The State of New York v. Olive Oyl

Paper Summary:

This paper explores the most serious offense that the fictional character, Olive Oyl, may be exposed to in a trial for homicide. It first examines the applicable classifications used by the New York Penal Code for homicide. The facts are then applied to the code to determine which would be appropriate for a jury to be the finder of fact and the resultant crimes are ranked by seriousness. Olive Oyl's claim of justification is also contrasted to the justification in the case of Bernard Goetz, the "subway vigilante". Finally, the paper draws a conclusion regarding the availability of the justification defense for her actions.

Outline:
Abstract
Part 1. The Most Serious Crime
Part 2. - The Availability of the Justification Defense

From the Paper:

"The facts clearly state that Olive Oyl was acting in desperation to defend Popeye, the question is what are the facts surrounding this use and if the use of the justification defense is allowed under 39.15 of the Penal Code (McKinney). The justification defense is an affirmative defense to the commission of the underlying crime. It gives a legal excuse to commit a crime. The burden of proof lies with the defendant. In the case here, one has to make the assumption that Olive Oyl is guilty of homicide in one degree or another. She is making the argument that the crime for which she is guilty, hitting Bluto in the head and causing his death, was justified by the circumstances. "

Sample of Sources Used:

• McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York - Book 39 - Penal Law (1999) West Publishing.
• The People v. Bernard Goetz, New York Court of Appeals, 1986 68 N.Y.2d. 96

More papers on The State of New York v. Olive Oyl:

• Analytical Essay # 131247 : "The State of New York v. Olive Oyl"
• Book Review # 105572 : " Robert Moses and the Fall of New York City "
• Essay # 138663 : "The Geology of New York State"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: