Pope v. Netherland
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
113 F.3d 1364 (1997)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Marcie Ann Kirchheimer and her sister Cynthia Gray were driving in Cynthia’s car when they met Carlton Pope (defendant) and agreed to drive him to his home. When they arrived, Pope pulled a gun and demanded that they give him all of their money. When the women failed to immediately respond, Pope shot Cynthia in the head, and then shot Marcie in the head when she attempted to grab the gun from him. Pope fled, and Marcie was able to drive the car to the hospital, where Cynthia was pronounced dead and Marcie was treated. After the shooting, Marcie found that her purse, which had been in between the front seats within Pope’s view, was missing. Pope was convicted of capital murder. Pope appealed, claiming that he had taken the purse prior to the shootings and therefore should have been found guilty of larceny, not robbery, which would not support a capital-murder charge. The state supreme court upheld his conviction. Pope appealed in federal court alleging that the conviction violated due process because it retroactively applied a novel and unforeseeable interpretation of the capital-murder statute. The district court granted a writ of habeas corpus to Pope, and the state of Virginia appealed, acting through a state warden, J.D. Netherland (plaintiff).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Butzner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.