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
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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
Discussion The court will most likely find that Nick Spears is guilty of driving while intoxicated under Texas penal code. In Texas, a defendant can be convicted of driving while intoxicated if the defendant is (1) intoxicated while (2) operating (3) a motor vehicle and in a (4) public place Tex. Code Ann. §49.04 (Vernon 2011). Although there are some exceptions in the definition of each element of this rule, Spears does not fall under any of those exceptions.
Asked about the allegations made by the victim, Henry testified, “He makes the comment he doesn't want to tell me what happened at the party because I would think he was guilty.” Henry said Miller denied ever being told to stop. In deciding whether to bind the case over to the Holmes County Common Pleas Court, Hyde said, “the question for the court is force or threat of force.”
This proves Kenny is definitely nicer than Byron in the way of physically hurting people. The passage infers that Byron would not think twice about hurting Kenny
Question 1: X is guilty of burglary in Virginia according to the Virginia burglary statute because he committed the crime with intent when he entered the building in the first place and by also using force by breaking in the window, both are felonies that constitute a guilty verdict, according to page 393. X is also guilty of common law larceny according to the law because his intent is to steal the computer with no intent on returning it, he is taking personal property of another person. According to common law, he would be guilty because he is showing intent to take an item without the knowledge of the other person, showing intent to steal, leading to the guilty conviction according to the common law larceny. According to the Rockmore case,
“With anger that had been brewing all day, he attacked him and started hitting him hard in the face with his bare fists. Peter was no match, and soon Cole had pounded him bloody. A dozen students stood watching. When Peter tried to escape, he tripped and fell to the ground. Cole jumped on him again and started smashing his head into the sidewalk” (8).
In the short story “The Pin” by Chris Crutcher, a story in his anthology, Athletic Shorts: Six Short Stories, the theme is about a dad and a son who love each other and hate each other at times. On page 13, the dad shows anger to his son after the wrestling match. “Before more than three hundred people my father slaps the side of my face so hard I sit on the mat as if dropped by a hammer.” He slapped the son for really no reason after the wrestling match in front of his friends and teachers. Cecil was mean to his son because he pinned him in the match.
(Roethke 969). As he is dancing with the narrator the father would hit him if he messes up. His father hits the narrator with a belt to his ear without the father actually knowing because his is drunk. The abusive father is doing all of this actions without actually knowing, but still letting go of his fraustion from his work towards his son.
“A jury may infer a defendant’s specific intent from the circumstances attending the act, the manner in which it is done, and the means used, among other factors.” Id. at 834. Moreover, the specific intent to maim may not be proven exclusively from evidence that the injury inflicted is permanently disfiguring. Id. In Ferrell, the defendant entered the victim’s apartment and, after a confrontation, shot one victim in the knee, and another victim in the neck paralyzing her.
I believe that this event is best classified as self-defense. Self-defense is defined as the defense of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime.
Amir hit Hassan with pomegranates, until he was out of breath and didn’t have the energy to anymore. But in the end, Hassan refused to hit Amir, and decided to hit himself with the pomegranate, because he could never hurt Amir. Unlike Amir, hurting Hassan again and again, because he was so consumed in his own feelings of guilt. He couldn’t bare to look at Hassan, so he pushed him away. “I buried my head in my lap, squeezed my temples with my knees, like a vice.
I represent the Crown and am seeking a guilty verdict for Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens, who were involved in the brutal murder of defenceless Richard Parker. To prove the verdict of not guilty, the accused are invoking the Defence of Necessity as a means of justification for their thoughtless actions, which is inapplicable to this case. In order for the defendants to be proven not guilty, all three components of the Defence of Necessity must be satisfied. The first component of the Defence of Necessity states, “there must be an urgent situation of clear and imminent peril”.
The bruise is the width of four fingers; it covers almost the entire cheek. Christian has an anger problem, whenever he becomes mad he’s mad at everyone. Christian works with a psychologist and Hinds County Behavioral Health. Christian has been evaluated; however, it is unknown if he has a mental disorder. William was remorseful and understood that he didn’t respond the right way.