People v. Carpenter
Michigan Supreme Court
627 N.W.2d 276 (2001)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
James Carpenter (defendant) ran onto the porch of Audrey Thomas’s home and crashed through a window, brandishing a handgun. Carpenter fired two shots in the general direction of Thomas and her date, Aron Blakely. Thereafter, Carpenter hit Blakely in the face and hit Thomas with the butt of the handgun. Carpenter fled to his home, which police officers subsequently surrounded. A police negotiator spoke by telephone to Carpenter, who yelled and talked about demons and money that was stolen from him. Eventually, police arrested Carpenter. The State of Michigan (plaintiff) charged Carpenter with first-degree home invasion and two counts of assault with intent to commit murder. At a bench trial, a psychologist testified that Carpenter had diminished capacity at the time of the offenses. The psychologist said that Carpenter had previously been hospitalized for mental illness, suffered from drug-induced organic brain damage, and heard voices. In rebuttal, a psychologist for the prosecution testified that Carpenter was not psychotic at the time of the attacks. The trial court rejected Carpenter’s diminished capacity defense and convicted him of first-degree home invasion. The jury acquitted Carpenter on the attempted murder charges. Carpenter appealed. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Michigan granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Young, J.)
Dissent (Kelly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
