| dbo:abstract
|
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991), is a United States Supreme Court decision that explained which charges need to be explained to the jury in trials for felony murders. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 2785 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-02-27 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:case
| |
| dbp:concurrence
| |
| dbp:cornell
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-06-21 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
| |
| dbp:findlaw
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- Schad v. State of Arizona (en)
|
| dbp:holding
|
- Robbery is not a lesser included offense of felony murder predicated on robbery, and so Beck v. Alabama does not require a jury instruction on robbery when a defendant is charged with felony murder. Because jurors need not agree on the mode of commission of an offense, Arizona may classify both premeditated murder and felony murder as first-degree murder and require that jurors unanimously agree only that first-degree murder was committed, rather than that felony murder or premeditated murder was committed. (en)
|
| dbp:joindissent
|
- Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy ; Scalia (en)
|
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
| |
| dbp:litigants
| |
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dct:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991), is a United States Supreme Court decision that explained which charges need to be explained to the jury in trials for felony murders. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- (en)
- Schad v. State of Arizona (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
