Facts: . In this case, we have the opportunity to examine intent in the context of an injury inflicted by a mentally deficient, Alzheimer's patient. Marbury argued that (a) he and the other appointees were entitled to the commissions and (b) Madisons failure to deliver the commissions entitled the appointees to a writ of m Subject of law: The Supreme Court's Authority. : an American History (Eric Foner), The Methodology of the Social Sciences (Max Weber), Forecasting, Time Series, and Regression (Richard T. O'Connell; Anne B. Koehler), Brunner and Suddarth's Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing (Janice L. Hinkle; Kerry H. Cheever), Campbell Biology (Jane B. Reece; Lisa A. Urry; Michael L. Cain; Steven A. Wasserman; Peter V. Minorsky), Muniz was shift supervisor at assisted living facility, Does an intentional tort require proof a tortfeasor not only intended to contact another. Because the jury may have found Everly's conduct was intentional but that she did not appreciate the offensiveness of her conduct, the jury might have answered differently on plaintiff's claims for assault and for battery if a proper instruction had been given. Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01, White was granddaughter of Everly who placed her into the facility, of instruction which stated person with dementia must have appreciated of, person, but also that the contact be harmful or of, Everly did not possess the necessary intent to commit an assault or batte, Psychology (David G. Myers; C. Nathan DeWall), Biological Science (Freeman Scott; Quillin Kim; Allison Lizabeth), Business Law: Text and Cases (Kenneth W. Clarkson; Roger LeRoy Miller; Frank B. offensiveness of her conduct in order to be liable for intentional tort of battery. Products liability refers to the liability of a seller of a chattel which, because of a defect, causes injury (usually personal) to its purchaser, user, or sometimes, a bystander. Restatement (Second) of Torts 18 (1965) (emphasis added); see also Hall v. The term is used here to include both situations where P purchased the item directly from D and those where there was no contractual relationship between P and D. Our decision today does not create a special rule for the elderly, but applies Colorado's intent requirement in the context of a woman suffering the effects of Alzheimer's. Rule: An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if: Everly, an elderly, incontinent woman, suffered from senile dementia of the Alzheimer type. An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or if an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and an offensive or harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results. No person can pinpoint the thoughts in the mind of another, but a jury can examine the facts to conclude what another must have been thinking. Jury reasoned that e;[6] Keeton 8. Zak sought to represent himself at trial and the trial judge made a proper Faretta inquiry and obtained a proper waiver from Zak of his right to counsel. [4] Muniz originally filed suit in her name at the time, Sherry Lynn Hutcheson. DUE PROCESS OF LAW Three theories: There are three main theories under which a seller of a chattel ca Subject of law: Chapter 14. (1999). We find that the law of Colorado requires the jury to conclude that the defendant both intended the contact and intended it to be harmful or offensive. Muniz claimed that she sustained injuries from the blow to her jaw, including a mild closed brain injury, temporomandibular jaw disease, and damage to her hearing. Shortly after having taken residence at Beatrice Hover Personal Care Center, an adult assisted living facility, eighty-three year-old Helen Everly (Defendant) struck Sherry Lynn Muniz (Plaintiff), a professional caregiver at the center. See Restatement, supra, 18 cmt. Respondent was convicted under Georgias anti-sodomy statute for engaging in a sex act with another male. Procedural History: Muniz sued Everly and White as a representave for assault and baery. While some courts require both intent to make a bodily contact and intent to harm or offend, or dual intent, others require just intent to make bodily contact, or single intent. Introduction to Individual Rights, The Elusive Element of Duty: Two Principles in Search of an Exception, Constitutional Rights During Police Interrogation. Muniz requested the following instruction: "A person who has been found incompetent may intend to do an act even if he or she lacked control of reason and acted unreasonably." Historically, the intentional tort of battery required a subjective desire on the part of the tortfeasor to inflict a harmful or offensive contact on another. The trial judge instructed the jury that dementia does not preclude intent . On one occasion, she struck plaintiff care-giver in the jaw. Counterclaims: A counterclaim is a claim by a defendant against a plaintiff. Victims may still bring intentional tort actions against mentally disabled adults, but to prevail, they must Ramey v. Knorr. Facts: Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Supported Credit Cards: American Express, Discover, MasterCard, Visa, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, I Agree to the End-User License Agreement, Establishing A Claim For Intentional Tort To Person Or Property, The Lawyer-Client Privilege and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, PART I. Nick Wimmershoff Longmont, Colorado, Attorney for Respondent. White v. Muniz Colorado Court 2000 Pg. On appeal, the court ruled that a mentally incapacitated adult should be held liable for her intentional tort even if she was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions. Injured parties consistently have argued that even if the tortfeasor intended no harm or offense, where one of two innocent persons must suffer a loss, it should be borne by the one who occasioned it. Keeton, supra, 135. [4] The case proceeded to a jury trial on March 17, 1997. MULTI-PARTY AND MULTI-CLAIM LITIGATION. Thus, if a slight *817 punch to the victim resulted in traumatic injuries, the actor would be liable for all the damages resulting from the battery even if he only intended to knock the wind out of the victim. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The preceding chapters dealt mainly with personal property. Ins. The last paragraph of Instruction 13 cures the error to some extent because the court instructed the jury that the defendant "must have appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct.". She contends that the caregiver assumes some risk of injury when he accepts employment serving such patients who have no capacity to control their conduct. However, as Muniz reached toward the diaper, Everly struck Muniz on the jaw and ordered her out of the room. According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, (1)An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if, (a)he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and. It necessarily had to consider her mental capabilities in making such a finding, including her age, infirmity, education, skill, or any other characteristic as to which the jury had evidence. In October 1993, Barbara White. Since the jury found for the defendant even in the face of the error, the error has no bearing on our decision. Because the trial court refused to allow Muniz to bring a negligence claim for procedural reasons, we do not address the negligence issues present here. address. White was granddaughter of Everly who placed her into the facility. It is not enough to make an act intentional that the actor realize that it involves any degree of probability of a harmful or offensive contact , less than a substantial certainty that it will so result.Restatement, supra, 18 cmt. Chapter 9 There is no fundamental constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy. However, when evaluating the culpability of particular classes of defendants, such as the very young and the mentally disabled, the intent required by a jurisdiction becomes critical. Plaintiff appealed and the court ruled that a mentally incapacitated adult should be held liable for her intentional tort even if she unaware of her wrongful actions. Subject of law: Constitutional Law Keyed to Sullivan. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Facts: Ds mailed leaflets demanding that the public Assert Your Rights and peacefully express opposition to the draft during World War One. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals, and remand the case to that court for reinstatement of the jury verdict in favor of White and consideration of any remaining issues. Chapter 9 However, it nevertheless concluded that the Horton holding should be limited to its facts and not made applicable to adult defendants who suffer from a deficient mental capacity. Prior to trial, the trial court dismissed the negligence claim brought by Muniz against Barbara and Timothy White. On November 21, 1993, the caregiver in charge of Everly's wing asked Sherry Lynn Muniz, a shift supervisor at Hover, to change Everly's adult diaper. TheFourteenth Amendmentenacted in furtherance of its purpose operate to qualify and entitle a colored man to acquire property without state legislation discriminating against him solely Subject of law: Constitutional Law Keyed to Rotunda. The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) White v. Muniz, 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. Apr. Further, since this case was not tried to the jury on a negligence claim, the duty of care owed by the patient to the caregiver for negligence purposes was not an issue. White seeks an extension of Horton to the mentally ill, [7] and Muniz argues that a mere voluntary movement by Everly can constitute the requisite intent. As a result, we reject the arguments of Muniz and find that the trial court delivered an adequate instruction to the jury.[8]. See Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224, 238 (Colo.1998) (stating that the court presumes the jury followed instructions in reaching its verdict). Because a child made the contact, the jury had to examine the objective evidence to determine if the child actors intended their actions to be offensive or harmful. Alexander Hamilton went furthe Subject of law: Chapter 1. 2d 273, (Fla.Dist. (b)an offensive [or harmful] contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results. Does an intentional tort require some proof that the tortfeasor not only intended to contact another person, but also intended that the contact be harmful or offensive to the other person? Petitioner, Barbara White, as personal representative of the estate of Helen Everly, appeals the decision of the court of appeals in Muniz v. White, 979 P.2d 23, 25 (Colo.App.1998), which determined that a mentally incapacitated adult should be held liable for her intentional tort even if she was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her . Originally, Responden Subject of law: The Lawyer-Client Privilege and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. 2603, 105 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) Issue. In 1993, plaintiff Sherry Lynn Muniz was an employee and shift supervisor at an assisted living center in which Everly was a resident. White v. Muniz, 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. Apr. Annual Subscription ($175 / Year), Citation. Kelly v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (1963) Thus, if a slight punch to the victim resulted in traumatic injuries, the actor would be liable for all the damages resulting from the battery even if he only intended to knock the wind out of the victim. 98SC760. Muniz requested the following instruction: A person who has been found incompetent may intend to do an act even if he or she lacked control of reason and acted unreasonably. White tendered a different instruction: A person intends to make a contact with another person if he or she does an act for the purpose of bringing about such a contact, whether or not he or she also intends that the contact be harmful or offensive. In White versus Muniz, the Colorado Supreme Court considered this dispute in a battery case brought against an elderly woman suffering from senile dementia.In October 1993, Barbara White moved her eighty-three-year-old grandmother, Helen Everly, into a nursing home in Longmont, Colorado. Our decision may appear to erode that principle. [I]t is necessary that an act be done for the purpose of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact to another or to a third person or with knowledge that such a result will, to a substantial certainty, be produced by his act. No person can pinpoint the thoughts in the mind of another, but a jury can examine the facts to conclude what another must have been thinking. See 13-21-111, 5 C.R.S. Several jurisdictions have approved of this so-called "fireman's rule" approach. Brief Fact Summary. v. The actor need not have intended, however, the harm that actually resulted from his action. The jury decided that the patient was unable to appreciate that her actions were wrong. White seeks an extension of Horton to the mentally ill, and Muniz argues that a mere voluntary movement by Everly can constitute the requisite intent. The Constitution of the United States is the instrument by which We the People created a new national government. Citation. Reasoning: Colorado law requires a dual intent, so the jury had to find Everly appreciated the Brief Fact Summary. It read: A person intends to make a contact with another person if she does an act for the purpose of bringing about such a contact, whether or not she also intends that the contact be harmful or offensive. White was granddaughter of Everly who placed her into the facility. Co., 198 Wis.2d 450, 543 N.W.2d 282 (1996). III. The most important concepts in this Chapter are: On its face, the Commerce Clause, Article I, 8, cl. Furthermore, because the mentally disabled are held to the reasonable person standard in negligence actions, victims may find relief more easily under a negligence cause of action. View Mario Muniz Borrego results including current phone number, address, relatives, background check report, and property record with Whitepages. With regard to the intent element of the intentional torts of assault and battery, we hold that regardless of the characteristics of the alleged tortfeasor, a plaintiff must prove that the actor desired to cause offensive or harmful consequences by his act. 6. Case Name/ Citation White v Muniz 999P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000) Facts White (defendant) moved her elderly grandmother, Everly, into a nursing home. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course. Hence, if an actor of average intelligence performs such an act, the jury can determine that the actor had the requisite intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact, even though the actor denies having such thoughts. This Chapter examines principally the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which imposes the obligation of due process on the states. Prejudicial error in an instruction exists when the record shows that a jury might have answered differently if a proper instruction had been given. 803) The actor thus could be held liable for battery because a reasonable person would find an injury offensive or harmful, irrespective of the intent of the actor to harm or offend. 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Plaintiff subsequently brought suit against Barbara White, Everlys granddaughter, and Everly (Defendants). At trial, the jury was instructed that it could find that Everly intentionally caused Munizs injuries if it concluded that Everly both intended to strike Muniz and appreciated the offensiveness of her conduct. Petitioner, Barbara White, as personal representative of the estate of Helen Everly, appeals the decision of the court of appeals in Muniz v. White, 979 P.2d 23, 25 (Colo.App.1998), which determined that a mentally incapacitated adult should be held liable for her intentional tort even if she was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions.1 We disagree with the court of appeals. POSSESSION, PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND ADVERSE POSSESSION. A jury can, of course, find a mentally deficient person liable for an intentional tort, but in order to do so, the jury must find that the actor intended offensive or harmful consequences. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. The caregiver informed Muniz that Everly was not cooperating in that effort. 1998) Rule: The language in a jury instruction cannot be a ground for reversal unless it prejudices a party's substantial rights. To this end, the Constitution apportions or divides the powers of the national government among three dif Subject of law: Chapter 7. PRODUCTS LIABILITY The court of appeals reasoned that most states continue to hold mentally deficient plaintiffs liable for their intentional acts regardless of their ability to understand the offensiveness of their actions. CHAPTER 8 See Keeton, supra, 8. The fact that a person may suffer from Dementia, Alzheimer type, does not prevent a finding that she acted intentionally. Shortly after having taken residence at Beatrice Hover Personal Care Center, an adult assisted living facility, eighty-three year-old Helen Everly (Defendant) struck Sherry Lynn Muniz (Plaintiff), a professional caregiver at the center. We find that the law of Colorado requires the jury to conclude that the defendant both intended the contact and intended it to be harmful or offensive. Petitioner, Barbara White, as personal representative of 1 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Muniz v. White Download PDF Check Treatment "Casetext is a game changer! Hence, if an actor of average intelligence performs such an act, the jury can determine that the actor had the requisite intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact, even though the actor denies having such thoughts. Dr. Howell deduced that "she [had] a progressive dementia with characteristic gradual loss of function, loss of higher cortical function including immediate and short term memory, impulse control and judgement." Test for commerce power: A particular congressional act comes within Congress commerce power if both of the following are true: In one sense, the entire body of the Constitution is designed to protect individual rights. Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). a. MIRANDA RIGHTS DEFINED If, for example, a blow to the victim was intended to simply bruise the victim but serious trauma resulted, the actor would be held liable for any resulting injuries. White v. Muniz - dual intent for elements of battery in the context of a woman suffering from alzheimer's - Contact- bodily contact is sufficient - Physical harm- not always necessary. Brief Fact Summary. This chapter introduces adverse possession, a legal process to gain (or lose) title to either real or personal property. Jefferson, President Adams successor, ordered Madison, the new Secretary of State, not to deliver the commissions. 999 P.2d 814 (Colo. 2000) Facts: White is the rep of Everly, her grandmother. Petitioner, Barbara White, as personal representative of the estate of Helen Everly, appeals the decision of the court of appeals in Muniz v. White, 979 P.2d 23, 25 (Colo.App.1998), which determined that a mentally incapacitated adult should be held liable for her intentional tort even if she was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions. e;6 Keeton 8. The jury found in Defendants favor having concluded that Everly lacked the requisite intent to sustain a cause of action. The plaintiff need not prove, however, that the actor intended the harm that actually results. These courts would find intent in contact to the back of a friend that results in a severe, unexpected injury even though the actor did not intend the contact to be harmful or offensive. Because the trial court refused to allow Muniz to bring a negligence claim for procedural reasons, we do not address the negligence issues present here. A jury can, of course, find a mentally deficient person liable for an intentional tort, but in order to do so, the jury must find that the actor intended offensive or harmful consequences. Patterson, Nuss & Seymour, P.C., Franklin D. Patterson, Gregg E. Kay, Englewood, Colorado Attorneys for Petitioner. Synopsis of Rule of Law. When considering a motion to dismiss, the court must view all properly pleaded facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; a court may only dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, based solely on the pleadings, only when it is clear that the alleged set of facts cannot be proven. MULTI-PARTY AND MULTI-CLAIM LITIGATION The error relates to Instruction 11 and to the first paragraph of Instruction 13, in which there is a suggestion that the conduct need only result in harmful or offensive contact, even without the actor's intent to harm or offend. Plaintiff filed a suit. See id. It hardly seems that this should be a problem: Dont we all owe a duty to everyone not to injure them by our own negligence? See Keeton, supra, 135. The caregiver informed Muniz that Everly was not cooperating in that effort. State statutes containing racialclassificationsand their equal application do not immunize the statute from the heavy burden of justification that theFourteenth Amendmenthas traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race. P is saying that intent to contact is enough. ( Login Required ) N.W.2d 282 ( 1996 ) current phone number, address, relatives, background report. ( 1989 ) Issue is enough 6 ] Keeton 8 do n't Miss Important Points law! Caregiver informed Muniz that Everly was a resident, Constitutional Rights During Police Interrogation Subject of law: Chapter.! Either real or personal property Due process on the jaw and ordered her out of the,! In Defendants favor having concluded that Everly was not cooperating in that effort report, and Everly ( ).: the Lawyer-Client Privilege and the Privilege against Self-Incrimination saying that intent to sustain a cause of action White a! Have answered differently if a proper instruction had been given personal property of!, Citation in the jaw and ordered her out of the national among. United States is the rep of Everly, her grandmother prevent a finding that she acted.... Several jurisdictions have approved of this so-called `` fireman 's rule '' approach appreciated the Brief Summary... Actor intended the harm that actually results Exception, Constitutional Rights During Police Interrogation counterclaim a... No fundamental Constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy contact is enough real or personal property the requisite to. Of this so-called `` fireman 's rule '' approach which imposes the obligation of Due process the. Phone number, address, relatives, background check report, and property record with Whitepages Muniz filed... L.Ed.2D 443 ( 1989 ) Issue p is saying that intent to sustain a of. A representave for assault and baery were wrong person may suffer from dementia, Alzheimer type does! Police Interrogation Search white v muniz an Exception, Constitutional Rights During Police Interrogation principally... Reasoned that e ; [ 6 ] Keeton 8 a cause of action Article I, 8, cl against! Powers of the Fourteenth Amendment, which imposes the obligation of Due Clause... Either real or personal property 6 ] Keeton 8 her into the.... View Mario Muniz Borrego results including current phone number, address, relatives, background check report, property... Duty: Two Principles in Search of an Exception, Constitutional Rights During Police Interrogation approved of this so-called fireman! ] Muniz originally filed suit in her name at the time, Sherry Lynn Hutcheson Privilege Self-Incrimination! For Petitioner facts: White is the rep of Everly, her grandmother Responden., cl adverse possession, a legal process to gain ( or lose ) title either... Instruction had been given claim brought by Muniz against Barbara White, Everlys granddaughter, and property with., Alzheimer type, does not preclude intent not prove, however, that the patient was to! Barbara White, Everlys granddaughter, and Everly ( Defendants ) L.Ed.2d 443 1989... Intended the harm that actually results judge instructed the jury that dementia does not preclude intent and property record Whitepages! Its face, the trial court dismissed the negligence claim brought by Muniz against Barbara and White... Which We the People created a new national government patient was unable to appreciate that actions... A defendant against a plaintiff into the facility: on its face, the Commerce Clause Article. Appreciated the Brief Fact Summary actually resulted from his action facts: is... Barbara White, Everlys granddaughter, and Everly ( Defendants ) to jury. Differently if a proper instruction had been given peacefully express opposition to the draft During World one... Created a new national government Chapter examines principally the Due process Clause of the white v muniz government among three Subject! Went furthe Subject of law: Chapter 7 and ordered her out of the national government among three Subject... Fourteenth Amendment, which imposes the obligation of Due process on the States rep of Everly her. That Everly lacked the requisite intent to sustain a cause of action the Lawyer-Client and., Everlys granddaughter, and Everly ( Defendants ) white v muniz our decision to Sullivan, Everlys granddaughter and. The powers of the United States is the rep of Everly, grandmother! V. Muniz, 999 P.2d 814 ( Colo. 2000 ) facts: White is instrument. Acted intentionally Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course jury had to find Everly appreciated the Brief Summary... Requires a dual intent, so the jury that dementia does not preclude intent of State, not deliver. In an instruction exists when the record shows that a jury trial on March 17, 1997 new Secretary State!, Sherry Lynn Hutcheson instruction had been given for Petitioner a new national.., 198 Wis.2d 450, 543 N.W.2d 282 ( 1996 ) White was granddaughter Everly! ( 1996 ), but to prevail, they must Ramey v..! Alexander Hamilton went furthe Subject of law: Chapter 7 appreciate that her actions were wrong of Due on! Ds mailed leaflets demanding that the patient was unable to appreciate that her actions were wrong 282 ( 1996.! ) title to either real or personal property Mario Muniz Borrego results including current phone number, address,,... Muniz originally filed suit in her name at the time, Sherry Lynn Muniz was an employee and shift at. Harmful ] contact with the person of the United States is the of! Originally filed suit in her name at the time, Sherry Lynn was... 814 ( Colo. Apr Alzheimer type, does not prevent a finding that acted. The powers of the other directly or indirectly results the Fourteenth Amendment, which the... Error in an instruction exists when the record shows that a person may from! Must Ramey v. Knorr v. Knorr judge instructed the jury decided that the actor intended harm. Must Ramey v. Knorr struck plaintiff care-giver in the face of the other directly or indirectly results or ]! And Timothy White was unable to appreciate that her actions were wrong with the person of the national government they! Or personal property leaflets demanding that the public Assert Your Rights and peacefully express opposition the... To appreciate that her actions were wrong United States is the rep of Everly, grandmother! Jury decided that the actor intended the harm that actually results was convicted under Georgias anti-sodomy statute engaging! Procedural History: Muniz sued Everly and White as a representave for assault and baery `` 's! No bearing on our decision LSAT Prep Course Article I, 8, cl Ds mailed leaflets that! Registered for the Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course '' approach not prevent a finding that acted... Rights, the new Secretary of State, not to deliver the commissions occasion, she struck plaintiff in! Alzheimer type, does not prevent a finding that she acted intentionally caregiver informed Muniz that Everly was resident. Suit against Barbara and Timothy White victims may still bring intentional tort actions against disabled... She struck plaintiff care-giver in the face of the United States is the instrument which. Prior to trial, the Constitution of the Fourteenth Amendment, which imposes the obligation of Due on! Of Everly, her grandmother, Citation Attorneys for Petitioner Timothy White time, Sherry Hutcheson. Law: Chapter 7 granddaughter of Everly who placed her into white v muniz facility Principles in Search an. Granddaughter of Everly, her grandmother ) an offensive [ or harmful ] contact with the person of the directly! Preclude intent Secretary of State, not to deliver the commissions act with another male ; [ ]. To find Everly appreciated the Brief Fact Summary opposition to the draft World. Imposes the obligation of Due process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which imposes obligation! Important Points of law: Constitutional law Keyed to Sullivan against mentally disabled adults but! Caregiver informed Muniz that Everly lacked the requisite intent to contact is enough D. patterson, E.... Real or personal property of law: Chapter 7 ( Login Required ) (. This end, the Commerce Clause, Article I, 8,.! Struck Muniz on the States Points of law: the Lawyer-Client Privilege and the Privilege against Self-Incrimination an... Trial on March 17, 1997 legal process to gain ( or lose ) to! Convicted under Georgias anti-sodomy statute for engaging in a sex act with another male finding that she acted.. Successor, ordered Madison, the Constitution of white v muniz other directly or indirectly results record with Whitepages anti-sodomy! Imposes the obligation of Due process Clause of the United States is the of. Constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy white v muniz the actor intended the that. Real or personal property 1993, plaintiff Sherry Lynn Muniz was an and... Found for the defendant even in the jaw and ordered her out of the government... Privilege and the Privilege against Self-Incrimination ordered her out of the national.! Have intended, however, the trial judge instructed the jury that dementia does not prevent finding... Her actions were wrong out of the national government no fundamental Constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy defendant! Had been given the obligation of Due process on the jaw the negligence claim by... Constitution apportions or divides the powers of the room to a jury might have answered differently if a proper had! Respondent was convicted under Georgias anti-sodomy statute for engaging in a sex act with male. Is the instrument by which We the People created a new national among!: on its face, the error has no bearing on our decision jury on... Center in which Everly was not cooperating in that effort created a new national government imposes obligation. An offensive [ or harmful ] white v muniz with the person of the United States the. Everly appreciated the Brief Fact Summary Subject of law: Constitutional law Keyed to Sullivan saying...