Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Burrows v. State

Arizona Supreme Court
297 P. 1029 (1931)


Facts

When he was 18 years-old, Richard N. Burrows (defendant) and a friend, Milton Drucker, left their military school in Wisconsin to travel across the country. With $55 in cash, the boys left in a car belonging to Drucker’s parents and headed west. When they had reached Phoenix, Arizona, they were stopped by the police at the request of Drucker’s parents. Drucker’s mother claimed Milton and left the state. Burrows’ adopted parents, in an effort to teach him a lesson, left him in Phoenix to fend for himself. In an effort to return to his hometown of Chicago, Burrows hopped onto a train and made it as far as Aguila, Arizona. There, Burrows learned that he was heading in the wrong direction, towards Los Angeles, California. Burrows was able to get a ride from Jack Martin who was heading to Phoenix. While en route to Phoenix, Martin began drinking intoxicating liquor. When they had stopped at a gas station about 55 miles from Phoenix, the attendant suggested that Burrows drive because Martin appeared to be too intoxicated. Martin agreed. Burrows had driven the vehicle a few miles before shooting and killing Martin. Burrows took money from Martin, hid his body in a creek and drove on to Phoenix. Burrows was later apprehended in Denver, Colorado and returned to Arizona. Burrows was charged with first-degree murder. At trial, Burrows testified that shortly after leaving Aguila, Martin had forced Burrows to drink liquor and if he refused, that Martin would not drive him to Phoenix. Burrows said he feared being left on the side of the road and thus complied. At the time of the shooting, Burrows testified that he was so dazed due to the liquor he had consumed that he did not realize he had shot Martin. Burrows was found guilty of first-degree murder, sentenced to death, and he appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Lockwood, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.