CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY Monte Ahuja College of Business Administration Accounting Department Fall 2016 Course Title: Business Law and Ethics Course Section: BLW 411, Section 50 ASSIGNMENT #1 Jack Brown entered a fast-food restaurant before the restaurant had opened for business through an unlocked rear entrance. The door had been left unlocked by an accomplice who was an employee of the restaurant. After entering the restaurant, Jack pushed one employee against the soda machine and, while holding a gun to the neck of the manager, forced her to open the safe. Jack then locked the employees in a cooler and fled the scene with over $5,000.00. What crimes will Jack be convicted of under the circumstances? Explain. Following his conviction, Jack was sent to the Ohio State Penitentiary. While Jack was at the penitentiary, prisoners rioted and held prison staff members as hostages. The warden agreed in writing that no reprisals would be levied against the rioting inmates. In exchange, the prisoners released the hostages. After the hostages were released, several of the prisoners were punished for the riot. Jack and another prisoner, Peter Wilson, were placed in solitary for thirty days. They also received 180 days of administrative segregation and the loss of 1,283 days of goodtime earned. Peter sued the penitentiary and the warden for breach of contract. What decision should the court reach in this matter and why? Sometime later, Jack also decided to sue the penitentiary and the warden. He retained Cynthia Johnson, an attorney, to bring a lawsuit against the penitentiary and the warden similar to the one filed by Peter. Cynthia failed to make herself aware of recently enacted legislation that shortened the statute of limitations for this type of legal action, and, consequently, she filed the complaint after the statute of limitations had run. Thus, the lawsuit was dismissed. What rights, if any, does Jack have against Cynthia? (Analysis should include (i) a brief factual background of the matter; (ii) the issue(s) to be decided in the matter; (iii) the decision ultimately reached in the matter; and (iv) the rationale for the decision). 2 PART 1 Facts of the Case: A worker at a fast-food joint left the back door unlocked so that Jack could enter before operational hours. After entering jack pushed one employee and held the manager at gun point and forced them to open the safe getting $5,000.00. Jack then proceeded to lock the employees into a cooler. Issues: 1) Did Jack commit a crime or multiple crimes? Decision: 1) Jake has committed multiple crimes of: armed robbery, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, false imprisonment, and assault. Rationale: Elements of a Crime: The Ohio Revised Code Annotated 2901.21 (A)^1 through and including (B)^2 states that a person is not guilty of an offence unless both conditions are met: \"(1) The person's liability is based on conduct that includes either a voluntary act, or an omission to perform an act or duty that the person is capable of performing; (2) The person has the requisite degree of culpability for each element as to which a culpable mental state is specified by the language defining the offense.\" In the facts of the case Jack entered the back door and forced his way to the safe to take the money fulfilling condition (1). Jack prearranged with an accomplice to have the back door unlocked with the intent to go through with the crime fulfilling condition (2). Elements of Robbery The Ohio Revised Code Annotated 2911.02 (A)^3 through and including (C)^5 states that no person attempting or committing a theft offense shall do any of the following: \"(1) Have a deadly weapon on or about the offender's person or under the offender's control; (2) Inflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten to inflict physical harm on another.\" In section (B)^4 states that whoever violates this section is guilty of robbery and if (1) and (2) are both committed it is a felony of the second degree. Section (C)^5 defines \"deadly weapon\" from Ohio Revised Code Annotated 2923.11 (A)^6 as any \"instrument, device, or thing capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon.\" In the facts of the case Jack had a handgun and put it on the neck of the manager forcing them to open the safe. Jack also pushed another employee when entering the building inflicting physical harm. Jack fulfilled both criteria with his actions. Elements of Aggravated Burglary: According to Ohio Revised Code Annotated 2911.11 (A)^7 through (B)^8 No person shall trespass a structure when someone other than an accomplice us present with a purpose to commit a crime. If they do and inflict physical harm or have a deadly weapon they will guilty of aggravated burglary and it is a felony of the first degree. In the facts of the case, Jack entered the building with the intent to take money from the safe while workers were present. Elements of Kidnapping: The Ohio Revised Code Annotated 2905.01 (A)(2)^9 notes that no person by force can remove another person from where they are found to facilitate the commission of any felony. In the facts of the case, Jack forcefully locked the employees into the cooler against their will. Elements of False Imprisonment: According to the case of JOHN FRAZIER v. CLINTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al.^10 false imprisonment essential elements are \"(1) the intentional detention of the person, and (2) the unlawfulness of the detention.\" In the facts of the case, Jack did both of these elements by locking the employees into the cooler and the detention of the employees is unlawful. Elements of Assault In accordance with Ohio Revised Code Annotated 2903.13 (A)^11 through (B)^12 no person shall knowingly or recklessly cause physical harm to another. In the facts of the case, Jack knowingly pushed an employee when entering the store. Theft Over $5,000 In The STATE of Ohio v. Lang^13 Lang was originally convicted from a second-degree felony to third degree because of being sentenced for both robbery and theft. The theft was in excess of $5,000. The State found that Lang could only be charged with the robbery because the two crimes are allied and you can only charge someone once for the one crime. In the facts Jake committed the robber and theft of over $5,000. Because these two crimes are allied and are the same crime he can only sentenced for one. 1 ORC Ann. 2901.21 (A) 2 ORC Ann. 2901.21 (B) 3 ORC Ann. 2911.02 (A) 4 ORC Ann. 2911.02 (B) 5 ORC Ann. 2911.02 (C) 6 ORC Ann. 2923.11 (A) 7 ORC Ann. 2911.11 (A) 8 ORC Ann. 2923.11 (B) 9 ORC Ann. 2905.01 (A)(2) 10 JOHN FRAZIER v. CLINTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., OURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLINTON COUNTY, 2008-Ohio-6064; 2008 Ohio App. 11 ORC Ann. 2903.13 (A) 12 ORC Ann. 2903.13 (B) 13 The STATE of Ohio v. Lang, Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, Hamilton County,102 Ohio App. 3d 243; 656 N.E.2d 1358; 1995 Ohio App. PART 2 Facts of the Case: Peter was sentenced to Ohio State Penitentiary where a riot broke out with the prisoners holding staff members as hostages. The warden agreed in writing that nothing would happen to the inmates if they were to release the hostages. After the hostages were released the warden punished inmates, Peter being one of them. Peter was put into solitary for thirty days, 180 days of administrative segregation and a loss of 1,283 days of goodtime earned. Issues: 1) Was there a contract between the warden and the prisoners? 2) If so, did the warden breach the contract? Decision: 1) The contract made between the warden and inmates was not valid. 2) Because the contract was not valid, the warden did not breach. Rationale: Elements of a Contract: As noted in PERLMUTER PRINTING CO. v. STROME, INC.^8 \"contract is generally defined as a promise, or set of promises, actionable upon breach. Essential elements of a contract include an offer, acceptance, contractual capacity, consideration, (the bargained for legal benefit and/or detriment), a manifestation of mutual assent and legality of object and of consideration.\" In the facts if the case the warden made the offer of a contract in writing. This offer had serious intent by the warden to be bound to the agreement, reasonable definitive terms and was properly communicated to the inmates. The inmates accepted that offer of the contract by performance when they released the hostages to the warden. The next element is capacity and both parties have the mental ability to understand their rights and obligations under the contract. In this bilateral contract there is consideration because both parties are giving a promise for a promise. The next element is legality. The contract that was being made between the prisoners and warden was not legal. The inmates were holding the prison staff members hostage, which is false imprisonment and kidnapping. As noted in Rogers v. Barbera^9 \"False imprisonment is defined by statute as the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.\" The Ohio Revised Code Annotated 2905.01 (A)(1)^10 says that no person by force shall remove a person from where they are found for the purpose of a hostage. The last part of a contract that needs to stand is genuine decent. The warden made the contract under duress for the safety of the employees. Because the inmates had the lives of the staff members, it made the inmates a dominant party forcing the warden into a contract. The contract would be able to be voidable because the prisoners were partaking in an unlawful act and the warden was under duress. 8 PERLMUTER PRINTING CO. v. STROME, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION, 436 F. Supp. 409; 1976 U.S. Dist. 9 Rogers v. Barbera, Supreme Court of Ohio, 170 Ohio St. 241; 164 N.E.2d 162; 1960 Ohio 10 ORC Ann. 2905.01 (A)(1) PART 3 Facts of the Case: Jack a prisoner at the Ohio state penitentiary retained Cynthia Johnson an attorney to bring a lawsuit against the penitentiary. Cynthia failed to learn the new legislation on the statute of limitations on the subject matter. The lawsuit was filed past the time frame that it needed to be and was dismissed. Issues: 1) Does Jack have the right to sue Cynthia for a legal malpractice claim? 2) Can Jack still file the lawsuit? Decision: 1) Jack has the right to sue Cynthia for legal malpractice liability. Rational: Elements of Legal Malpractice Liability In the case of Vahila et al. v Hall et al.^10, it is noted that, \"To establish a cause of action for legal malpractice based on negligent representation, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the attorney owed a duty or obligation to the plaintiff, (2) that there was a breach of that duty or obligation and that the attorney failed to conform to the standard required by law, and (3) that there is a causal connection between the conduct complained of and the resulting damage or loss.\" In the facts of the case, Cynthia was rendered by Jack for her duty to represent him. It is her responsibility to stay up to date with the current legislation. When the lawsuit was not filed in a timely matter she breached her duty to Jack. 10 Vahila et al. v. Hall et al., SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, 77 Ohio St. 3d 421; 1997Ohio-259; 674 N.E.2d 1164; 1997 Ohio