How is a Mnemonic Device (The M is Silent) Of Value In Legal Analysis?

The following is an excerpt from my book, Disbarment, which explains the use of a mnemonic device as a helpful too for legal analysis primarily for law students.

"I'm sure some of you are familiar with the mneumonic device, I-R-A-C," the professor's voice broke through, "And for you spelling buffs that spelled with a silent `m.'. This stands for Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion. As we study different cases, I will use it as a guide toward analyzing a case or problem. It will be a big help." The gray-haired lecturer picked up a typewritten sheet from his desk and blared with a show of glee, "What I am about to tell you is a gem! Feed this into your mental computer," he said as the corners of his mouth further broadened in a smile, "Always analyze your facts, sift them, weave them, work them, look for the subtleties, and make damn sure you get your analysis in your answer." His voice ended still bellowing, using the paper in his hand as a banner which he flagged in a sweeping motion.

Now bringing the paper to eye level, he said, " Listen to these facts: A man named Anderson, with the intent of stealing, walks into a grocery store at night, pulls out a gun, and forces the proprietor to give him $49.00 in the cash register and then flees. What common law crimes and what state crimes did Anderson commit, applying I-R-A-C?" The professor looked up. "I shall now supply you the answer." He began to read: "(ISSUE) (RULE) Has Anderson committed common law burglary, larceny, robbery and/or assault under the facts of the case? The elements of the burglary at common law involved the act of breaking and entertaining another's dwelling at night with the criminal intent to commit a felony in the dwelling. (APPLICATION) Applied to the facts of the case, common law burglary could not be established. Entry by breaking must involve force or other improper means and neither is present. Also the 'dweging' at common law generally required that some part of the structure be customarily used for sleeping. (CONCLUSION) Since the 'breaking' element and the `dwelling' element are not present, Anderson has not committed common law burglary. (RULE) (Comment: Most states have expanded the crime of burglary. The breaking requirement has been abolished by many states and now makes any structure with walls and a roof subject to burglary. Thus, under most state laws, Anderson's acts would be sufficient to establish the crime of burglary.) The elements of larceny at common law involved the taking and carrying away of another's property with criminal intent or knowledge and the specific intent to deprive the victim of his property permanently. (APPLICATION) Clearly, Anderson's act of taking the $49.00 with the intent to steal the property would constitute common law larceny, a felony in the early stages of the common law. (Comment: In most states larceny is only a felony if the property is worth more than a specified (RULE) amount. $50.00 is a common dividing line in many states, and therefore larceny for $49.00 would be a misdemeanor, denominated 'petty larceny' in most states). The elements of robbery at common law included the act of larceny from or upon a person or in the presence of the victim, accompanied by force or threats of grievous harm. The victim was present in the store and Anderson's use of a gun constitutes a threat of grievous harm. Furthermore, Anderson acted with criminal intent and intended to permanently deprive the victim of his property. (CONCLUSION) Anderson has committed the common law crime (RULE) of robbery. Finally, assault at common law required the act of an attempt to commit a battery (unlawful touching of the victim) with accompanying intent. (APPLICATION) Anderson's threatening gestures with the gun would not be sufficient to establish assault at common law. (Comment: Most states now recognize assault where a person puts another in reasonable fear of an immediate battery with criminal intent or knowledge. Under this expanded notion of assault, Anderson's conduct constituted assault.) (ISSUE) A further issue is whether or not Anderson can be (RULE) convicted for multiple crimes for the same conduct. At common law a person committing both a felony and a misdemeanor could be convicted only of the felony. The misdemeanor 'merged' into the felony. (APPLICATION) Thus a party committing a robbery, involving larceny, and an assault could only be convicted of either robbery or larceny. Most courts refuse to allow convictions of both an offense and a lesser included offense (CONCLUSION) So, if Anderson were convicted of robbery he would not be prosecuted for larceny, which is a lesser-included offense. `Well, lordy, lordy, I sure have been talking. It's time for the first break. Gentlemen, and lady," Professor Andrews nodded toward the still rigidly posed lone female in the class, "take ten minutes." Prepared by Jerry Sonenblick author, of the fictional legal thriller, Disbarment, which depicts a nefarious lawyer's betrayal to his clients, and another lawyer's maximum exercise of moral courage to overcome his misdeeds

-JS

#bookexcerpt