Case Studies

1. a) Grunet was intoxicated while driving causing him to speed and kill someone b) The victim walked into the street randomly, and so he could not stop his car in time to not hit her and his vision was affected from the snow banks and trees so he couldn’t try and move around to miss her. c) Grunet should be charged because he was intoxicated while driving causing him to speed even though he had no intention of killing/harming anyone. Although he says the trees and snow banks blocked his vision, we cannot rely on this because he was intoxicated and his vision was already affected. Even though the victim randomly walked into the street, perhaps if he hadn’t been speeding or intoxicated this accident could have been avoided. Even though he had no intention of killing/harming anyone. d) I think that there should be a greater charge on drinking and driving especially when it causes death. A huge reason for why Grunet hit the woman was because he was intoxicated, causing him to speed because of his affected judgment, and blurry vision. The accident could have been avoided. He should be charged with murder, drinking and driving, and speeding.

2. a) Yes, he should have known or at least figured it out because there were many clues and indications that Bill and Rod were very suspicious and never had any documentation of purchasing the items. They were very secretive about themselves, never gave the warranty and disappeared many times and even with his money. b) I think he should be charged with having them in his possession, because although he was unaware that they were stolen, there is a lot of evidence indicating that the items were suspicious as well as Bill and Rod. Hart even says so himself, that he became confused about the price of the TV. He shouldn’t get charged for stealing the items but should get charged for being very