Havelock v United States


The plaintiff appeals his case for errantly starting fire to the plane that was in flight and that was being managed in interstate business. A lower court trial was put aside and after consideration of proof and filing the findings, the court found the suspect guilty. The appellant states that the evidence was insufficient and the one from the hotel was immaterial and prejudicial and that they were incorrectly disclosed to the proof.

Issue statement

The issued raise is “Was the evidence sufficient to convict the appellant? The court should look to whether or not there exist circumstantial or direct evidence? The court also has to look at whether or not the inferences were reasonable or not reasonable? The court must also determine whether or not the action was intentional?


Rule of law

If the proof is appropriately declared for one reason and unacceptable for another, it does not significantly sway the ruling.


According to Worlds English Dictionary “intention” is defined as “the resolve or design with which a person does or refrains from doing an act, a necessary ingredient of certain offences” (Dictionary.com, 2011).The government presented proof to show design and scheme. The act at the hotel by the appellant must be the same in consequences and there have to be a concurrent feature that naturally explains the cause of a common plan which demonstrates themselves in the individual.  Thus the hotel and plane incidence indicate a general plan.


The court concluded that the proof was not incorrectly admitted, as all proof and situations adjacent to the event in the hotel shows sufficient common characteristics to be of value to the case. Thus it demonstrates sufficient features of a plan that started the airplane fire.

People also viewed: