Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) - 16 Cal. 4th 953, 67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 16, 941 P.2d 1203

HMA v Rutherford 1947. murdered strangling woman—> woman tried suicide; asked him—>obliged—>tie snapped; after death—>reported it; marks—>substantial attack—>argued didn't mean to kill—>guilty; Relates to: consent (murder), HMA v Harris 1993. doorman at club—> threw woman down stairs—>hit car In 1947, there was the HMA v Rutherford case. There was also the Smart v HMA case. Two persons were brawling in the street and the defence was that the person who came off worse consented to it. HMA v. Rutherford 1947 SLT 3. Broadley v. HMA 1991 SLT 218 the mens rea which is required is ‘intention’: this has been summed up as ‘wicked intent HMA v Rutherford 1947: Case of assisted suicide, mens read of intention to murder was not satisfied but guilty of culpable homicide. Death is casually linking to an assault, but may not be the foreseeable outcome of the assault. Woman collapsed and died after minor assault. Accused convicted of culpable homicide. HM Advocate v Rutherford 1947 JC 1 established that consent is no defence to a charge of murder. In Smart v HM Advocate 1975 SLT 65 the accused's appeal against a conviction to assault was rejected, despite the victim having consented to a "square go." Rutherford V The United States Trial. Complete text of 1918 trial of J.F. Rutherford and 7 other leaders of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (later known as Jehovah's Witnesses) for violating the Espionage Act.

HM Advocate v Rutherford 1947 JC 1 established that consent is no defence to a charge of murder. In Smart v HM Advocate 1975 SLT 65 the accused's appeal against a conviction to assault was rejected, despite the victim having consented to a "square go."

HM Advocate v Rutherford (1947) SLT 3. Jessop v Johnstone 1991 SCCR 238. Kay v Butterworth (1945) 61 TLR 452. Lord Advocate’s Reference No.2 of 1992 (1992) SCCR 960. MacLeod v Mathieson (1993) SCCR 488. R v Quick (1973) QB 910. Ross v HM Advocate (1991) SCCR 823. Sorley v HM Advocate (1992) SCCR 396. Books In H.M. Advocate v. Rutherford 1947 J.C. 1 at pp. 5–6, Lord Justice-Clerk Cooper directed the jury that, if life was taken under circumstances which would otherwise infer guilt of murder, the crime did not cease to be murder merely because the victim consented to be murdered, or even urged the assailant to strike the fatal blow. Opinion for Rutherford v. Harris County Texas, 197 F.3d 173 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

HM Advocate v Rutherford (1947) SLT 3. Jessop v Johnstone 1991 SCCR 238. Kay v Butterworth (1945) 61 TLR 452. Lord Advocate’s Reference No.2 of 1992 (1992) SCCR 960. MacLeod v Mathieson (1993) SCCR 488. R v Quick (1973) QB 910. Ross v HM Advocate (1991) SCCR 823. Sorley v HM Advocate (1992) SCCR 396. Books

Both the opinion of the court in Smart and the directions of the Lord Justice Clerk (Cooper) in HM Advocate v Rutherford 1947 JC 1 made it clear that consent provided no defence because the act constituting the assault or murder was committed with intent to harm. That principle had no application to the present circumstances. criminal law (m9111) weeks 10: 2016/17 homicide introduction this week and next week we will be looking at the law on homicide. criminal non-criminal homicide HM Advocate v Rutherford 1947 JC 1 Charged with murder by strangulation, said she had asked to be strangled, guilty of culpable homicide, could be inferred that a person is presumed to intend natural and probable consequences of his actions.