Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) - 16 Cal. 4th 953, 67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 16, 941 P.2d 1203
Both the opinion of the court in Smart and the directions of the Lord Justice Clerk (Cooper) in HM Advocate v Rutherford 1947 JC 1 made it clear that consent provided no defence because the act HM Advocate v Rutherford 1947 JC 1 Accused was walking the victim home through an empty park when the victim supposedly requested that the accused strangle her with his tie. The accused tried to say this consent made the murder legal however the courts disagreed. HMA v Rutherford 1947. murdered strangling woman—> woman tried suicide; asked him—>obliged—>tie snapped; after death—>reported it; marks—>substantial attack—>argued didn't mean to kill—>guilty; Relates to: consent (murder), HMA v Harris 1993. doorman at club—> threw woman down stairs—>hit car In 1947, there was the HMA v Rutherford case. There was also the Smart v HMA case. Two persons were brawling in the street and the defence was that the person who came off worse consented to it. HMA v. Rutherford 1947 SLT 3. Broadley v. HMA 1991 SLT 218 the mens rea which is required is ‘intention’: this has been summed up as ‘wicked intent HMA v Rutherford 1947: Case of assisted suicide, mens read of intention to murder was not satisfied but guilty of culpable homicide. Death is casually linking to an assault, but may not be the foreseeable outcome of the assault. Woman collapsed and died after minor assault. Accused convicted of culpable homicide.
Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984) Block v. Rutherford. No. 83-317. Argued March 28, 1984. Decided July 3, 1984. 468 U.S. 576. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus
Study Presumptions flashcards from Kat Watson's class online, or in Brainscape's iPhone or Android app. Learn faster with spaced repetition. Son of John Rutherford III and Violet Reynolds Born ca 1727 Essex Cty Va Married unknown Died ca 1799, after 1799. Early settler of Grayson Cty Va. Children Thomas II 1138 Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984); Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576(1984) (holding also that prison security needs support a rule prohibiting pre-trial detainees contact visits with spouses, children, relatives, and friends). 1139 Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984). 1140 Hudson v.
1138 Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984); Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576(1984) (holding also that prison security needs support a rule prohibiting pre-trial detainees contact visits with spouses, children, relatives, and friends). 1139 Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984). 1140 Hudson v.
HMA v AZEEM ASLAM & ZEESHAN ASLAM. At the High Court in Glasgow Lord Stewart sentenced Azeem and Zeeshan Aslam after they were convicted of the culpable homicide of Anthony Dryden on 23 March 2013 at Stonefield Street, Airdrie. If that had caused pain, the jury were entitled to infer intention to injure when the appellant inserted the whip handle to the depth he did. If there was an intention to cause injury, and injury resulted, consent could not be a defence (H.M. Advocate v. Rutherford 1947 J.C. 1; Smart v. H.M. Advocate 1975 S.L.T. 65). There was no evidence that