Latest 2 Cases: State v. Brown (Criminal Law), State v. Owens (Criminal Law)

No, Republicans Cannot Throw the Presidential Election into the House so that Trump Wins

NEIL H. BUCHANAN, MICHAEL C. DORF, LAURENCE TRIBE

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan, Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf, and Harvard Law professor emeritus Laurence H. Tribe explain why President Trump’s plan to win the election through a forced decision by the U.S. House of Representatives relies on an incorrect reading of the plain text of the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution. The authors argue, even in a best-case scenario for Trump, in which the electoral votes of Pennsylvania are thrown out, Biden would still win with a majority of the resulting electoral votes and the House would simply not have the legal authority to vote on an election that had already been decided.

Read More

Is Anyone Surprised That Our Norm-Busting President Ignored the Debate Rules?

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on last night’s presidential debate between President Trump and former Vice President Biden. Dorf observes that Trump’s repeated violations of the agreed-upon rules of the debate; his outrageous substantive comments refusing to condemn white supremacy (and instead naming a specific white supremacist group) and declining to say he would accept the outcome of the election; and his callous response to Biden’s mention of Biden’s deceased son Beau should alert any yet unaware Americans to the fact that Trump has no sense of decency.

Read More

State v. Brown

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4623

Opinion Date: September 30, 2020

Judge: Maureen O'Connor

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court dismissing the charges filed against Appellant for failure to pay court-ordered child support based on the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Pittman, 79 N.E.3d 531 (Ohio 2016), holding that Pittman did not apply. The State charged Defendant with two counts of nonsupport of defendants under Ohio Rev. Code 2919.21(B). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that he could not be prosecuted for violating the statute because he was not subject to a legal support order at the time he was charged. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss based on its interpretation of Pittman. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Pittman did not apply to the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the charges simply because Defendant's child had been emancipated at the time Defendant was charged.

State v. Owens

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4616

Opinion Date: September 30, 2020

Judge: DeWine

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of felony murder based on felonious assault of a child and reckless homicide as a lesser included offense of aggravated murder, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to provide an instruction on reckless homicide. Defendant was charged with aggravated murder, felony murder, and child endangering. The jury found Defendant guilty of felony murder. As to the aggravated murder charge, the jury found Defendant not guilty, instead finding her guilty of the lesser included offense of reckless homicide. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by not giving a reckless homicide instruction as a lesser included offense of felony murder. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because felony murder has no mens rea requirement in regard to the death of a victim, whereas reckless homicide has the mens rea of recklessness, reckless homicide is not a lesser included offense of felony murder; and (2) therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to give the requested instruction.