The original case before it went to the Supreme Court was State v. Fish and Hubbard. A fight broke out between Fish and a man named Miller in a bar in Black Eagle, Montana. Fish was with a woman named Skelton who called her brother Hubbard to help. Hubbard also brought his friend Lodge to help in the fight. Miller left the bar and Skelton, Fish, Hubbard and Lodge decided to go to Millers house directly. Miller’s fiancé got home and Fish, Hubbard and Lodge heard Miller speaking to her. Fish, Hubbard and Lodge walked up to Millers house yelling at him and saying they were going to finish the fight. Miller grabbed a shotgun inside the house and shot through the door striking Lodge in the throat. Fish and Hubbard ran away from the house, but then Hubbard came back to the house. Hubbard and Miller got into a fight over the rifle in which Hubbard ended up with the rifle and shooting Miller. Miller and Lodge both died in the incident.
In the case State v. Hubbard in 1982 the defendant was being charged with negligent homicide. He pled guilty to the charges and was sentenced ten years for negligent homicide and five years for use of a weapon to commit the negligent homicide. The defendant appealed the sentence. He had signed a plea bargain with the knowledge that there …show more content…
There were no errors in the sentencing. The Supreme Court had past cases to support their decision on the appeals. The statue does not say a sentenced cannot be enhanced when a weapon is used in a negligent homicide. There was no sufficient evidence to prove the defendant was in duress or that he was denied due process rights. The judge and the psychiatrist committed no errors in testimony during the trial. Also the there was no statue saying the sentences should be reserved concurrently and that it is not a decision for this court to make and should be redirected to another court. Overall, I agree with the final decision in affirming the courts
In the case State v. Hubbard in 1982 the defendant was being charged with negligent homicide. He pled guilty to the charges and was sentenced ten years for negligent homicide and five years for use of a weapon to commit the negligent homicide. The defendant appealed the sentence. He had signed a plea bargain with the knowledge that there …show more content…
There were no errors in the sentencing. The Supreme Court had past cases to support their decision on the appeals. The statue does not say a sentenced cannot be enhanced when a weapon is used in a negligent homicide. There was no sufficient evidence to prove the defendant was in duress or that he was denied due process rights. The judge and the psychiatrist committed no errors in testimony during the trial. Also the there was no statue saying the sentences should be reserved concurrently and that it is not a decision for this court to make and should be redirected to another court. Overall, I agree with the final decision in affirming the courts