Case Links for July 20, 2005
A Blakely case. The Court finds no issue here, but provides a succinct statement of how to evaluate such a claim:For Blakely purposes, there are at least four proper ways to enhance a sentence with aggravating circumstances: 1) a prior conviction; 2) a fact found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; 3) admissions by the defendant; or 4) during a guilty plea where a defendant has waived Apprendi rights and stipulated to facts or consented to judicial fact-finding.
The Court denied a successive petition for post-conviction relief in a death penalty case. The clear indication from the record is that Mr. Baird suffered from a pretty severe mental disorder at the time that he killed his pregnant wife and his parents before being arrested later while watching a baseball game. This decision is based primarily on procedural issues, effectively stating that Baird failed to bring up any issues that have not already been considered. Justice Rucker concurred, but noted he would have reached a different result if Baird was asserting that he was currently suffering from a severe mental disorder.
911 tapes are not “testimonial” under Crawford as the primary motivation of the 911 operator is not preserving testimony, but getting key details to assist in an emergency. The court also notes that the proper procedure to follow after the trial court has sustained your objection to a statement by the prosecutor is to seek an admonishment of the jury, prior to requesting a mistrial. Failure to seek an admonishment waives the claimed error for denying the mistrial under the invited error doctrine. So as a litigator, your choice is to either have the error “sanitized” by an admonishment or waive the error entirely. A nice catch-22.
An ATV is a motor vehicle for purposes of the HTV statute.
Mr. Dennis was mugged in a terminal bathroom and sued the bus line, claiming negligent security measures. Grant of summary judgment to the bus line reversed. To survive summary judgment, Dennis did not have to show that he had good evidence to establish his claim, just that there were material issued of fact.
An appeal over the return of a $750.00 deposit? Ms. Breeding rented a facility from Kyle’s for her wedding and specified the DJ’s she wanted in the contract. Kyle’s later had a break with the particular DJ’s and told Breeding she would have to pick someone else. Breeding wins. Justice Barnes dissents as follows:My colleagues apparently want to “Save the Last Dance” for Ms. Breeding. I, however, believe she received what she bargained and signed the contract for – a reception hall with a disc jockey of Kye’s choice. Stuck is stuck. Although the other members of the panel cannot “Stand by Me,” I believe that Kye’s clearly and explicitly reserved the right to select the disc jockey, and Breeding was bound by the clear and unambiguous contract.
The Majority drops a footnote in response:
In his dissent, our colleague Judge Barnes borrows from the music of his youth (and ours) to illustrate his point that the contract that Breeding signed was for the rental of the hall, not the provision of disc jockey services. For reasons stated elsewhere in this opinion, we disagree. We do note, however, that Breeding, having Heard It Through the Grapevine that Kyes had disassociated itself from Sounds Unlimited, and doubtless suffering from the Wedding Bell Blues upon finding that she could Get No Satisfaction from Kyes, said to herself (and Kyes) Its My Party. She decided that it would be Kind of a Drag, if she could not have the Mr. Tambourine Man of her choice as her disc jockey, and, rather than shedding 96 Tears, she would be a Hard Headed Woman because Big Girls Dont Cry. It is a shame that the parties were unable to resolve their differences amicably by Building a Bridge Over Troubled Water so that they could Let It Be. Alas, Breeding was left to go Downtown to seek another Sugar Shack for her wedding reception before Leaving on a Jet Plane for her honeymoon. (Our apologies to the younger generations who have never heard any of these songs and have no idea what we are talking about.)
