CCJS230 Cases Crimes and Noncriminal Wrongs State v Chaney Procedural History robbery Defendant convicted on two counts of forcible rape and one count of Trial court sentenced him to concurrent one year terms of imprisonment Concurrent vs Consecutive Sentences Member of the armed forces Reputation as an excellent soldier Was the trial judge too lenient with the sentence Facts Issue Holding Yes The court stated that the crime the defendant committed was serious and he should have received a longer sentence Rationale Goals of sentencing o Rehabilitation o Isolation of defendant o Specific deterrence o General deterrence o Condemnation o Potential sentence for rape 1 15 years State v Pete Facts Pete the defendant was sentenced to 2 one year consecutive sentences for a guilty verdict of 2 counts of unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor Issue was the sentence too excessive Holding yes the court stated the sentence was too excessive as the two offenses were really part of one general transaction Chapter 2 State v Metzger Void for vagueness Law it shall be unlawful for any person within the City of Lincoln to commit any indecent immodest or filthy act in the presence of any person or in such a situation that persons passing might ordinarily see the same Issue Is the ordinance so vague as to be unconstitutional Was his act indecent immodest or filthy Ruling and Rationale How does the state intend to define indecent immodest or filthy these terms are largely based on perception Precedent o Papachristou v City of Jacksonville It would be dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained and who should be set at large o Lanzetta v New Jersey That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well recognized requirement consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law Dissent the exhibition of genitals under the circumstances of this case was clearly an indecent act 1 st Amendment Cases Right to Free Speech People v Rokicki 1st Amendment freedom of speech Illinois Hate Statute A person commits hate crime when by reason of actual or perceived race color creed religion ancestry gender sexual orientation physical or mental disability He commits assault battery Mob action or disorderly conduct A person commits disorderly conduct when she or he knowingly does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of peace Issue Is the Illinois hate crime statute unconstitutional because it violates the principles under the First Amendment Issue Does the hate crime statute violate free speech Holding and Rationale No Rokicki was charged with hate crime because he allowed his beliefs to motivate unreasonable conduct Barnes v Glen Theater 1st Amendment Issue did the ordinance unduly restrict expressive conduct protected by the right to free speech Issue Is nude dancing expressive speech Holding the statute furthers a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality Plurality vs Majority Opinion Texas v Johnson facts Issue Whether prohibiting flag burning is a violation of the first amendment right to freedom of expression Ruling the state s interest in maintaining order is not implicated on these 2 nd Amendment The Right to Bear Arms District of Columbia v Heller The first successful 2nd amendment challenge US Supreme Court ruled it is the right of law abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home Importance Renders irrelevant the wording in the 2nd amendment concerning militia Limits D C Law was very broad Qualified right to possession of handgun by law abiding citizen in home for purpose of protection GeorgiaCarry org v Georgia Facts Goergia law prohibits the carrying of firearms in a place of worship Issue does this law violate the right to bear arms Did he have a right to carry a gun in the church Holding and Rationale No The law plays a substantial role in the goal of protecting the attendees for the fear or threat of intimidation or an armed attack Right to Privacy Griswold v Connecticut Law Any person who uses any drug medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than 50 dollars or imprisoned not less than 60 days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned Law any person who assists abets counsels causes hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were principal offender Issue does a law preventing the use of contraception by married persons violate the constitutional right to privacy Ruling Marriage concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees Dissent Whether a law is unconstitutional must be decided by analyzing the constitution as opposed to making philosophical and social analysis Lawrence v Texas Procedure In affirming the State Court of Appeals held that the statue was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment with Bowers v Hardwick Due Process Clause Issue Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas Homosexual Conduct law which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same sex couples but not identical behavior by different sex couples violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws Issue Do consenting adults have a right to privacy in their private sexual conduct Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment Should bowers v Hardwick be overruled Holding and Rationale Yes The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause The court reasoned that the case turned on whether Lawrence and Garner were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause Concurring Opinion Justice Sandra Day O Connor filed an opinion concurring Dissenting Opinion Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia filed in the judgment dissents 8 th Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment Kennedy v Louisiana