https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/12/195.html

After reading the following legal brief, in a short answer paper of no more than two paragraphs, explain to me why / why not Thompson's defense had a legal argument for Legal /Factual Impossibility as a defense. You are being asked to VOID his conviction in this case, this is an actual appeal. Remember, in looking at legal / factual impossibility, it requires that the act itself could not have been carried out factually. Such as not being able to factually kill an already dead person. The question in this case is that the Prosecution argues that Thompson believed he was raping a live woman, and in this case, because the woman died during a rape, it is Felony Murder and carries life. On the other hand, Defense argues that Thompson factually could not have raped the woman, because she was factually dead during the attempted rape. One of the major questions is, what did Thompson know and when did he know it. In essence, Thompson argues he should be guilty of Second Degree Murder because he had no Pre-Meditation. Prosecution argues that Thompson decided to rape the victim and she died during the attempt. Because she died during a pre-meditated and violent Felony, Felony Murder rule applies in CA. MAKE SURE that you explain using FACTS from the case why you would / would not uphold or overturn this decision. Tell me you whether you would sustain or (uphold) the verdict or would overturn the verdict based on the evidence? Legal Imposs Case (Student).pdfDownload Legal Imposs Case (Student).pdf Minimize File Preview