict legalized possession of medical marijuana to dried marijuana. He was charged with possession and possession for purpose of trafficking.

Facts In the late evening hours of October 30, 1992, Terry Toops, Warren Cripe, and Ed Raisor were at Toops’s home in Logansport, Indiana, drinking beer. Around 3:00 a.m. the following morning the trio decided to drive to a store in town. Because he was intoxicated, Toops agreed to allow Cripe to drive Toops’s car.

The applicant, the mother of the infants, had been divorced by the respondent, the father of the infants. At the time of the divorce, the Kathi had recorded a consent order giving the custody of the infants to the respondent. Since the divorce the applicant had remarried a man not related to the infants. It was contended by the respondent inter alia (a) that the applicant was precluded from making the application as she had consented to the order for custody made by the Kathi; (b) that the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1961 was inapplicable as the infants were