Crim Question Forum

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Post Reply
User avatar
romothesavior

Diamond
Posts: 14692
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Crim Question

Post by romothesavior » Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:19 am

For those of you who studied State v. Linscott (in Dressler's book), can anyone tell me why the court didn't apply the felony murder rule, but instead used this accomplice liability statute?
Top
bemidiji41

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:48 pm

Re: Crim Question

Post by bemidiji41 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:25 pm

My prof told us that it was likely that a FM conviction would have resulted in a lower sentence so they went with accomplice liability theory.
Top
User avatar
romothesavior

Diamond
Posts: 14692
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Crim Question

Post by romothesavior » Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:57 pm

bemidiji41 wrote:My prof told us that it was likely that a FM conviction would have resulted in a lower sentence so they went with accomplice liability theory.
Yep, I think that's right. FM would have been a 20 year maximum sentence, accomplice liability is 25-life.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Forum for Law School Students”