Home > Free Essays > Law > Criminal Law > Types of Criminal Defenses: “People v. Olsen” and “People v. Johnson”

Types of Criminal Defenses: “People v. Olsen” and “People v. Johnson” Essay

Exclusively available on IvyPanda Available only on IvyPanda
Updated: May 7th, 2022

The Criminal Cases

Different legal implications are drawn from different cases. It is critical to analyze the disparities between various cases (Lippman, 2010). The paper identifies two distinct legal cases in the U.S. These include the “People v. Olsen” and “People v. Johnson.” Various types of criminal defenses dominate these cases. The paper identifies and discusses the types of defenses in these two cases. Furthermore, it analyses the evidences used to demonstrate these defenses. Apart from these, it outlines the roles of justification and excuses within these cases. Finally, there is an examination of the outcome of the two cases.

Criminal Defenses Used In the Cases

In the “People v. Olsen,” it is observed that the defendants contravened a specific penal code. The code is against the commission of vulgar acts with the underage children. This includes an age category below 14. Therefore, they underwent a conviction for the violation of this penal code. The basic argument during the proceeding was that the “mistake of age” is never a practicable defense (Law Info, 2012). Particularly, this was with reference to the cases involving statutory rape. The defense applied in this case originated from the inadequacy in explanation of the penal code in the relevant constitution.

Other similar situations are notable in the case of “People v. Johnson.” In this case, the defense argued that the available evidence during the proceeding was inadequate to substantiate the conviction. Unlike the first case, the defense relied on insufficient evidence provided by the prosecution and complainant (Champion, 2009). According to the defense, the evidence was insufficient to hold up for the conviction for cruelty to the animals (Law Info, 2012). Reference was drawn from the animal act. Principally, the issue of “animal custody” was the basic cause of disagreement in developing this defense.

Evidence Used To Demonstrate the Defenses

The major evidence in the “People v. Olsen” included the underage child and her parents. The knife used in the crime scene also formed an important evidence during the proceedings of this case. The admissibility of both human witnesses and physical objects used in specific crime scenes is very significant (Siegel, 2010). The criminal cases usually involve compound types of evidence in court. This is depicted in the case of “People v. Olsen.” The defenses used these evidences to challenge the ruling. For instance, the issue of age and indulgence in crime arose. The maimed girl weakened the case after testifying to have been close associates with the accused persons. To the defense, this was a solid evidence of an earlier association between the two parties.

The mistreated horses were the main evidence admissible in the case of “People v. Johnson” (Law Info, 2012). The defense managed to convince the court on the fact of ownership of the animals that were claimed to have been mistreated. The defense also claimed lack of sufficient evidence to confirm the involvement of the accused in the mistreatment of the animals. It is notable that both the defenses in the two cases feigned lack of adequate evidence. Other than this, it is evident that they depicted distinct pitfalls in the various relevant penal codes within the legal framework relating to the each offence.

Roles of Justification and Excuse in the Cases

The roles of justification and excuse can be identified in the two cases. For instance, the defense team in the case of “People v. Olsen” was able to apply excuse in their appeal (Law Info, 2012). Majorly, they drew their excuse from the issue of age and indulgence in crime as described in the penal code. The application of excuse in the justification of the previous cordial relationship between the accused and complainant is also evident. Therefore, the use of excuse and justification enabled this defense to launch a successful appeal and win the case (Siegel, 2010). The second case of the “People v. Johnson” displays an extensive use of justification and excuse. However, these emanate largely from the definitions within the penal code. This regards the issue of ownership and mistreatment of animals involved in the case. Excuse and justification enabled the accused to be rendered not guilty for some major charges by the court. Generally, it is obvious that justification and excuse have crucial roles in the development of these two cases.

The Outcome of the Cases

The defense strategy dictates the outcome of any case (Champion, 2009).After a strong defense in the case of “People v. Johnson,” the court made an astounding verdict. The convictions made on the accused were reversed. This is since the accused could never get a conviction under the legal provisions (Lippman, 2010). This decision also considered the absent evidence of the care of the accused person to the horses. In the “People v. Olsen,” the accused convictions were also reversed following an active defense. The defense was based on the definition of age and crime. It is clear that these two cases are unique and require an in-depth examination.

References

Champion, D. J. (2009). Leading U.S. Supreme Court cases in criminal justice: Briefs and key terms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Law Info (2012). Web.

Lippman, M. (2010). Contemporary criminal law: Concepts, cases, and controversies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Siegel, L. J. (2010). Introduction to criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

This essay on Types of Criminal Defenses: “People v. Olsen” and “People v. Johnson” was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.
Removal Request
If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda.
Request the removal

Need a custom Essay sample written from scratch by
professional specifically for you?

Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar

certified writers online

Cite This paper
Select a referencing style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2022, May 7). Types of Criminal Defenses: “People v. Olsen” and “People v. Johnson”. https://ivypanda.com/essays/types-of-criminal-defenses-people-v-olsen-and-people-v-johnson/

Reference

IvyPanda. (2022, May 7). Types of Criminal Defenses: “People v. Olsen” and “People v. Johnson”. Retrieved from https://ivypanda.com/essays/types-of-criminal-defenses-people-v-olsen-and-people-v-johnson/

Work Cited

"Types of Criminal Defenses: “People v. Olsen” and “People v. Johnson”." IvyPanda, 7 May 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/types-of-criminal-defenses-people-v-olsen-and-people-v-johnson/.

1. IvyPanda. "Types of Criminal Defenses: “People v. Olsen” and “People v. Johnson”." May 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/types-of-criminal-defenses-people-v-olsen-and-people-v-johnson/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Types of Criminal Defenses: “People v. Olsen” and “People v. Johnson”." May 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/types-of-criminal-defenses-people-v-olsen-and-people-v-johnson/.

References

IvyPanda. 2022. "Types of Criminal Defenses: “People v. Olsen” and “People v. Johnson”." May 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/types-of-criminal-defenses-people-v-olsen-and-people-v-johnson/.

References

IvyPanda. (2022) 'Types of Criminal Defenses: “People v. Olsen” and “People v. Johnson”'. 7 May.

Powered by CiteTotal, essay citation maker
More related papers