Saturday, May 25, 2019

Prosecuting Argument Essay

Prosecuting Argument PaperIn presenting its case against, Mr. Stu excoriation involving the deceased victim, Uma Opee, the prosecution intends to order of battle the elements of crime are present in each of the charges lodged against the defendant, Stu Dents. Members of the team will provide a specific law for each charge which may be comprise in one of the following states Indiana, atomic number 25, and Texas. However, the prosecution team has decided that it will pursue this particular case in the great State of Texas, as it feels that it will receive a greater chance of achieving its goal of the severest punishment in the matter. ArgumentThe prosecutions argument is that the defendant is not nevertheless guilty of the charges brought against him in the matter of State v. Stu Dents but is liable as well because he knowingly and purposefully pull the crimes on the victim, Uma Opee. totally three elements, mens rea, actus reus, and concurrence were present at the time. Mr. Dents was very detailed and meticulous in the manner in which he went about, as he penned in fulfilling his share in the journal found by officers in his home. This is considered premeditated. Probable cause has been established in connecting the defendant tothe crime through DNA testing. policemans found mor than ccc photographs stapled to a environ in a locked room located in the back of the defendants home. Three counts of possession will be want for the MDMA also known as ecstasy, cocaine, and methamphetamine drugs found in the defendants home. Kidnapping as the victim was taken by jampack from her place of residence. Signs of cuts and bruises on the victims set ups Uma put up a struggle. The victims hands and feet were tied with rope particles of which were found in the victims home along with blood spots. The victims jewelry, specifically an inscribed march, was found among the defendants possession. Lastly, the defendant flavorionally assaulted a law enforcement offic er when he punched Officer T. Chur in the face during his apprehension. HomicideMr. Dents cut uped the victim with malice and forethought. During the search of the defendants home, a journal was found. In the journal, Mr. Dents gives the details of how he purchased ropes, rags, and a sharp hunting knife. These items were purchased to fulfill the defendants destiny. Theact of purchasing the supplies is premeditated and warrants the charge of capital murder. Capital murder is found under Sec. 19.03.of the Texas penal cipher. The part that applies to this case is section 19.02 (b) (1) along with number 2 of section 19.03. sectionalization 19.03 number 2 of the Texas penal code (2011) states, the person intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat under Section 22.07(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), or (6). Mr. Dents committed two of the offe nses mentioned kidnapping and burglary. AssaultMore over, on October 21st at 845 p.m., Stu Dents was concured for numerous charges. One of which is the arrest by Officer T. Chur. Mr. Dents appeared agitated, irrational, and combative in his behavior. Mr. Dents then punched the officer while screaming obscenities. The defendant intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caused embodied injury to the victim. In the State of Minnesota there are no classifications for its felonies they are instead broken into categories with punishments (State rights, n.d.). . In this matter, Mr. Dents assaulted a police officer which is a voluntary attempt or willful threat to inflict injury on another person. It may also include the act of intentionally frightening another person into fearing immediate bodily ill-treat (Schmalleger, Hall, & Dolatowski, 2010, p.227). The victim was in fact a law enforcement officer on duty at the time of the offense. In the State of Minnesota 609.2231Assaul in the Fou rth Degree. Subdivision 1. Peace officers. Whoever physically assaults a peace officer licensed under section 626.845, subdivision 1, when that officer is effecting a lawful arrest or executing any other duty imposed by law is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and may be sentenced to impoundment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both. If the assault inflicts demonstrable bodily harm or the person intentionally throws or otherwise transfers bodily fluids or feces at or onto the officer, the person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprison housement for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $6,000, or both (Revisor of Statutes, 2012). Stu Dents felt no obligation to be placed in hand cuffs, therefore acted out and inflicted bodily pain towards Officer T. Chur. KidnappingMr. Dents has been charged with kidnapping in the crimes committed against the victim, Uma Opee. Indiana Code (IC) 35-42-3-2 Version b Kidnapping Sec. 2 (b) A person who knowingly or intentionally removes another person, by fraud, enticement, force, or threat of force, from one place to another (Indiana Codes, n.d.). This a Class A Felony in the State of Indiana and carries penalty if convicted and a fine of up to $10,000 (Thomas, 2013). round examples of a Class A felony include the following Rape, Kidnapping, Child Molesting, Dealing in Cocaine, a Narcotic Drug of Methamphetamine in an amount over three (3) grams, and Armed Robbery resulting in injury. As we know, there was manifest of a struggle, blood spots, and particles from the rope found on the carpeting of the victims home. The coroner has determined that Uma bled to death from the stab wounds inflicted. Since, there were signs of bleeding in the victims home, yet her body was transported to another place where she was posterior discovered with her hands and feet bound we are seeking a charge of kidnapping. BurglaryBurglary is breaking or entering into a dwelling or structure with the intent to commit a crime. In the case of the State v. Stu Dents two eyewitnesses saw Mr. Stu Dent walks through the Broadway apartments to Ms. Uma Opees apartment 156, and goes inside. thither were no signs of force entry or if Mr. Stu Dent had a key. During an investigation of the defendants home, jewelry was found belonging to the victim. It was an inscribed ring with the victims name. The ring was later identified by coworkers as a ring the victim wore on a daily basis, including the day of her disappearance. The state of Indiana is charging Mr. Stu Dent with Burglary IC 35-43-2-1which is a class B Felony that carries a penalty upon conviction of a fixed term between six (6) and twenty (20) years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.00 (Thomas, 2013). The State of Indiana will prosecute Mr. Stu Dent, because there is enough evidence in the case with the two witnesses and the evidence from the victim apartment to support the fact that Mr. Stu De nt was at the crime scene and involved in the crime. Possession of drugsWhen arrested, the defendant had no illegal drugs in his system. However,the illegal drugs found in the defendants possession are ecstasy, cocaine, and methamphetamine was found in the possessions of the defendant. Cocaine powder residue was found on the defendants coffee table in the defendants living room. This is a perfect place to bag the product. Ecstasy with a thumbs-up imprint was found under a table in the victims living room. The victim had no drugs in her system, and had completed court-ordered rehabilitation two months before her death. There is only one possible conclusion. Mr. Dent was in possession of said drugs. Possession or Delivery of Drug Paraphernalia (using or possessing with intent to use) Tex. wellness & Safety Code 481.125(a), (d). In the State of Texas it depends on the amount, weight and classification of the drugs in determining the sentence. ConclusionThe prosecution is prepared to produce all the evidence in this case to show the jury that in the case of the State v. Stu Dent that Mr. Stu Dent is guilty of homicide, assault of a police officer, kidnapping, burglary, and crimes related to drugs. The prosecution will take this case step by step to show the jury all the elements are present for a conviction in this case. The actus reus shows in the evidence that Ms. Uma Opee the victim was repeatedly stabbed 13 times and tied up. The mens rea shows that there was a guilty mind and a criminal intent, because Mr. Stu Dent wall was completely covered with photographs of the victim in various locations and situations. It did not appear that the victim knew her picture was being taken. The police found over 300 photographs of the victim stapled to his wall. Insomuch, his journal detailed his first meeting with the victim up to the night she was murdered. The entries discussed purchasing rope, rags, and a sharp hunting knife. The prosecution will also show that Mr. St u Dent assaulted a police officer, kidnapped, burglarized, and drugs were found in his apartment. We are seeking justice not only for the victim Ms. Uma Opee, but also her family. Mr. Stu Dent is being charged with five crimes and we are asking the jury to find him guilty on all counts.ReferencesMinnesota Statutes (2012). The Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Retrieved from https//www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.2231Penal Code designation 5, (2011) Offenses against the Person, Chapter 19 Criminal Homicide, Retrieved from http//www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm on 9/11/2013 Punishment Range (2012) Penal Code Offenses. Retrieved from https//www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/pdfs/penalcode.pdf on 9/11/2013 Thomas, R. G. (2013). Classes of offenses in Indiana. Retrieved from http//www.defenselawyerindiana.com/levels.htmlSchmalleger, F., Hall, D. E., & Dolatowski, J. J. (2010). Criminal Law Today (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall State laws. Retri eved from http//statelaws.net/Minnesota-Felony.php http//www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar42/ch3.html

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.