Chan v.

State
Charlie Chan is charged with theft of a 1987 Plymouth Horizon from Jessica Fletcher. Assume
theft of a motor vehicle valued at over $1,000 (grand theft auto) is a Class D Felony, and theft of a
motor vehicle valued at under $1,000 (petty theft auto) is a Class A Misdemeanor.
The prosecution presented the testimony of Chan's next-door neighbor, Frank Cannon. Cannon
testified that he saw Chan driving the car and parking the car behind his (Chan's) house. Chan
attempted to impeach Cannon with the fact that Cannon was an ex-convict, having been
previously convicted of car theft. The record showed that Cannon had been convicted ten years
ago and had served sixteen months in prison after his last conviction, so the trial judge excluded
the evidence.
Officer Joe Friday testified that he found the car in Chan's back yard. He investigated, and
arrested Chan and read him his Miranda rights. Chan then said, "I ain't saying nothing, you pigs
would just twist anything I say." Chan's lawyer objected to testimony of what Chan had said, but
the trial judge let it in.
Jessica Fletcher testified she had received the car as a gift from Joe Mannix. She testified that
the car would be worth $510 if she tried to sell it, but $2,500 if she wanted to buy a comparable
car from a car lot. On cross-examination, she testified that she got these values from the Car
Geek web page. She had no independent knowledge of the value of her car. Chan's lawyer
unsuccessfully moved to strike her testimony.
The prosecution rested. Chan's lawyer moved for a directed verdict on the felony charge on the
basis that there was no proof that the value of the car was at least $1,000. The judge denied the
motion. Chan's lawyer also made a general motion to dismiss the charges entirely.
Chan took the stand and denied having stolen the car. He testified he suspected his next door
neighbor, Cannon, was the real thief, but he couldn't prove it.
Chan proffered the testimony of Hercule Poirot and Shelby Woo that Cannon had a reputation in
the community as a car thief. The judge excluded this testimony under Rule 403.
The jury convicted Chan. Two weeks later, American Journal investigated upheaval in the used
car market and traced it to a nine year old kid who published the Car Geek web page. It turns out
that the kid had no idea of the prices of automobiles and randomly generated prices instead.
Chan's lawyer filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Toodle v. Lou.

Mr. Lou ran a stop sign and struck the vehicle in which Mr. Toodle was riding. Toodle
suffered serious injuries as a result of the accident. His medical expenses totaled $27,000.
Those medical expenses were covered by a medical insurance policy which he bought for
himself. He came to your boss for help.

Mr. Lou’s insurance company offered the limits of its liability, $25,000. Your boss
performed an investigation and an asset check and found that Mr. Lou was—to use a term of art
—a turnip.

Do you have to pay the insurance carrier out of a $25,000 settlement. Your boss seems
to remember a case involving Shelter Insurance Company and a guy named Bough or
something.

Tweedle v. Bananaberry
Bananaberry v. Consolidated Federated Ins. Co.
Hiram Tweedle is a sanitation engineer for Garbage Us, the new private waste disposal company
that has a contract with Saxon Heights, Arkansas for garbage disposal. He was at the home of O.
Julius Bananaberry, the notorious mood ring baron, to pick up the garbage, when suddenly a box
of papers fell on his head.
Hiram's medical bills were paid for by workers' compensation. He was off work for a month. He
had a ruptured disk which was repaired by surgery. He had physical therapy intermittently for
several months. He was hurt, but he got well. He returned to his job with Garbage Us. However,
now he's on a less dangerous route in nearby Gotham City.
It occurs to you that a third party claim against Bananaberry might be appropriate. You investigate
and you learn that Bananaberry told the workers compensation adjustor that he looked out the
window of his study, and dropped the box of papers to the ground. He denies having seen Hiram,
either before or after the accident. He first realized something was amiss when he went down to
throw the box into the garbage container and saw that the box was already missing.
Woford Ubiquitous, the driver of the trash truck, witnessed the accident. Hiram was going to pick
up Bananaberry's trash when a box flew out the second story window. Ubiquitous helped Hiram
to safety, then retrieved the box and kept it. He turned it over to an agent of Consolidated
Federated Mutual Insurance Company of Sweet Haven, New Hampshire.
Consolidated was not the workers compensation carrier. It must be Bananaberry's carrier.
So you call Consolidated's local office, only to be told by adjustor Snidely Whiplash that
Consolidated denies coverage. "Why?" You ask. "I can't tell you that," answers the adjustor.
Even if Bananaberry doesn't have coverage, he's a good defendant. He cornered the market on
phlogiston, the substance that makes mood rings function. With his control of most of the
phlogiston mining industry in the nation, it doesn't matter much whether he's insured. So you sue
him. You take care to furnish a copy of the complaint to the insurance company.
Instead of one of the insurance defense lawyers you're used to, Bananaberry's personal lawyer,
Jacqueline Hyde, of Runne, Laquelle, and Hyde signs the answer.
You ask in discovery, does Bananberry have coverage? You learn that Bananaberry asserts that
he has coverage under not one but two policies issued by Consolidated, but Consolidated asserts
some kind of policy defense. You request a copy of the policies. On reviewing them, you can't
figure out why in the world Consolidated isn't defending.
At every step of the litigation, you forward copies of the documentation to Consolidated.
Periodically Consolidated drops you a line that they owe no coverage in this case, but usually
they just ignore you.
You get a judgment of $50,000. It's not as much as you would have liked, but enough to make
pursuing the case worth it to you and your client.
You send the insurer a copy of the judgment by certified mail, return receipt requested. You are
again ignored.
You now have to decide whether to execute on phlogiston mines, garnish Bananaberry's lavish
income, or pursue his insurance coverage.
Thirty one days after the certified letter you sent with the judgment was received, you sue
Consolidated. Consolidated answers alleging it owed no duty to pay because of the criminal acts
exclusion in its policy.
Then Bananaberry intervenes, asserting not only that Consolidated owes the coverage and owes
him his defense costs back, but also alleging that the claim was denied in bad faith.
Throwing a box of documents out a second story window without looking may be stupid, but a
quick survey of the statutes fails to turn up an offense of Defenestration of Documents.
In discovery, you learn that the documents in the box had to do with Bananaberry's cornering the
market in phlogiston. Apparently some of the means he used to do that were in violation of the
antitrust laws. Fortunately for Bananaberry, the statute of limitations ran on the last conceivable
offense shortly before your trial.
Antitrust concerns must have been serious for Bananaberry. You learn in discovery that
Bananaberry was upset when Whiplash told him that he would be well advised to drop the claim
for coverage. Whiplash suggested that he would hate to see those papers turn up in the hands of
the Feds.
Consolidated takes the position that destruction of the evidence of his illegal business practices
constituted obstruction of justice, a crime. The policy contains this exclusion:
We do not cover any bodily injury or property damage intended by, or which may
reasonably be expected to result from the intentional or criminal acts or
omissions of, any insured person. This exclusion applies even if:
(a) such insured person lacks the mental capacity to govern his or her conduct;
******
(c) such bodily injury or property damage is sustained by a different person than
intended or reasonably expected; . . .
This exclusion applies regardless of whether or not such insured person is
actually charged with, or convicted of a crime.
Bananaberry also has a homeowners' policy. That policy contains a business pursuits exclusion
under which the insurer denies coverage The "business pursuits" exclusion of the policy provides
that the liability coverage does not apply "to bodily injury or property damage arising out of
business pursuits except activities therein which are ordinarily incident to non-business pursuits."

Bananaberry v. Robinson
Your firm represents Mr. O. Julius Bananaberry. You have been asked to sit in on the initial
meeting with the client as you will be assisting the attorney who will be assigned to Mr.
Bananaberry's case. In the course of the meeting, Mr. Bananaberry tells the following story, which
will be focus of the seminar today:
O. Julius Bananaberry was president, general manager, and sole stockholder of the Groovy Mood
Ring Company, Inc. By 1998, the Groovy Mood Ring Company (like mood rings in general), had
seen better days. The aging workforce was quickly approaching retirement age. As experienced
workers left, Mr. Bananaberry found them difficult to replace.
One day at Saxon Heights Country Club, Mr. Bananaberry met Will Robinson. Mr. Robinson was
an up-and-coming robotics engineer and computer programmer. Mr. Robinson convinced Mr.
Bananaberry that the Groovy Mood Ring operation could be automated. After considerable study
and discussion, Mr. Bananaberry and Mr. Robinson reached an agreement. Mr. Robinson would
provide new computers and machines. He would do all necessary programming. The upgrade
was completed on June 2, 1998. By the end of the year, all of the employees had retired and Mr.
Bananaberry was running the operation alone.
On Monday, January 3, 2000, Mr. Bananaberry came into his office. There -- manufactured,
packaged, and ready for shipment -- were fifty-two million mood rings. Mr. Bananaberry looked
into the factory. He saw that something had gone terribly wrong. Many machines were broken
The remaining machines were running wildly out of control. He looked into the storage room
which had once contained an ample supply of phlogiston, the active component of mood rings.
Not only was the storage room empty, but where there had once been a floor, there was now a
ten-foot-deep hole in which a robot was still desperately seeking phlogiston.
Mr. Bananaberry fainted. While he was unconscious, a UPS deliveryman arrived and dutifully
loaded the packages into his truck and left.
When he awoke, Mr. Bananaberry called Mr. Robinson to tell him what was happening. Mr.
Robinson hurried to the factory. He shut down the operation. After several hours of working on the
main computer system, he identified the problem.
The computer that ran the automated manufacturing operation used data and computer
instructions from the old system program. Thus, there was continuity between the old system and
the new one. The old program, written in COBOL by Zachary Smith over thirty years earlier, used
a two digit code for the year. When 1999 became 2000, the computer thought it was 1900. The
computer then instructed the robots to make all the mood rings for which orders had been placed.
It had essentially filled every order that the Groovy Mood Ring Company had taken since July 13,
1966.
In no instance were serviceable mood rings shipped in response to an outstanding order. The
orders were executed in chronological order. The first rings manufactured were shipped to fill
orders from the sixties and seventies. Most recipients were no longer in business, and those few
that remained had no need for mood rings. As the robots ran out of phlogiston, they used cement
from the floor and, after that was exhausted, the dirt beneath the floor. Dirt and cement do not
make functional mood rings. Shipments to businesses no longer in existence were returned. Mr.
Bananaberry had to field calls from current customers who received shipment of the substandard
mood rings.
Bananaberry has now told his tale to his lawyer, Harriet Cheatham, of Cheatham & Howe, where
you work.
Bananaberry v. State
In 1997, under fierce political pressure from the Arkansas Communist Party, the legislature
enacted laws prohibiting mopery. Mopery is the use of any construction tool for the purpose of
sexual gratification. Based on an obscure passage in a footnote in Chapter 2,368 of Das Kapital
by Karl Marx, referred to by Lenin in his pamphlet Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder,
Communists have long considered mopery a crime against the working class in that it reflects
decadent bourgeois disdain of workers' tools. Shortly after the law came into effect, videotape of
Millionaire Tycoon O Julius Bananaberry committing an unnatural act with a hammer was
provided to the Incredible Inquirer by a blackmailer. The electronic date on the videotape showed
that it was taken at 3:59p.m. two days after the new law came into effect. Reporter and part-time
deputy sheriff Freddy Engels called upon Bananaberry about the photograph. Engels identified
himself as a reporter, but did not identify himself as a law enforcement officer. When confronted
with the videotape, Bananaberry said he could not be sure of the date, but he admitted
committing the act. He was promptly arrested.
At trial, five potential jurors were members of the Communist Party. One, Wojciech Jaruzelski,
was vice-president of the Workers' and Farmers' Anti Mopery League of Chenal Valley. He was
dismissed for cause. V.I. Ulyanov and Nadezhdya Krupskaya were aware of their party's stand on
mopery but stated that they could set aside their political beliefs and be fair. Leon Trotsky was
unaware that the Party had a stand on mopery. Party member Homer Simpson was unaware of
the party's stand on anything and professed to have joined the party for the neat t-shirt with all the
guys with beards. At first he professed not to know who the guys with beards were, but on
examination by Bananaberry's counsel he testified one looked like Santa Claus and another was
probably Z.Z. Top.
Bananaberry's counsel moved to strike all four Communists on the basis of their party
membership. That motion was denied. Bananaberry then exercised his peremptory challenges
against Ulyanov, Krupskaya, and Trotsky, leaving Simpson on the jury.
The prosecution contended that the strikes were made wholly on the basis of political affiliation,
and therefore were in violation of Batson. The trial court upheld the strikes.
At trial, the prosecution played the tape for the jury and rested. Bananaberry's motion for a
directed verdict was denied.
In his case, Bananaberry introduced the testimony of a high school kid who said he'd used lots of
video cameras and you can set the dates on all of them at whatever date you choose. In spite of
the judge's surprise that video cameras could be so easily manipulated, he held that the date
shown on the tape was some evidence of the date on which it was taken.
Bananaberry was convicted. The jury recommended a fine of $3.50 and fifteen minutes
community service as punishment. The trial judge imposed the statutory minimum fine of $5,000
over Bananaberry's objection. The judge suspended the community service.
Bananaberry appeals on the jury selection issues. The State cross-appealed on its Batson
argument.

Wimpy's Wigwams v. Olive's Widget Emporium

J. Wellington Wimpy d/b/a Wimpy's Wigwams purchased twelve dozen Bluto's Waterproof
Wigwam Widgets from Olive's Widget Emporium. Not only did the factory warrant that the widgets
were waterproof, Olive restated that warranty when Wimpy told her that he intended to use the
widgets on wigwams which he intended to rent to tourists during the upcoming tourist season.
Wimpy assembled the wigwams using the widgets. Unfortunately, the widgets weren't waterproof
and leaked, rendering the wigwams worthless and costing Wimpy the tourist trade for the season.
Wimpy hired Professor O.G. Wottasnozzle to investigate the failure of the widgets. Professor
Wottasnozzle determined that the widgets were rendered water-soluble in one or more of three
ways:
1. negligent manufacture
2. exposure to forces in excess of 5 G's
3. exposure to radiation.
Barnacle Bill's investigation on behalf of Wimpy showed that the International Brotherhood and
Sisterhood of Widget Workers, Local 292, who worked at Bluto's Widget Factory, were on an
illegal wildcat strike at the time the widgets were manufactured. During the strike, Bluto replaced
the skilled widget workers with unskilled replacements from Scabs R Us. Due to the
incompetence of the replacements, the flubber used to make the widgets was improperly heated
during manufacture. Also due to the incompetence of the replacements, manufacturing was
behind schedule, so Bluto hired Popeye's Pretty Speedy Shipping Company to transport the
widgets to the local dealers, including Olive.
When the shipment arrived at Olive's, she stored the widgets next to a vat of plutonium which she
was storing for the Sweet Haven Militia.
State v. Hipp

Dionysius Hipp and twelve friends became intoxicated and unruly one Tuesday afternoon.
Deputy Sheriff Barney Rex, a fanatic for medieval history, encountered the rowdy passers-by and
ordered them to cease and desist their disruptive activities. When they refused, he went to his
squad car and retrieved a book, King George I, The Unauthorized Biography, by Simon Schuster.
He turned to page 856 and read:

Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons being
assembled immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their
habitations or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made
in the first year of King George for preventing tumultuous and riotous assemblies.
God save the King.

Hipp and his friends laughed until they could hardly breathe, but they refused to disperse, depart
to their habitations, or otherwise desist from their drunken misconduct.

Deputy Sheriff Rex called for backup, and finally managed to arrest the drunken mob and take
them into custody.

The prosecuting attorney charged them with the traditional disturbing the peace and drunk and
disorderly charges, but also charged them with violation of the Riot Act of 1715.

Hipp’s defense lawyer, after carefully researching the Arkansas Statutes, moves to dismiss the
Riot Act charges.