The Trial Court The essence of the case was the argument that whether consenting to a fight was an enough defense to indicate the accused’s innocence in regards to assault, (which resulted in manslaughter). The accused claimed that he was not guilty since all the criteria for an act to be considered as an assault were not met; the deceased has consented to the fight. When deciding the case, His Honor Campbell had discussed, in length, the scope of the ability of using consent as a defense against the accusation of assault, and whether or not the inability of the crown to prove lack of consent is sufficient enough to prove Mr. Jobidon’s innocence. Since, as the defendant stated, the crime of assault was only a crime if the party being assaulted …show more content…
It has met the res gestae tests set out in R. v. Cohen, R. v. Clark, and R.v. Andrews. However, after extensive thought and study, Judge Campbell found that this case was bound by the decision in the R. V. Dix case. R. V. Dix and R. V. Jobidon have some similarities that pertain to both of them, both were cases where both parties had entered into a consensual fight, and both of the defendants had used the argument that the injured party had consented to enter into this fight. However, there was one major difference, which is embodied into the fact that in R. v. Dix, even though serious injuries were inflicted, it was not a case of manslaughter. Judge Campbell had reluctantly found himself bound to the decision of R. v. Dix in regards to the fact that consent can be used as a defense against being accused of assault. Mr. Jobidon had argued that due to the fact that Mr. Haggart, had voluntarily entered into a fight with him, he cannot be charged with assault. The Criminal Code in Section 244 states: “ 244. (1) A person commits an assault …show more content…
An argument that had won him the case and resulted in his acquittal. I understand the reluctance of the judge to uphold this precedent, because in doing so, he would be opening the floodgates to having consent be used as a defense whenever serious bodily harm was inflicted, or as in this case, death. By accepting that consent is a good enough reason to apply force (whether deadly or not) on the consenting party, Judges will have set rules that allow people enough leeway to beat each other up with the only deterrence of how to prove consent, or how The Crown is unable to prove lack thereof. As reasonable the defense of consent can be in this regard, I believe that Jobidon went beyond the consent given to him in the fight. It is unreasonable to think that a person getting into a fight would consent to his demise. The English court of Appeal had discussed this by saying that, excluding minor struggles, it is not in the public interest that people decide to cause each other actual bodily
Facts: The P (Kendra Knight) was participating in a coed touch football game, while playing the D (Michael Jewett) broke the plaintiff's finger by knocking her over and stepped on her finger during an informal touch football game. Where Knight had to get a number of four surgeries and she lost her finger. According to the D claim he was only trying intercept a pass and when he came down he stepped on her hand. He did not mean to hurt or injured Knight. The P says otherwise she says Jewett came behind and knocked her down. She put her arms out to break the fall and Jewett ran over her, stepping on her hand. The P is suing the D for negligence and assault and battery. Knight appealed the ruling of the decision.
Andrea Yates and John Hinckley present two different cases that lead to the conviction of not guilty by plea of insanity. It could be believed that Hinckley’s case helped set up the initial verdict in Yate’s case.
Trials must appear to be impartial and fair, it is argued that the Magistrate undermined this fundamental principle by stating to the defence ‘[n]aturally, I envisage that you want to make a submission on a no case to answer’, which when the defence had not made any commentary to this effect prior, suggested the Magistrate deemed there to be no merit in the prosecution case and the accused be acquitted.
The mock re-trial held in class provide a unique perspective and allowed many of us to reassesses our personal views about the 1998 California court case over the death of Jadine Russell. Keith Cook a mechanic hit and killed Mrs. Russell and injured several others while driving under the influence of alcohol and was subsequently tried for murder under the 1983 California “Watson Law” which allows for a charge of murder instead of manslaughter if the defendant has a previous DUI conviction and has signed documentation acknowledging the risks of again driving while intoxicated. Jadine Russell was severely injured and bleeding internally but refused blood transfusions due to the fact she was a Jehovah
By ruling the death of the attacker an accident, the murderer did not suffer consequences for his actions. Although Mr. Radley was defendi...
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense, a 19 year old boy Carl Gallagher is being wrongly accused for the homicide of his father. After hearing the prosecution's statement your mind can be persuaded as to why Carl could be guilty, but he is not guilty. The evidence shown by the prosecution is not a substantial foundation for the whole case to set it self upon. Think of a man who would kill his own father. Now does that man fit the representation and story of the young man Carl? For me certainly not. See through the empty spaces and realize those spaces are necessary for the proper functioning of a young adult.
The judge also gave a statement about the verdict, he said, “ The defence put enough doubt in the Crown's case to warrant a full acquittal. The evidence they submitted was circumstantial and didn’t prove that the accused actually committed any of the crimes he is accused of. Both the actus reus and mens rea were not proven.”
On the way home one evening, 31-year old Steve Titus who was a restaurant manager and had recently been engaged, was pulled over by cops and taken into custody. Earlier that evening a female hitch hiker had been brutally raped and Titus was driving a car very similar to the suspect and also matched the physical description of the suspect. Upon arrival of the police station, Titus had his picture taken by a cop, and was then put in a photo line up with several other men so the victim could identify one who was her attacker. The victim stated that Steve Titus was the closest to what her attacker appeared to be. After being chosen by the victim, the police and prosecution then followed through with a trial. During trial, the rape victim got onto the stand and stated that she was absolutely positive that Steve Titus was her rapist. Elizabeth Loftus argued that the victim had elicited a false memory of the attacker due to a biased line up. Her judgment had been changed throughout the process of going to court through indications which created a false memory. The jurisdiction then decided that Titus was indeed guilty and that he would be convicted regardless of him proclaiming his innocence. Rumors and also news articles from years ago state that the prosecution testimony was changed and that evidence that would’ve proved Mr. Titus’s innocence was just kind of swept
At the hearing of the appeal there was a conflict of evidence as to whether the car was being driven by the appellant or by a lady seated by his side in the car. The quarter sessions, without deciding whether the appellant was himself driving the car, dismissed the appeal, finding as facts that if the lady was driving she was doing so with the consent and approval of the appellant, who must have known that the speed was dangerous, and who, being in control of the car, could, and ought to, have prevented
The history of this case goes way back to a similar Supreme Court decision in 2008 during Baze v Rees, which affirmed
Working through The Full Code Test within, The Code for Crown Prosecutors enables the conclusion to be reached as to whether Harry should be charged in accordance with s47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm ('ABH'). For conviction, prosecutors would demonstrate the actus reus and mens rea of ABH, in this case that Harry assaulted and caused the actual bodily harm to Rob and reckless or intended the assault.
concerning the trial before the jury came back in. Since I had not seen the
Criminal law is based on the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The principle is to the extent that a man is not guilty of his acts, actus in the absence of a guilty conscience, mens rea (Gardner, 2009). To this end, criminal law justice provides that the person alleging the commission of a crime must proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person(s) possessed mens rea, if the court is to hold a criminal liability against the accused. In the case of People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995) or what has come to be famously known as the O.J. Simpson Trial is a classical illustration of how highly the U.S. criminal justice regards the beyond reasonable doubt principle.
The arguments for both sides of the appeal were previously published in the McGill Law
The trial court ruled in favor of McGregor. The trial court found that the evidence was weak, but since McGregor thought