An Analysis of Two Criminal Cases
R. v. Marshall
The R. v. Marshall Case outlines a court case between her majesty the Queen and Jerry Marshall. The latter was charged for armed robbery and attempted armed robbery, in which he pleaded guilty to both charges, leading to a three-year combined sentence. Marshall was accused of offenses that transpired in 2015 in Clarenville, NL and Goobies, NL for armed robbery and attempted armed robbery respectively. Importantly, the case is decided by the decision by the accused to plead guilty to the robberies which transpired concurrently.
Review of the Facts
Jerry Marshall was in the firm’s premises on the outlined day before he drove away with Mr. Gough on a robbery streak where he remained in his car while his accomplice carried out the robbery and the attempted robbery (February 22, 2015). Mr. Marshall, in the company of Mr. Gough, rode along to Mini Mart where the crime occurred. The police officers found many things linking the two parties to the crime. The police found a huge knife with a gold handle, one glove, a black stocking hat, a black hoodie, pocket knives, two basketball bats, a quantity of money in $5 and $20 bills, and a quantity of rolled coins in Marshall’s car (R. v. Marshall 2015). Notably, the Mini Mart store employee acknowledged that the person who went to rob the store was wearing a black hoodie and possessing a large knife. Similarly, the offender was wearing the same when he walked into Circle K Convenience and Gas Bar in Goobies.
Accordingly, the accused pleaded guilty to the crimes. He admitted that they threw a can of money that Mr. Gough had taken from Circle K at Goobies over a bridge but was unsure of the bridge. Importantly, he insisted that they took the cash from the stores. Therefore, the facts stipulated that the suspects were both guilty especially due to their acknowledgment of the events that transpired. Importantly, they even admitted where they took the cash that they had acquired during the robbery. Mr. Marshall pleaded guilty to both charges and thus influencing the judgment. Consequently, the acceptance by the accused underlined that both incidences were instigated by drug use and issues.
Review of the Judge’s Decision
The judge judged against Marshall as he pleaded guilty on both counts. The judge remanded Marshall in custody for sentencing whereby he received a 36-month sentence. The suspect’s plea of guilt profoundly influenced the judge’s decision. The decision for a three-year sentence was influenced by the uncanny resemblance of the case to that of R. v. Hutchings which insisted that the acceptable level of punishment for armed robberies where a person is young and masked and the merchandise or the money stolen is minimal necessitates a sentence of 3-5 years. Therefore, the judge had to acknowledge the outlined statement while delivering the judgment, thus opting for a 36-month sentence.
The judge argued that the prison sentence for attempting a crime but failing to go through with it is less severe and thus outlining the need for an 18-month sentence for attempted armed robbery of the Mini Mart at Clarenville and a three-year sentence for robbing the Circle K Store. Importantly, the judge insisted that the criminal offenses were a single criminal adventure, thus stipulating the sentences to be concurrent and outlining a combined global sentence of 36 months. Ultimately, the decision by the judge was fair as he observed the totality principle and acknowledged the occurrence of the robberies concurrently as stipulating a judgment method that combined them rather than offering a harsher sentence.
Review of Precedent Used by the Judge
The judge constantly refers to the R. v. Hutchings Case. The case guides the steps enacted in the R. v. Marshalls Case judgment. Importantly, the former case offers guidelines for developing a combined global sentence. A combined global sentence occurs when two crimes are viewed as a single criminal adventure, thus necessitating a concurrent sentence rather than a consecutive one.
Conversely, the judge uses this case under the totality principle to judge the stance. Notably, the judge aims to understand whether the enactment of the globally combined sentence is harsh in relation to the R. v. Hutchings case. Therefore, the focus on this case tries to know whether the sentence is harsh or unduly long. Arguably, the judge concludes that the 36-month sentence aligns with the totality principle.
Conceptual analysis of the Judge’s Decision
The case outlined a situation where the accused admitted to committing crimes and thus entrusting the criminal justice system to be fair and just in its judgment. Importantly, section 344 (1) (b) of the penal code outlines that each who commits robbery is guilty of an indictable offense and liable (R. v. Marshall 2015). Therefore, the person can serve numerous sentence depending on the weight of the offense with the gravest repercussions entailing life imprisonment. However, the judge’s decision entailed aspects of a free and fair trial and therefore sentencing the offender to a 3-year global combined sentence rather than opting for harsher treatment. The case also outlined a conceptual aspect of the presumption of innocence by giving the offender the chance and platform to argue his case. Ultimately, the offender chose to accept his offenses and plead guilty on all counts, an aspect that influence the judge’s decision.
R v. MacCauley
The case between her majesty the Queen and William MacCauley was heard in the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Judicial Center of St. John’s before the honorable judge James G. Walsh. The accused, MacCauley was charged on two counts of robbery while in possession of a knife, a count of committing robbery while masking his face, and two counts of possession of a weapon which can disrupt the peace of the public. Notably, the accused pleaded guilty in all counts. Consequently, the charges led to an eight-year prison sentence and a three month less time served.
Review of the Facts
The accused pulled out a knife on an attendant at Esso station on September 29, 2013, demanding all the money. Notably, the accused had a knife 6-8 inches long and went away with approximately $200. Ultimately, the suspect hailed a cab and paid the driver in $5, the driver noting that the accused had numerous $5 bills on him. Later, the accused approached the same cab driver and thanked him for not exposing him to the police. At a later date, the accused was apprehended for walking into Family Drug Mart with his face masked and pulling out a knife while trying to steal drugs. Notably, the accused admitted during an interrogation with the police that he craved drugs on the day he went to rob the drug store. He argued that he hoped that he would not find a drug store as he did not want to commit any violation (R. v. MacCauley 2013). Conversely, he insisted that he could not recall the Esso robbery since he was high on drugs. The accused argued that he had a disturbing childhood ranging from being born to alcoholic parents to being a victim of sexual abuse.
Review of the Judge’s Decision
The accused pleaded guilty to the charges blaming his vile acts on toxicity. The suspect admitted that he was craving drugs and therefore resulting in his actions at the drug store. Moreover, he argues that he does not recall the robbery at Esso station because he was intoxicated. Therefore, he admits that he committed some of which he was unaware of due to his drug addiction (R. v. MacCauley 2013). Importantly, the accused admits that most of his crimes were connected to drugs as he was either intoxicated or they were drug motivated. Moreover, the suspect had four prior armed robbery convictions and thus influencing the judge’s decision.
In line with the totality principle, the judge outlines an eight year and three-month prison sentence. The sentence was broken down: 6 years for armed robbery at Esso, 18 months consecutive for the Family Drug Mart robbery, nine months straight for masking himself with intent, and one year concurrent on each for possession of a weapon dangerous to the peace of the public. However, having spent 77 days in pre-trial custody ensures that he was to serve eight years and 13 days. Notably, the judge outlined the need to prohibit MacCauley from possessing firearms.
Review of a Precedent Used by the Judge
The case referred to three previous cases; R. v. Hutchings, R. v. Ryan, and R. v. Lucas. Importantly, the defense submissions insisted that the case related to the details of R. v. Hutchings in that the two robberies were committed within a six days timeframe. The argument necessitated the enactment of the totality principle rule in carrying out the judgment. In the case against Lucas, there was no degree of planning as narcotics impaired the suspect. Importantly, the case led to a four-year sentence for imposed robbery. Ultimately, the case against Ryan outlined an offender who committed two crimes of armed robbery with six days from each other. Notably, the defense outline a need to enact a six-year sentence on each robbery while reducing the conviction of the second robbery to one year in line with the totality principle. Notably, the judge acknowledged the totality principle and offered a combined sentence of 13 years and three months.
Conceptual Analysis of the Judge’s Decision
The judge considered all aspects of the case ranging from the extent of the robbery offenses to the state of mind of the accused. Notably, the criminal justice service aims to ensure the attainment of justice in society. Therefore, the judge considered the totality principle aiming to offer a chance for rehabilitation for the offender. The judge accepted the argument by the counsel of the accused that the sentence for the Esso robbery should be six-year imprisonment and the sentence for the Family Drug Mart robbery should enact a similar sentence and consecutive to the Esso one. Arguably the infringement of masking oneself should enact a one-year prison sentence consecutive to the robbery. The possession of a weapon, however, entails a concurrent sentence of one year.
The sentence offered the accused a chance to present his defense and thus promoting the legal right of a fair trial. Conversely, the defendant was given the freedom to speak out thereby outlining the harsh situations dictating his choices in life. Importantly, the suspect was raised under harsh conditions through alcoholic parents who failed to offer care and issues of sexual harassment. Therefore, the judge tries to understand the cause or motive leading to the crimes by offering the suspect a chance to justify or acknowledge his acts. Furthermore, the case offers all parties the right to counsel as the accused receive counsel from Ms. Coady. The latter recognizes the need to enact a six-year sentence on all counts of robberies but outlines the need to observe the totality principle. Importantly, the judge accepts her views and arguments and ultimately uses them in the final judgment. Importantly, the case enacts legitimate expectations and gives the accused a chance to define his fate.
Conclusively, the case outlines the issues that stipulate the continuous rise in the crime rate. Importantly, the focus on the judge to acknowledge the need for rehabilitation offers preventive approaches to dealing with criminal activities and preventing them before they transpire. Importantly, the judge outlines respect for the law and values all people irrespective of their situation or condition.
Her Majesty the Queen v. William MacCauley (In the Provincial Court of Newfoundland And Labrador Judicial Centre Of St. John’s January 30, 2014). R. v. Marshall (November 26, 20