Mckinny's Penal Law Case

1515 Words7 Pages

Mr. Matthew’s is being accused of Assault in the Third Degree, due to a confrontation he had with Mr. Russo. Under McKinney’s Penal Law § 120.00(1) a person is guilt of Assault in the Third Degree when with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person”. N.Y. Penal Law § 120.00(1) (McKinney 2009). In our case Mr. Matthew’s clearly has intent because after making contact with Mr. Russo he said “that’s what you get for screwing with me”. The disputed issue is whether Mr. Russo suffered from physical injury due to Mr. Matthew punching him in the face. There would not be substantial pain in this situation because it was nothing more than a petty slap, and Mr. Matthew’s motivated to …show more content…

Messier is the Defendant’s motive for attacking the Plaintiff. Mr. Matthew was upset and just acted out of meanness in response to Mr. Russo’s alleged rip off, but the Defendant in People v. Messier had other motives. The Defendant broke into the Plaintiff’s home and committed a burglary, which would no longer suffice the definition given in In the Matter of Philip A., which discussed the motive to show insufficient grounds for substantial harm should be derived from meanness or hostility. Id.; In re Phillip A., 400 N.E.2d 358 (N.Y. 1980). This is also similar to the case of People v. …show more content…

Henderson, acted with another to injure the Plaintiff, in attempt to steal his property. This case differs from ours in a few ways, the first being that the Defendant was acting alone in our case, in contrast to the Defendant working with another individual. People v. Henderson, 708 N.E.2d 165 (N.Y. 1999).
The Defendant was had also attacked the Plaintiff not out of anger, but rather it was a “spearhead of a concerted physical attack aimed at forcefully taking the victim’s property”. Id. This also displays the shift in motive, which is key for disproving substantial pain. It could not be argued that Mr. Matthews motives were anything other than hostility or meanness because he was simply reacting to the anger he had from Mr. Russo not giving him the proper change for Mr. Matthew’s candy bar and soda. Mr. Russo did not receive substantial pain from Mr. Matthew’s punch in the face because it was merely a “petty slap” derived from hostility directed at Mr. Russo, especially when looked at objectively. Mr. Matthew had no ulterior motives for punching Mr. Russo, and Mr. Russo’s injuries were not widespread or long

Show More
Open Document