Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Sullateskee V. the State of Oklahoma, No. A-14062
Facts: In 1967, Gladys Juanita Sullateskee was charged in Oklahoma Municipal Court with possessing a total of 556 bottles of whiskey for sale without the proper issued state permits (via the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board). During the proceedings a jury trial was waived and the case was sent to a judge. He determined that Sullateskee was guilty of possession with the intent to distribute and fined her $25.00.
Sullateskee is appealing the decision based upon the fact that the prosecution failed to show the whiskey actually belonged to the defendant. This is because she was a waitress who worked at the establishment and is not the owner. She argues that intent is not the same as actually conducting the crimes she is charged with. During the trial, the prosecution had only one witness who was the investigating officer. He testified that Sullateskee was not the owner of this establishment and was one of several waitresses who worked there. Furthermore, he indicated that several people were drunk and there were no whiskey bottles out in the open when they raided the establishment. This is problematic, as...
Instead, she feels that the prosecution is targeting her based upon the fact that she works at the establishment. Evidence of this can be seen with the answers provided during cross examination with the officer saying, " Q Who was in charge of the premises when you arrived that evening, Officer Glanz? A. Mr. Sullateskee. Q Had you ever been in that place, any time prior? A Yes sir. Q Who was in charge of the premises on those times prior? A Different barmaids. Q Is Mrs. Sullateskee a barmaid, or the owner, if you know? A She is a barmaid. By the Court: Do you know who the owner is? A. Yes, sir, the owner was R.E. Herrington. Q Was there anything on the wall that would indicate they had a license? A No, sir, they were not holders of Federal or State alcohol Beverage license. Q Whatever happened to Herrington? A His beer license was revoked, and the Bar was closed. Q By the County Judge? A Yes, sir." ("Sullateskee V. the State of Oklahoma,"1967) To make matters worse, Sullateskee was never in possession of the key to the storage room and the police had to break the lock to gain…
References
Sullateskee V. the State of Oklahoma. (1967). E Cases. Retrieved from: http://www.ecases.us/case/oklacrimapp/1391482/sullateskee-v-state
US Liquor Law. (2015). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Fletcher, G. (2005). American Law. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Death Penalty in Michigan There are, at present, 38 states with the death penalty and 12 without (deathpenaltyinfo.org 2004). Michigan is one of the 12. From 1976, there have been 906 executions in the U.S.: 517 were white, 310 blacks; 57 hispanic; and 22, other races. More than 80% of these cases involved white victims, although only 50% of murder victims were white. Case studies on race showed that 96% had
Texas courts have two levels: local and state. Article 5 of the State's Constitution lays out the judiciary structure, and further definition can be found in the Texas Probate Code and Texas Government Code (Bessette, et al., 15). There is a very complex structure to the courts in Texas, featuring numerous layers of courts and a great deal of jurisdictions that overlap one another. The appellate system is also unusual
criminal case brief; the case under study is the Sullateskee vs. Oklahoma State case. An analysis will follow to ascertain if the key issue, in regard to the verdict, was Mens Rea or Actus Reus. Actus Reus and Mens Rea The Latin term Actus Reus means "the guilty act." In simple terms, it implies the physical deed of perpetrating a criminal offense. On the other hand, the Latin term Mens Rea
senior at the Magic City School of Law, Sally Sue, who was top of her class of two hundred. This individual along with another individual planned the murder of the law professor; a very difficult instructor whose test Sally Sue was worried she could not pass. The individual, Bob, who agreed to shove the professor down the stairs agreed to this when he was either inebriated or on some
adults have an episode or two from their youth of which they are not extremely proud. Perhaps it involved sneaking a beer (or several beers) at a social function, or lying about one's plans for the evening to get permission to attend a questionable event. Most kids have learned the hard way on at least a few experiences -- speeding, missing curfew, or cheating on a test. Younger children
3.0 Conclusion After exploring both sides of the death penalty argument, it's important to remember that neither side supports executions based on racial or financial bias. And, all want to see the defendant having competent defense and receiving the correct verdict. These issues are related to the application of the death penalty rather than the death penalty itself and they can be fixed. The two real differences between those supporting and