Connection lost
Server error
Smallwood v. State Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An HIV-positive man raped three women without a condom. The court reversed his attempted murder convictions, finding that knowingly exposing victims to HIV, without more evidence, is insufficient to prove the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that for crimes requiring a specific intent to kill, the act of exposing a victim to HIV is not, by itself, sufficient to infer that intent. The prosecution must present additional evidence demonstrating the defendant’s specific purpose was to cause death.
Smallwood v. State Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Dwight Ralph Smallwood knew he was HIV-positive and had been counseled on the necessity of practicing safe sex to avoid transmission. Over a five-day period, Smallwood, along with an accomplice, robbed and raped three different women at gunpoint. During each of the sexual assaults, Smallwood did not wear a condom. He threatened to kill the victims if they did not cooperate or if they reported the crimes. Smallwood was charged with numerous offenses, including three counts of attempted second-degree murder and one count of assault with intent to murder, based on his exposing the victims to HIV. The trial court convicted him on these charges, inferring a specific intent to kill from the act of engaging in unprotected sex while knowingly infected with HIV. Smallwood appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he possessed the requisite specific intent to kill.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a specific intent to kill, the required mens rea for attempted murder and assault with intent to murder, be inferred solely from a defendant’s act of engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse with victims while knowing he is infected with HIV?
No. The court reversed the convictions for attempted murder and assault with Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident,
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can a specific intent to kill, the required mens rea for attempted murder and assault with intent to murder, be inferred solely from a defendant’s act of engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse with victims while knowing he is infected with HIV?
Conclusion
This case sets a significant precedent by requiring evidence beyond the mere Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco lab
Legal Rule
The crimes of attempted murder and assault with intent to murder require Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugi
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the distinction between recklessness and specific intent. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint oc
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A specific intent to kill, required for attempted murder, cannot be