Choose one of the legal situations below and construct a FIRAC paradigm analysis of the legal issue. Use only the authority (the statute or case) which is provided with the problem.

Situation #1

Joe Smith was driving from his home in Little Rock, AR, to Bentonville, AR. Traveling with him was his dachshund, Zippy. Zippy was riding in the back seat of Joe’s car. When Joe stopped at a highway rest stop, he opened the door to let Zippy take a bathroom break but did not put Zippy’s leash on. Zippy jumped out of the car and ran into the woods, and Joe was unable to find her. According to the statute and case below, has Joe committed the offense of Cruelty to Animals?

A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly abandons an animal at a location without providing for the animal’s continued care. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-62-103 (West).

An act or failure to act is “knowingly done” if done voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake or accident or some other innocent reason. Sewell v. United States, 406 F.2d 1289 (8th Cir. 1969).

Situation #2

Jimmy Jameson passed away last week. His will left everything to his oldest daughter, Matilda, and nothing to his youngest daughter, Gertrude. The will was entirely handwritten by Jimmy, with his signature at the bottom of the single page. However, there was no date written on the will. Gertrude would like to contest the will. Can she claim that the will is invalid under the statute and case below?

A holographic will is one that is entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of this state, and need not be witnessed. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 84, § 54 (West).

This section defining a “holographic will” as one entirely written, dated, and signed by testator was mandatory, and instrument testamentary in character which was entirely written and signed by testator, but was undated, was not entitled to probate as a holographic will. In re Abram’s Will, 182 Okla. 215, 77 P.2d 101 (1938).

Situation #3

On December 5, Heath Myzer was driving down I-75 outside Detroit when a Michigan State Trooper pulled him over because of a broken taillight. After writing Mr. Myzer a ticket, the officer noticed that Mr. Myzer had three freshly cut pine trees in the bed of his truck. The trees did not have tags identifying the seller. Can Mr. Myzer be cited for violating the statute listed below?

A person shall not transport within this state any plant unless each plant bears a tag placed on the plant by and identifying the person and his or her address and stating from whom the plant was acquired. This part does not apply to the sale of or the transportation by any one person of not more than two Christmas trees between November 30 and December 31 of the same year. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 324.52909 (West)