The following is a law case study. It’s used for explaining aspects of civil law

The following is a law case study. It’s used for explaining aspects of civil law

Dusty was indicted for the crime of robbery. At trial, the victim testified, identifying Dusty as the person who robbed him and identifying a watch belonging to him as having been taken in the robbery. The arresting officer testified that the watch was found in Dusty’s pocket at the time of his arrest. Dusty testified that he purchased the watch at a pawn shop and that he was at Ben’s Bar at the time of the crime, but no witness testified in support of his alibi. Dusty’s attorney had served a notice of alibi, but had not served any discovery demands in connection with the robbery charge. Dusty was convicted of the crime.

 

One afternoon, while out on bail awaiting sentencing, Dusty visited Ben’s Bar. The bartender recognized Dusty and told him he was sorry to hear of Dusty’s conviction. The bartender told Dusty that the police had come to the bar investigating the robbery, and that he told the police that Dusty was in the bar at the time of the crime. Although the investigating officer had given his file containing the notes of his conversation with the bartender to the district attorney prosecuting the case, the district attorney had never read the notes, was unaware of their existence, and had not disclosed the bartender’s statement to Dusty’s attorney.

 

After Dusty had consumed several drinks, the bartender told Dusty that he would not serve Dusty any more alcoholic beverages because Dusty was intoxicated, and that heshould go home and sober up. Dusty left the bar and began walking home, when he encountered Metz, a person unknown to him. Angry and frustrated by his conviction and without provocation, Dusty shoved Metz who fell into the road. Dusty proceeded to kick Metz in his head, rendering him unconscious. Dusty then walked away, leaving Metz unconscious and lying in the road. A few minutes later, a car driven recklessly by Logan struck and killed Metz.

Dusty was thereafter indicted for the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when, with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person.

 

(1) Does Dusty have grounds to have his conviction for robbery overturned based on the bartender’s undisclosed statement?

(2) Without regard to his intoxication, is Dusty guilty of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree?

(3) How might Dusty’s intoxication be used in his defense to the crime of manslaughter in the first degree?