I think it would be difficult for the prosecution to form an argument off of my points. The prosecution admitted that they don’t argue that Ms. Stephens is a victim of abuse, but rather is not suffering from battered woman syndrome. Once I use all of my witnesses and explain how Ms. Stephens is a clear case of battered woman syndrome, I think they will have a difficult time arguing that considering she clearly has every sign and symptom. The only argument I think they can use would be that because Mr. Stephens went to take a nap, Ms. Stephens could have just called the police and not shot him herself. I think members of the jury may also agree with this purely on the basis that those who aren’t victims of abuse can easily have the mindset that
In this case due to the very general nature of the battered woman syndrome given from the expert and Heather there was no error in the directions given to the jury. 3. Significance This particular case is quite significant as it raised a fair bit of awareness about domestic violence and violence against women. The use of ‘the battered woman syndrome’ as a defense linked to self-defense, and the publicity surrounding the case meant that the general Australian public was exposed to the issue. As a result of the case, a feminist activist group called “The Release Heather Osland Group” fought for the emancipation of Heather, any other women in a similar situation to her and a change in legislation making ‘the battered woman syndrome’ an legal defense.
Additionally, she and the victim were both outside when the accident occurred, as opposed to the mother in Krysmalski. R9. Mazzagatti v. Everingham by Everingham provides Ms. Nordlund with the strongest
Mr. smith on october 23,2015 mr. smith (victim) i have evidence that u killed the defendent mr.holland and nothing but the truth and nothing but the truth now put your right hand on the bibe and lets get started. now i going to be asking u some questions like how it happend but the passage quot that u was “waking u screaming”the old man said, he was scared something would come get him or some and, it was like he was painicking. there was a dripping from the roof and he thought the police would here the sound bc he had hidden the body under the wood floor.and the the police was still searching and they could’t find nothing then the victim was scared at the moment. Mr.smith was acting like he was insane.
Based on the precedents set by cases that came before it, the court should have absolutely no choice but to dismiss the assault charge against Mr. Smith because no permanent injury was inflicted- or intended- upon his wife, Mr. Smith has the duty of disciplining his wife when she is unruly, and the precedent set forth by many previous cases indicate that domestic issues should be left to the family government. This case should be dismissed before going to court because no permanent damage was inflicted upon Mr. Smith’s wife and there is no evidence to suggest he intended to inflict any permanent injury. There are several past cases that justify dismissal in these grounds, including Joyner Vs. Joyner, State Vs. Black, and State Vs.
Shane’s assessment was corroborated by descriptions of battered woman syndrome in various forms of literature, helping the jury understand the extent of Lavallee’s mental state that was affected by the abuse and the reasons for her action. After reviewing the evidence, the Court stated that “ Expert testimony is admissible to assist the fact-finder in drawing inferences in areas where the expert has relevant knowledge or experience beyond that of the lay person” (R v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 SCR 852), because this applied to the jury’s process in deciding, by allowing them to understand the components of battered woman syndrome. Furthermore, a new trial would be unnecessary because the Court reasoned that both the jury and the trial judge were presented with enough admissible evidence to know that Lavallee was battered repeatedly and brutally by Rust throughout their relationship.
The Assault of the Delivery Man Regina vs. Mattachioni is a case of assault causing bodily harm. This is a criminal law issue which was dealt with and ruled over by Justice De Filippis. Mr. Mattachioni violated section 267 of the Criminal Code when he punched the complainant Mr. Michael Humphrey. The two men had begun arguing after a parking in an invalid spot.
Rusk appealed the decision saying to be convicted of rape, he would have had to have used force or or without the consent of the victim which he said none of those things happened. The appellate court found not enough evidence to prove Pat was a victim of rape and overturned the conviction. The prosecutor then appealed that decision by the court and was sent to the Maryland Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that threats of force need not be made in an particular manner in order to put a person in fear of bodily harm (Brody and Acker, 2010). One of the judges even emphasized the absence of “force, or violence, or anything that would lead you to believe that this act was done against somebody’s will or consent (Suk, 2012).
Emma Hodges Topic 2A Defense of Mr. Smith While Mr. Smith is accused of assault, we can see that this is not true when we examine the precedent set in State v. Black. To examine both cases it is important to first know the circumstances of each. In State v. Black, the wife started a fight in which the husband, after much provocation, dragged her to the floor by her hair. In Mr. Smith’s case, his wife initiated an argument, within earshot of the couple’s eight-year-old child and a neighbor’s child, over the family’s finances and her husband’s drinking. Mr. Smith, overwhelmed by his wife’s screaming, threatened to hit her unless she stopped.
After further review of this case we see that Mr. Rico Gray (the estranged husband) was the criminal and not Ms. Alexander. In the moment of the incident, I do not believe that Ms. Alexander acted rational or was logic but acted out of fear and weariness. Her actions where the result of wanting to survive and she this is a classic case of someone who has been abused fighting back. People who are exposed to domestic violence often experience physical, mental or spiritual shifts that can endure and worsen if they are not
History of this case: The accused, Ms. Angelique Lyn Lavalee was in common law relationship with victim, Kevin Rust, for around 3-4 years between years 1983-1986. Their relationship was marred with violence, domestic physical intimidation, abuse and instances of woman-battering of Angelique at the hands of her abusive and brutal partner, Rust. Things took such a violent turn that it is alleged that Lavalee feared for her very life and safety at the hands of her stronger, abusive and violent partner, Rust, who threatened and humiliated her off and on, both mentally and physically and which also required numerous hospitalization visits for the accused on several occasions for treatment and medication for wounds inflicted on her by her abusive
She also says that “every time he came home, I was afraid there would be a beating” and that “he beat [her] at least once a week, although sometimes often more than that”. This shows the commonness and regularity of the abuse. Although it could be helpful to show the jury the severity of the abuse, I would not pressure her to discuss it because it’s likely uncomfortable for her and she would obviously not want to talk about her abuse to strangers. She also can provide another element to battered woman syndrome in that Mr. Stephens would force isolation between Ms. Stephens and her family and friends. In her affidavit she explains that Mr. Stephens would not allow her to have anything to do with her family and even put a lock on the phone to prevent her from calling them.
Fact Pattern Extra Credit Connie: - Had subjective fear - Self-defense - Vernon: - Attempted simple rape - Battery - Kidnapping (asportation) Vernon may try to argue that Connie had attempted voluntary manslaughter because of him having to be hospitalized due to a hard blow to the head but according to adequate provocation Connie could have countered that by saying Vernon’s actions strongly provoked her to act. Also she could use the self-defense claim because of the acts that happened before it got to the point in which she had to hit him. Connie may also try to claim that she went to go get her gun and shot him due to a “heat of passion” killing but that wouldn’t apply because she was able to get herself together and leave the room in
First, let’s start with the prosecution witnesses. They called a neighbor, police officer, and professional psychiatrist. The neighbor was called to attest to Mary’s character and party life style. It helped show that she made bad decisions and had poor judgment at times, but it does not equate to murder. Not everyone who drinks kills their baby.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, today you will hear my argument on why Verna should not be convicted of murder. It all starts during Vernas childhood. She faced a great deal of traumatic events that affected her social and emotional development. As an adolescent's you have an increase in brain development, when suffering a trauma it causes major structural components of the central nervous system that can stunt or change your emotional and social behaviors. When Verna was going through development she faced a lot of trauma, her father left as a young child, she was raped, she got pregnant, she was sent away from her home, she lost her baby and her ability to have kids.
Social work practitioners are involved and aware of all social justice issues in the world today. Domestic Violence is just one major social justice issue which has become more prominent in the world. According to Royal College of Nursing (2013), domestic violence is an incident involving controlling and violent behaviour between intimate partners and/or family members. It also involves physical and emotional abuse. A practitioner working in the field of domestic violence can apply different theories in order to present the best possible outcome for the service user.