Prepare an analysis that identifies each crime, describes the elements of each crime, explains the evidence that proves each element and offers possible defenses for each crime. Explain why the lower court was wrong in how it decided the case. Explain how and why the reviewing court should reverse the lower court or why it should not. You will be graded on your ability to: explain the crimes, recognize the elements and evidence necessary to prove each element and any available defenses incorporate Florida Statutes and case law into the paper incorporate the textbook into your paper organize and communicate a clear, properly cited analysis of the problem conduct adequate research to support conclusions drawn If you have questions, please ask. You will need to research the Florida Statutes and case law. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS Keep in mind that if you are looking at this from the perspective of the losing party then the prosecution or defense counsel would have lost in the lower court. For purposes of an appeal explain why that happened and what should have been done differently. If the defense lost in the lower court explain its grounds and basis for appeal. Briefly address the matter of jurisdiction. Make sure that you include specific and relevant references to appropriate Florida statutes, cases and the text. If the case is not a Florida case how would it be decided under Florida law? If arguing as a prosecutor you will need to anticipate any defenses that might be presented. Be careful that you are not trying to put everything you know into this paper. There are relevant and irrelevant aspects to the case for purposes of this analysis. It is up to you to sort out the relevant from the irrelevant. SUBMITTING YOUR DOCUMENT: Submit to discussion board in Lesson 15 Submit your document to the Final Project Discussion Board included in the final module of the course. All contributing student names must be listed on the submission. All students on the team earn the same grade for the submission. The analysis is expected to be original. If I see that a significant portion of your paper consists of borrowed sources, regardless of whether it is properly cited, you will likely not receive a high score. I am looking to see how well you can develop and present your own ideas. This is why the sharing of ideas in the collaborative framework is so important. People v. Braz, 576 Cal. App.4th 1 (6th App. 1997). I. Summary of Facts Patricia Ann Braz was sentenced to state prison for eight years after being found guilty of beating her son and not providing him with medical attention. On January 18th, 1993, Braz called 911 in regards to her two-year-old son, who was not breathing, had no pulse, or blood pressure. He had multiple injuries, such as internal bleeding, blunt force trauma, and bruising. These injuries were later to be determined as abuse injuries from his mother, Braz. Braz also attempted to use someone′s ATM card by inserting it into an ATM machine and hitting random numbers for the PIN. Braz wanted the burglary conviction to be reversed due to ″instructional error.″ II. Procedure The defendant was tried in the Sixth District of California and was found guilty of two counts of child endangerment and second-degree burglary. In the Sixth District of California Court of Appeal, Braz was still found guilty of second-degree burglary. III. Issue Is Patricia Ann Braz guilty of child endangerment and second-degree burglary? IV. Rule (or Holding) Yes, Patricia Ann Braz was found guilty of child endangerment due to child abuse and neglecting her son′s medical needs. Patricia Ann Braz also used an ATM card with general intent, according to Mens Rea, to retrieve money from it, which is considered burglary. V. Application (or Reasoning of the court) The courts were able to decide that the wounds found on Patricia Ann Brazs′ son were from her. Subsequently, he died from these injuries, but she was not charged for his death. The Actus Reus or the actions that were committed was the defendant causing physical harm to her child and then not providing him with the proper medical attention until it was too late. The court also decided that since the use of the ATM card was unauthorized and Braz attempted to deprive the owner of money, she was convicted of burglary per Penal Code section 459. The Actus Reus for the burglary conviction was using an ATM card with the general intent to retrieve money from it. This action can be legally constituted as burglary. VI. Conclusion The defendant was convicted of two counts of child endangerment and one count of second-degree burglary. These counts were due to her involvement in beating her son and then for not providing him with medical aid. The second-degree burglary was due to her using an ATM card with the intent to retrieve money from it. References People v. Braz, 576 Cal. App.4th 1 (6th App. 1997). ISSUE: According to California Law, did Patricia Ann Braz commit a crime of two counts of child endangerment where the appellant had argued there was no substantial evidence for Count 3? RULE: California State Penal Code 273(a), to cause or permit any child to suffer physical pain, injury, mental suffering, death, or health issue violates child endangerment. Count 3 refers to failing to render medical care, while Count 2 is unjustifiable physical pain and mental suffering to the child (Justia Law, n.d, para. 5). Testimony from the medical professional stated that Anthony’s bruises and injury with proper steps taken could have been saved, and witnesses testified they had seen the appellant strike Anthony in the past. There are legal defenses such as Patricia did not intentionally cause harm, or the child’s injuries were caused by a fall. She legally disciplined her child in which she may have not noticed the bruises. Or someone else in the household, William, her boyfriend, could have committed physical harm to the child. Florida State Statute 782.07(3), a caregiver commits aggravated manslaughter that leads to the death of a child from negligent neglect (Hornsby, n.d, para. 1). A caregiver is defined as a parent, adult household member, or another person responsible for the child where Patricia and her boyfriend William fall under. They committed culpable negligence by causing bodily harm and neglect of a child where they failed to provide the child with care for his injuries. ANALYSIS: The defense counsel should have stated there was no evidence presenting failure to render medical aid when responders responded to a phone call from Patricia. California State Penal Code 654 is two or more punishments for the same criminal act; there can not be multiple punishments or double convictions for the same offense. (CA LegInfo, n.d, para. 1). The reviewing court should reverse the lower court to add the evidence of the timeline from the medical professional of how old the bruises were to justify Count 3 if the injury was recent to his death to correlate with how long she waited or if she called immediately. Count two does justify as she did admit and witness testimonies of her physically hurting her child. CONCLUSION: Therefore, Patricia, the mother of Anthony, committed child endangerment for Count two based upon evidence of witnesses and her testimony of admitting physical alteration to her child. Count 3 will depend on additional evidence of a timeline of the bruises and whether she called immediately or delayed since she did call 911 for medical aid. ISSUE: According to California Law, did Patricia Ann Braz commit second-degree burglary where the jury had a misinterpretation of the definition of the crime between burglary and a lesser offense? RULE: California State Penal Code 484(e) intends to defraud, sell, transfer, or access without the cardholder′s consent. California State Penal Code 484(g), intent with a lost or stolen ATM card, intent to use, sell, or transfer for themselves (CA LegInfo, n.d. para.1). During the trial, the jury could not reach a final agreement for burglary based upon the elements concerning the lesser offenses. Defenses of burglary such as the jury did not provide sufficient information on the penal codes and elements of the crime. Florida State Statute 810.02, “innocent/noncriminal intent where the defendant enters with intent then no burglary occurs” (Hussein & Webber, n.d, para. 1). Or entrapment of her boyfriend William, who could have forced her to commit this crime. Florida State Statute 810.02, a person enters a structure with the intent to commit an offense. Criminality is voluntary on committing an act with a specific objective (Chamelin & Thomas, 2011, p. 54). She had criminal intent to go to the bank and try to get cash with the stolen ATM card to deprive the victim of their property in which a petty theft occurred. ANALYSIS: The court claimed to have forgotten to inform the jury of any lesser sentences before and continued to repeat the same definition for burglary. Burglary is when an individual enters a structure, even if the intended crime is never accomplished (Shouselaw, n.d, para. 3). Patricia could not accomplish the intended crime of stealing cash after six tries. The court provided insufficient information pertaining to the specific statutes and penal codes of the lesser sentences. The reviewing court should reverse the lower court in reducing the charge to theft based upon the elements of petty theft where elements of burglary were not satisfied based upon the fact that she did not break into a building. CONCLUSION: Therefore, Patricia, the mother of Anthony, intended to commit petty theft upon evidence where she went to an ATM to deprive the victim of their property. References CA LegInfo. (n.d). “Chapter 5. Larceny [484-502.9]”. Accessed April 19. 2022. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode＝PEN§ionNum＝484g (Links to an external site.) CA LegInfo. (n.d). “Title 16. General Provisions [654-678]”. Accessed April 19, 2022. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum＝654.&lawCode＝PEN#:~:text＝(a)%20An%20act%20or%20omission,under%20more%20than%20one%20provision (Links to an external site.). Chamelin, N. C., & Thomas , A. (2011). Essentials of Criminal Law(eleventh ed.). Pearson. Hornsby, R. (n.d). “Aggravated manslaughter of a child in Florida”. Hornsby Law Firm. Accessed April 19, 2022. https://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/homicide/aggravated-manslaughter-of-child.html#:~:text＝Under%20Florida%20Statute%20782.07 (Links to an external site.) Hussein & Webber. (n.d). “Burglary in Florida: dwelling, structure, conveyance”. H&W. Accessed April 19, 2022. https://www.husseinandwebber.com/crimes/property-crimes/burglary/ (Links to an external site.) Justia Law. n.d. “People v. Braz (1997).” Accessed on April 19, 2022. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/57/1.html (Links to an external site.) Shouselaw. N.d. “Penal code 459 PC- California burglary laws.” Accessed on April 19, 2022.
