IRAC

1
IRAC

• Issue
• Rule
• Analysis
• Conclusion

2
Organization

• Non-Linear Development
• Writing leads to better thinking to better
  rewriting
• Separating Issues
• Rules Separate the elements which one or ones
  are in question?
• Policies distinguish them to clarify each
• Case Law may have more than one meaning

3
Discuss Issues Separately p. 109

• Issue Johnson cannot use the fact that his gun
  was unloaded as a defense.
• Sub-Issue Johnson committed assault because he
  intentionally put the teller in fear of serious
  bodily injury.
• Rule State v. Hines
• Analysis State v. Hines is analogous to this
  case.
• Conclusion The unloaded gun was sufficient to
  cause the victim reasonable fear for his safety.

4
Discuss Issues Separately p. 109

• Issue Whether Johnson can use the fact that his
  gun was unloaded as a defense?
• Sub-Issue Whether Johnson committed assault when
  he intentionally put the teller in fear of
  serious bodily injury by pointing an unloaded
  gun?.
• Rule Intentionally put another in fear / State
  v. Hines
• Analysis State v. Hines is analogous to this
  case.
• Conclusion The unloaded gun was sufficient to
  cause the victim reasonable fear for his safety.

5
Assault IRAC

• Whether by pointing an unloaded gun at a teller
  to demand cash Johnson intentionally created fear
  constituting assault?
• Assault means intentionally creating fear of
  serious bodily injury or death to another. In
  State v. Hines not using a real gun was not a
  defense because the victim still experienced the
  intended fear.
• Analysis

6
Assault IRAC

• Hines is analogous to the present case because
  pressing a pencil against a blind victims back
  caused the same fear as pointing an unloaded gun
  at a bank teller neither victim knows that the
  threat is not genuine.
• In Hines the court stated that reasonable fear
  for ones safety makes it irrelevant that there
  was actually nothing to fear. Thus, . . .

7
Assault IRAC

• Thus, the policy requires judging the
  reasonableness of the fear from the perspective
  of the victim. For these reasons the court must
  conclude that the tellers fear was both
  reasonable and intended by Johnson and that the
  unloaded gun is no defense.

8
Discuss Issues Separately p. 109

• Issue Whether Johnson can use the fact that his
  gun was unloaded as a defense?
• Sub-Issue Johnson committed robbery because his
  use of the gun threatened the teller into giving
  money.
• Rule State v. Cox
• Analysis State v. Cox is analogous to this case.
• Conclusion The unloaded gun is irrelevant
  because it is a fact that does not negate an
  element.

9
Discuss Issues Separately p. 109

• Issue Whether Johnson can use the fact that his
  gun was unloaded as a defense?
• Sub-Issue Whether Johnson committed robbery when
  he used an unloaded gun to threaten a teller
  whose resulting fear caused the teller to give
  Johnson money?
• Rule State v. Cox
• Analysis State v. Cox is analogous to this case.
• Conclusion The unloaded gun is irrelevant
  because it is a fact that does not negate an
  element.

10
Robbery IRAC

• Whether a taking by use of an unloaded gun
  constitutes robbery?
• Whether Johnson committed robbery when he used an
  unloaded gun to threaten a bank teller?
• Whether Johnson committed robbery by threatening
  a bank teller with an unloaded gun into giving
  him money?

11
Robbery IRAC

• Robbery is taking by means of violence or threat
  of immediate harm. In State v. Cox such threat
  of immediate harm was achieved with a hidden
  pointed finger that frightened the victim into
  giving money.

12
Robbery IRAC

• Johnsons use of an unloaded gun is the same as
  the defendants use of a hidden pointed finger in
  Cox.
• In Cox the court found that the defendants act
  reasonably frightened the victim. Similarly,
  pointing an unloaded gun will reasonably frighten
  a victim.

13
Robbery IRAC

• Thus, the court in the present case must follow
  the same policy of judging the reasonableness of
  the threat from the point of view of the victim,
  and as the cases are analogous, so must be the
  holding the threat of immediate harm is not
  negated by the fact that the gun was unloaded.

14
(No Transcript)