People v. Allweiss (1978)

US Criminal Law

People v. Allweiss
‘Greenwich Village at Night’ by Amy Stewart

Circumstantial evidence of crimes committed beyond the realm of an immediate offence, can be used to support the conviction of a defendant, but only when such information demonstrates an overwhelming similarity to that used in the matter at hand, as was found in a truly disturbing case involving multiple rapes and eventual murder of an innocent victim that instead chose to fight back during her ordeal.

Sometime in 1977, the appellant was indicted and convicted of second degree murder in the New York County Supreme Court, following the stabbing and strangulation of what was to be his seventh victim in less than six months.

Upon his appeal in the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, the appellant argued that in the absence of any witnesses, and with its verdict resting solely upon the witness testimony of his six previous rape victims, there was insufficient grounds to sustain his conviction beyond a reusable doubt.

In response, the court first turned to People v. Molineux, in which the New York Court of Appeals had held that:

“[W]hen evidence of an extraneous crime is admissible to prove the crime for which a defendant is on trial, it is not necessary to prove every fact and circumstance relating to the extraneous crime that would be essential to sustain a conviction thereof.”

And so in order to ascertain the weight of evidence before them, the court went on to note that in each of the previous six rapes, the appellant had (i) informed the victims that his alleged wife or fiancée had been recently attacked and injured, (ii) seized his victims by the throat, (iii) threatened his victims with a knife, (iv) made physical contact with their lingerie collection, (v) forced his victims to wear specifically chosen underwear, and (vi) stolen property from their apartments after raping them.

While on this occasion, the victim had screamed out for help, a resistance which resulted in the appellant strangling her with her own underwear before wounding her with a knife multiple times, both of which, while different in their effect, bore very close resemblance to his previous methodology, and to which the appellant contested that in People v. Goldstein the New York Court of Appeals had later held that:

“[E]vidence that defendant committed other or similar offenses is not admissible to prove his guilt of the crime for which he is being tried. One may not be convicted of one crime on proof that he probably is guilty because he committed another crime.”

However the court rightly determined that in addition to the circumstantial similarities shown by the six previous rapes, there was also compelling witness testimony as to the appellant’s voice pattern, and his whereabouts both before and after the offence discussed, and so with little hesitation the court upheld the supreme court conviction in full, while holding that:

“Another crime or crimes of the defendant are not admissible to establish that the defendant committed the crime charged where the only connection between the crimes is a similar modus operandi. If, however, the modus operandi is sufficiently unique logically to point to the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime charged, evidence of the other crimes is admissible.”

Queensland Mines Ltd v Hudson (1978)

Australian Equity & Trusts

Queensland Mines Ltd v Hudson
‘Three Miners’ by Josef Herman

While the strictness of fiduciary duties within a corporate entity are prime examples of greed overshadowing obligation, this particular case demonstrates the need for contextual adjudication when examining the seemingly selfish actions of those shouldering such burdens.

Having been appointed managing director of a company designed to pursue mining opportunities within the Australasian continents in 1958, the respondent was later sued for breach of duty when obtaining coal and iron ore mining licences from the Tasmanian government by way of his position.

In the first instance, the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales found in favour of the appellants, although legal recourse was unavailable due to its commencement beyond the statute of limitations, and so upon appeal to the Privy Council, the council was compelled to review the findings of the supreme court, while dissecting the sizeable case material used.

Here the council found that although the respondent had been serving as a director at the time negotiations had begun, it was also evident that a severe loss of capital over the preceding years had resulted in the respondent placing the company in ‘stasis’ whilst seeking alternative funding to carry out the work should they eventually receive the licences.

In addition to this, it had been made expressly clear by the board of shareholders following the receipt of the licences in 1961, that they no longer had any financial interest in the company, and that the appellant was free to pursue the benefits arising from the mining of the land available. 

However in March 1962, the appellants had also sold their existing interest in the company to a third party for the sum of £2500, and so despite any claim of breach, they had by all accounts financially, contractually and orally divorced themselves from the company and those still remaining, and so when establishing the fiduciary parameters required for such a case, the council turned to Boardman v Phipps, in which Cohen LJ had held that:

“[I]t does not necessarily follow that because an agent acquired information and opportunity while acting in a fiduciary capacity he is accountable to his principals for any profit that comes his way as the result of the use he makes of that information and opportunity.”

And so basing their judgment on the strength of Boardman the council noted that not only had the respondent been transparent in his dealings with the Tasmanian government and the appellants, but that the appellants themselves had unequivocally shown their disinterest both in the value of the company and the actions of the respondent prior to their departure; and so with little hesitation the council dismissed the appeal while holding that:

“[A] limit has to be set to the liability to account of one who is in a special relationship with another whose interests he is bound to protect.”