PEOPLE V. VAN RONK
171 Cal.App.3d 818 (1985)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute about whether attempted voluntary manslaughter is such a logical and legal absurdity that it cannot exist as a crime.
FACTS: James Gravelle stayed overnight with his sister, Ruth. Van Ronk (D) telephoned him there and asked whether he could obtain 'a pound of pot' for him. The next morning, D went to Ruth's apartment and asked James if he had obtained the pound of pot. James said 'nothing was up,' meaning that he could not get it then. D left and shortly after noon D returned to the apartment, this time accompanied by a young woman named Cindy. D and Cindy remained about two hours. James and Cindy went to the store and while they were gone D told Ruth he thought he was being cheated. When James and Cindy returned D said he wanted to leave but Cindy refused to go with him. D then asked James to go for a ride and James refused. D stated he thought he was being cheated. D asked James to step outside, acting as though he wanted to fight. James agreed, and added, 'I'll break every bone in your body.' As James stood and began walking to the door, D pulled out a pistol and said, 'I should kill you.' James raised his hands and said, 'Get off.' D responded by shooting. James was hit three times. D then shot at Cindy but missed, and also fired an errant shot at Ruth as she jumped into the kitchen. Eventually D left. At the hospital, the treating physician testified that James' wounds were critical and would have been fatal in the absence of immediate treatment. At trial D did not testify and presented no evidence. D argued that it was obvious that the incident arose over a drug deal, and that it was likely that James and Ruth were cheating D in the deal. D also argued that James probably had a weapon, and that D shot in self-defense. Although James and Ruth denied that James had a weapon, D pointed out that Ruth did not immediately call the police and did not accompany James to the hospital. She also told a false story to the police in the initial stages of investigation. From this diaphanous evidence D counsel argued that she probably stayed to dispose of unfavorable evidence before the police arrived. D was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter and appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment