Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

 Regina v. Onufrejczyk

1 All E.R. 247 (1955)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...

 Regina v. Onufrejczyk

English Court of Criminal Appeal

1 All E.R. 247 (1955)

Facts

Onufrejczyk (defendant) and Sykut co-owned a farm that was struggling financially. There was evidence that the two had been fighting about the administration of the farm and its future. Onufrejczyk wanted to buy out Sykut but did not have enough money. In mid-December, Sykut disappeared, and he was never found. Onufrejczyk was the last person known to have seen Sykut alive and was charged with Sykut’s murder. The prosecution (plaintiff) presented evidence that around the time of Sykut’s disappearance, Onufrejczyk told someone and wrote letters stating that Sykut had returned to his native Poland for two weeks. There is no other evidence that this occurred. At the same time, when asked about Sykut’s disappearance by law enforcement, Onufrejczyk told them that Sykut had been kidnapped on December 18. However, a sheriff had gone to the farm on the evening of December 18, and Onufrejczyk had told the sheriff that Sykut had gone to a doctor. There is no other evidence that Sykut actually went to this doctor. The prosecution also presented evidence that Onufrejczyk asked a friend to impersonate Sykut at one point during this time period. Finally, there was evidence that Sykut had taken a horse to a blacksmith on December 14. The blacksmith testified that Onufrejczyk later tried to convince him to say that Sykut had actually taken the horse on December 17—a date by which the prosecution claimed Sykut was dead. The trial court permitted the jury to convict Onufrejczyk based on this circumstantial evidence despite no body having been recovered. The jury did so. Onufrejczyk appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lord Goddard, C.J.)

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 616,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 616,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 616,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,400 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership