Warning

Info

Table of Contents
ErieAndSpooky, HLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Pope v. State

(1979)

Court of Appeals of Maryland - 396 A.2d 1054, 284 Md. 309

tl;dr:

Woman fails to stop or report child abuse, found not guilty because moral, not legal obligation

Video Summary


Case Summary

The legal case in question dealt with the crime of misprision of felony, which means intentionally hiding a felony one did not participate in. The case revolved around Joyce Pope, who saw a mentally ill mother killing her baby and did nothing about it. Pope was found guilty of child abuse and misprision of felony but appealed both convictions.

The court decided that Pope wasn't guilty of child abuse, as she had no legal responsibility to look after the child. They also overturned the misprision of felony conviction, stating that the law was outdated, unclear, and didn't align with current criminal law principles. They argued that the law hadn't been used in Maryland for over 100 years, lacked clear guidelines, and violated the right to be presumed innocent and the right to remain silent.

The court observed that there were other ways to address not reporting or preventing crimes, such as obstruction of justice or being an accessory after the fact. This case stands out because it removed an old and subjective law, emphasizing the importance of legal duty and constitutional rights within the realm of criminal law.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Pope v. State

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Pope v. State case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingPope v. State case brief facts & holding

Facts:Melissa Norris, a young mother with an infant, suffered from...

Holding:Regarding the third count: The relevant statute has two prongs,...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Pope v. State case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Pope v. State | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Orth, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The Court of Appeals reversed Joyce Lillian Pope's conviction for misprision of felony and ordered the Circuit Court to acquit her on the third count and dismiss the fifth count. The court clarified that the child abuse statute in Maryland applies to persons who stand in loco parentis to a child, based on their assumption of care, custody, or responsibility for the child's supervision. Acts of hospitality and kindness should not subject a Good Samaritan to criminal prosecution for child abuse. The court upheld the conviction of the mother for child abuse, stating that the cause of an injury may include an act of omission, such as the mother's failure to seek medical assistance for her child. The legal case of Sykes lacks a clear rule for what the accused must know to be charged with misprision. Non-disclosure won't be justified by close family or personal ties for serious offenses.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Pope v. State case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part), author: Eldridge, J
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The author disagrees with the court's interpretation of the child abuse statute, which limits its scope to those with parental consent. They argue that the statute should cover anyone with custody, care, or supervision responsibility for a minor child, regardless of parental consent. The author also disagrees with the court's interpretation that a person who takes a lost child into their home cannot be charged with child abuse, even if they abuse the child during that time. The author believes that the language of the statute is clear and should be interpreted broadly to cover all those who have responsibility for a child. They argue that the court's interpretation violates principles of statutory construction and ignores a previous case that summarized these principles.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Pope v. State case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Pope v. State case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Pope v. State

Chat for Pope v. State
brief-331
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.