PAD525

© 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of Strayer University.

Page 1 of 2

Rael v. Cadena, 93 N.M. 684, 604 P.2d 822 (Ct. App. 1979)

Parties

Eddie Rael, Plaintiff-Appellee Emilio Cadena and Manuel Cadena, Defendants-Appellants

Prior Proceedings

Eddie Rael sued Emilio and Manuel Cadena for civil battery. The trial court, sitting without a jury (bench trial), found Emilio jointly liable with Manuel for the battery.

Emilio appealed the judgment of the trial court.

Facts

While visiting Emilio Cadena’s home, Eddie Rael was beaten by Emilio’s nephew, Manuel Cadena. After the attack began, Emilio yelled to Manuel “kill him!” and “hit him more!” Emilio never actually struck Rael nor physically participated in the battery. Rael was hospitalized as a result of the beating.

Issue

Under New Mexico tort law, does liability for battery arise when an individual, present during the battery, encourages the perpetrator of the battery by yelling “kill him” and “hit him more,” thus inciting the perpetration of the battery, though he takes no actual part in the physical beating?

Rule

Yes. An individual may be liable for battery by encouraging or inciting the perpetrator by words or acts.

Analysis/Reasoning

The rule of law in the United States is: Civil liability for assault and battery is not limited to the direct perpetrator, but extends to any person who, by any means, aids or encourages the act. The act of verbal encouragement at the scene may give rise to liability because the perpetrator is goaded and encouraged at the behest of the person encouraging the battery. Here, Emilio encouraged Manuel to beat Rael and to continue to beat him. The battery may not have

PAD525

© 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of Strayer University.

Page 2 of 2

occurred or continued but for Emilio’s encouragement. Therefore, Emilio had some part in the beating even though he never physically contacted Rael. Thus, Emilio is liable for the battery for aiding in its commission and encouraging the act.

Conclusion (holding/disposition)

The judgment against Emilio Cadena is affirmed.

Note: Notice the use of the IRAC format in the outline; also notice the use of here…/because… in the analysis. Although you may not understand why now, it is invaluable when taking exams to learn to analyze cases in this manner. Do not worry if you do not fully understand these concepts now. You will be learning these strategies during your first year in legal research/ writing and the substantive classes.

PAD525

© 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of Strayer University.

Page 1 of 2

People v. Hall Sample Case Brief Style: People (Colorado) v. Nathan Hall

Colorado Supreme Court 2004

Procedural History

At a preliminary hearing, the trial court dismissed case for lack of probable cause (defendant won).

Issue

District court affirmed lack of probable cause (defendant won again) Appellate court reversed (People won)

A) How should Colorado law describe the mental state of recklessness?

B) Whether the People have probable cause to believe that the defendant committed reckless manslaughter when the defendant, a former ski racer trained in ski safety, skied straight down a dangerous section of a mountain, lost control, and struck the victim, killing him.

Holding

A) Mental state of recklessness is a legal definition that forms the rule for this issue; see rule below for court’s holding on the description of the recklessness mental state.

Rules

B) Defendant’s conduct reveals sufficient probable cause of reckless manslaughter because the defendant acted “despite his subjective awareness of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death from his conduct.” Specifically, the defendant appreciated the risk of harm because he was a former ski racer trained in ski safety. He consciously disregarded that risk when he hurtled himself straight down a steep and bumpy slope with his weight back on his skis and arms out for balance, allowing himself to be thrown from mogul to mogul. The risk was substantial and unjustified because, as a ski racer, defendant knew what harm might occur from losing control on skis at a high rate of speed, yet he chose to ski the dangerous route down the mountain.

PAD525

© 2020 Strayer University. All Rights Reserved. This document contains Strayer University Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be copied, further distributed, or otherwise disclosed in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of Strayer University.

Page 2 of 2

A) Recklessness involves a higher level of culpability than criminal negligence but requires less culpability than intentional actions. The State establishes a cause of action for reckless manslaughter when it proves the defendant caused the victim’s death and the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk that he would cause the death of another.

The court may infer that the defendant was subjectively aware of the risk. Court must weigh the nature and purpose of defendant’s conduct against the risk created by that conduct in evaluating whether a risk is unjustifiable. A substantial and unjustified risk is a gross deviation from the standard of care. Risk of death to another in a general sense is sufficient; defendant need not risk death of a specific individual.

B) In evaluating probable cause, the court considers the facts in a light most favorable to the prosecution and draws all inferences against the defendant. The State need only show that a reasonably prudent and cautious person could believe that the defendant committed the crime.

Reasoning

A) Court relies on statutory definitions for recklessness from Colorado law, the model penal code, and New York law.

As it defines recklessness, the court contrasts recklessness with criminal negligence, noting that both recklessness and negligence require a gross deviation from the standard of care, but recklessness requires subjective awareness of that risk while, criminal negligence only requires a failure to perceive the risk.

B) Court applies its definition of reckless manslaughter to the case facts using the probable cause standard and finds that probable cause exists. No prior decisions cited.

Facts

Words to Define

Mens Rea: Probable cause: Manslaughter

Mogul

• Defendant was a ski lift operator, former ski racer, trained in ski safety • After lifts closed for the day, defendant skied down a dangerous slope, very fast • Defendant lost control on moguls, flew off a knoll, and struck the victim, killing him.