Assignment Prompt & Instructions
[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)
**files (1)**
– ## unit5.docx
**## unit5.docx**
CoM Public
CoM Public
CoM Public
Welcome to Week 5 of the course. Similar to all weeks, please complete the
_read_ and
_attend_ sections before producing the discussion assignments. The Complete essay relates this week to Assault, Battery, and Other Personal Crimes and Property and Computer Crimes. The designer of the course uses this week to cover a lot of ground, so please do not get overwhelmed with the multiple concepts.
In the first case,
_Clements v. Texas, focus your answer on whether the defendant’s actions fit the statute. Often, a defendant’s actions collectively_ may or may not meet the criteria of the elements of the defense. In short, did Clements do enough to be convicted in your opinion? Section 2 asks you to examine specifically these elements in the case.
The next two cases
_United States v. Cassidy_ and
_Colorado v. Sullivan_, adds the new element of social media and our every growing world of our “online selves”. Make sure your analysis focuses on the new internet world.
_Folsom v. State of Alabama brings us back to a traditional concept of the husband- wife relationship. This is an interesting prism to view husbands and wives, through burglary, and will be relevant to you (the police officer-student) as police frequently address these things in domestic related calls for service. If you would like to interject some of your experiences to refine your answers, this would be a great place to do so._
_The last section asks for review and analysis of three cases, State v. Lilly_,
_People v. Rhorer_, and
_State v. Colvin._ I would address this section in a
_compare and contrast_ format. All of the case involves burglary, but all have some interesting unique issues in them.
As every week, the Complete assignment has a minimum expectation of 2,000 words (total assignment) and five scholarly sources, one of these must be a peer reviewed journal article published in the past 7 years. One source can be the textbook provided in the course. Your Complete assignment should be in essay format and include a title section, introduction paragraph, appropriate headings, conclusion, and reference section.
Below I have provided an outline for your Complete essays.
Title:
**Week 5 Essay**(add descriptive words)
**Your Name**
**Bethel University**
Introductory paragraph (introduce briefly the essay parts)
**Capstone Case of**
**_Clements v. Texas_**
**_Capstone Cases of United States v. Cassidy_ and**
**_Colorado v. Sullivan_**,
**Capstone Case of**
**_Folsom v. State of Alabama and Other Burglary Cases_**
**Conclusion**
(Summarize briefly what you said-remind your reader of your topics)
**References**
General Instructions
Key Concepts: Elements of offense, e.g. stalking and burglary, arguments of elements being unconstitutionally vague, spousal consent searches.
Capstone Cases:
_Clements v. Texas, United States v. Cassidy, Colorado v. Sullivan_,
_Folsom v. State of Alabama, State v. Lilly_,
_People v. Rhorer_, and
_State v. Colvin._
Assignment: The completes must be in essay format and include a title section, introduction paragraph, appropriate headings and Reference section. I expect perfect APA technique. The minimum requirement is five (5) scholarly sources, one of these must be a peer reviewed journal article published in the past 7 years. The textbook may count as one source. In Complete essays 1-7, there is a minimum of a 2,000- word count overall. Word counts are based on content only; references are not included in the word count assessment. For APA assistance, please see the
_APA 101course_ link or the sources under the
_Library Link._
The narrative essay should clearly define the key concepts of challenging cases on elements of offense and will apply these principles to the Capstone cases of
_Clements v. Texas, United States v. Cassidy, Colorado v. Sullivan_,
_Folsom v. State of Alabama, State v. Lilly_,
_People v. Rhorer_, and
_State v. Colvin._ Your response will include the overview of the cases and will also need to address each question or statement listed below in an essay format.
· In the Capstone case of
_Clements v. Texas,_ Nathan Clements was charged and convicted under the Texas stalking law based on his actions and words toward his wife. Clements argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to meet the elements of the Texas stalking statute and that the law itself was unconstitutional. What are the elements of the crime of stalking under the statute discussed in this case?
· Do you agree with the court of appeals that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague?
· Was the evidence in this case sufficient to support a stalking conviction?
· Read and consider two modern-day stalking cases found in your textbook—
_United States v. Cassidy_, 814 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Md. 2011) (involving alleged stalking by tweeting) and
_Colorado v. Sullivan_, 53 P. 3d 1181 (Colo. App. 2002) (involving the use of a GPS device to stalk). To what extent do advances in social media and communication technologies make it easier/more difficult to meet the statutory elements of stalking?
· In the Capstone case of
_Folsom v. State of Alabama,_ The appellant, Paul Folsom, was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree and of burglary in the first degree. Folsom asserts that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of burglary because his wife, from whom he was separated at the time of the offense, owned the house and because he had lived there during the marriage. At what point does marriage give a spouse the right to enter the property of his or her marriage partner?
· What test did the court apply in order to determine that the husband had no right to enter the home?
· Are there other relationships that should also hold special legal status, as they establish privileges similar to those of legal spouses at issue in this case?
· Read the three other burglary cases from your textbook—
_State v. Lilly_, 717 N. E. 2d 322 (Ohio 1999),
_People v. Rhorer_, 967 P. 2d 147 (Colo. 1998), and
_State v. Colvin_, 645 N. W. 2d 449 (Minn. 2002). What elements of the charged burglary statute are being challenged in these cases?
**## unit5.docx**
CoM Public
CoM Public
CoM Public
Welcome to Week 5 of the course. Similar to all weeks, please complete the
_read_ and
_attend_ sections before producing the discussion assignments. The Complete essay relates this week to Assault, Battery, and Other Personal Crimes and Property and Computer Crimes. The designer of the course uses this week to cover a lot of ground, so please do not get overwhelmed with the multiple concepts.
In the first case,
_Clements v. Texas, focus your answer on whether the defendant’s actions fit the statute. Often, a defendant’s actions collectively_ may or may not meet the criteria of the elements of the defense. In short, did Clements do enough to be convicted in your opinion? Section 2 asks you to examine specifically these elements in the case.
The next two cases
_United States v. Cassidy_ and
_Colorado v. Sullivan_, adds the new element of social media and our every growing world of our “online selves”. Make sure your analysis focuses on the new internet world.
_Folsom v. State of Alabama brings us back to a traditional concept of the husband- wife relationship. This is an interesting prism to view husbands and wives, through burglary, and will be relevant to you (the police officer-student) as police frequently address these things in domestic related calls for service. If you would like to interject some of your experiences to refine your answers, this would be a great place to do so._
_The last section asks for review and analysis of three cases, State v. Lilly_,
_People v. Rhorer_, and
_State v. Colvin._ I would address this section in a
_compare and contrast_ format. All of the case involves burglary, but all have some interesting unique issues in them.
As every week, the Complete assignment has a minimum expectation of 2,000 words (total assignment) and five scholarly sources, one of these must be a peer reviewed journal article published in the past 7 years. One source can be the textbook provided in the course. Your Complete assignment should be in essay format and include a title section, introduction paragraph, appropriate headings, conclusion, and reference section.
Below I have provided an outline for your Complete essays.
Title:
**Week 5 Essay**(add descriptive words)
**Your Name**
**Bethel University**
Introductory paragraph (introduce briefly the essay parts)
**Capstone Case of**
**_Clements v. Texas_**
**_Capstone Cases of United States v. Cassidy_ and**
**_Colorado v. Sullivan_**,
**Capstone Case of**
**_Folsom v. State of Alabama and Other Burglary Cases_**
**Conclusion**
(Summarize briefly what you said-remind your reader of your topics)
**References**
General Instructions
Key Concepts: Elements of offense, e.g. stalking and burglary, arguments of elements being unconstitutionally vague, spousal consent searches.
Capstone Cases:
_Clements v. Texas, United States v. Cassidy, Colorado v. Sullivan_,
_Folsom v. State of Alabama, State v. Lilly_,
_People v. Rhorer_, and
_State v. Colvin._
Assignment: The completes must be in essay format and include a title section, introduction paragraph, appropriate headings and Reference section. I expect perfect APA technique. The minimum requirement is five (5) scholarly sources, one of these must be a peer reviewed journal article published in the past 7 years. The textbook may count as one source. In Complete essays 1-7, there is a minimum of a 2,000- word count overall. Word counts are based on content only; references are not included in the word count assessment. For APA assistance, please see the
_APA 101course_ link or the sources under the
_Library Link._
The narrative essay should clearly define the key concepts of challenging cases on elements of offense and will apply these principles to the Capstone cases of
_Clements v. Texas, United States v. Cassidy, Colorado v. Sullivan_,
_Folsom v. State of Alabama, State v. Lilly_,
_People v. Rhorer_, and
_State v. Colvin._ Your response will include the overview of the cases and will also need to address each question or statement listed below in an essay format.
· In the Capstone case of
_Clements v. Texas,_ Nathan Clements was charged and convicted under the Texas stalking law based on his actions and words toward his wife. Clements argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to meet the elements of the Texas stalking statute and that the law itself was unconstitutional. What are the elements of the crime of stalking under the statute discussed in this case?
· Do you agree with the court of appeals that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague?
· Was the evidence in this case sufficient to support a stalking conviction?
· Read and consider two modern-day stalking cases found in your textbook—
_United States v. Cassidy_, 814 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Md. 2011) (involving alleged stalking by tweeting) and
_Colorado v. Sullivan_, 53 P. 3d 1181 (Colo. App. 2002) (involving the use of a GPS device to stalk). To what extent do advances in social media and communication technologies make it easier/more difficult to meet the statutory elements of stalking?
· In the Capstone case of
_Folsom v. State of Alabama,_ The appellant, Paul Folsom, was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree and of burglary in the first degree. Folsom asserts that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of burglary because his wife, from whom he was separated at the time of the offense, owned the house and because he had lived there during the marriage. At what point does marriage give a spouse the right to enter the property of his or her marriage partner?
· What test did the court apply in order to determine that the husband had no right to enter the home?
· Are there other relationships that should also hold special legal status, as they establish privileges similar to those of legal spouses at issue in this case?
· Read the three other burglary cases from your textbook—
_State v. Lilly_, 717 N. E. 2d 322 (Ohio 1999),
_People v. Rhorer_, 967 P. 2d 147 (Colo. 1998), and
_State v. Colvin_, 645 N. W. 2d 449 (Minn. 2002). What elements of the charged burglary statute are being challenged in these cases?