Connection lost
Server error
State v. Standiford 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: A man convicted of murder for a brutal stabbing challenged the jury instructions on the required mental state. The court affirmed, clarifying the modern statutory elements for second-degree murder, especially “depraved indifference,” and formally abandoned the archaic common law term “malice aforethought.”
Legal Significance: The case formally abandons the archaic “malice aforethought” standard for murder in Utah, replacing it with precise statutory mental states. It establishes a clear, heightened standard for “depraved indifference” murder, requiring a knowing creation of a “highly likely probability of death.”
State v. Standiford 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
Fred W. Standiford was convicted of second-degree murder for the fatal stabbing of Hisae Wood, who sustained 107 stab wounds. On the night of the murder, Standiford and a friend had twice purchased cocaine from the victim. Standiford later went out alone and returned with more cocaine. After the victim’s body was discovered, Standiford confessed to the killing but claimed self-defense, asserting the victim had attacked him with a gun. He admitted to washing the knife, wiping his fingerprints, and taking a bag of cocaine and the gun (which was never found) from the scene. A witness testified that several days prior, Standiford had mentioned it would be easy to kill the victim and take her belongings. At trial, the defense argued that Standiford’s drug intoxication negated the requisite mental state for murder, presenting evidence of a possible toxic cocaine psychosis. The prosecution countered that Standiford acted with intent or, alternatively, with depraved indifference to human life.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the trial court err by instructing the jury based on the specific mental states for homicide defined in the modern criminal code rather than the common law concept of “malice aforethought,” and did it properly define the elements of “depraved indifference” murder?
No, the trial court did not commit prejudicial error. The conviction was 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 des
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
Did the trial court err by instructing the jury based on the specific mental states for homicide defined in the modern criminal code rather than the common law concept of “malice aforethought,” and did it properly define the elements of “depraved indifference” murder?
Conclusion
This decision is a key precedent in Utah for modernizing homicide law 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 ci
Legal Rule
For a second-degree murder conviction, jury instructions must be based on the 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.
Legal Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court undertook a significant clarification of the state's homicide 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 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. Excepteu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Disapproves using the archaic term “malice aforethought” in second-degree murder instructions,