Prosecuting Argument PaperIn showing its instance against. Mr.
Stu Dent affecting the asleep victim. Uma Opee. the prosecution intends to demo the elements of offense are present in each of the charges lodged against the suspect. Stu Dents. Members of the squad will supply a specific jurisprudence for each charge which may be found in one of the undermentioned provinces ; Indiana.
Minnesota. and Texas. However. the prosecution squad has decided that it will prosecute this peculiar instance in the great State of Texas. as it feels that it will have a greater opportunity of accomplishing its end of the severest penalty in the affair.
ArgumentThe prosecution’s statement is that the suspect is non merely guilty of the charges brought against him in the affair of State v. Stu Dents but is apt every bit good because he wittingly and purposefully committed the offenses on the victim. Uma Opee. All three elements.
work forces rea. actus reus. and concurrency were present at the clip. Mr.
Dents was really elaborate and punctilious in the mode in which he went approximately. as he penned in carry throughing his fate in the diary found by officers in his place. This is considered premeditated. Probable cause has been established in linking the suspect tothe offense through DNA proving. Military officers found mor than 300 exposures stapled to a wall in a locked room located in the dorsum of the defendant’s place. Three counts of ownership will be sought for the MDMA besides known as rapture. cocaine.
and methamphetamine drugs found in the defendant’s place. Kidnapping as the victim was taken by force from her topographic point of abode. Signs of cuts and contusions on the victim’s shows Uma put up a battle. The victim’s custodies and pess were tied with rope ; atoms of which were found in the victim’s place along with blood musca volitanss. The victim’s jewellery.
specifically an inscribed ring. was found among the defendant’s ownership. Last. the suspect deliberately assaulted a jurisprudence enforcement officer when he punched Officer T. Chur in the face during his apprehensiveness. HomicideMr. Dents murdered the victim with maliciousness and premeditation.
During the hunt of the defendant’s place. a diary was found. In the diary. Mr. Dents gives the inside informations of how he purchased ropes. shreds. and a crisp hunting knife. These points were purchased to carry through the defendant’s fate.
Theact of buying the supplies is premeditated and warrants the charge of capital slaying. Capital slaying is found under Sec. 19.
03. of the Texas penal codification. The portion that applies to this instance is subdivision 19. 02 ( B ) ( 1 ) along with figure 2 of subdivision 19. 03. Section 19.
03 figure 2 of the Texas penal codification ( 2011 ) provinces. “the individual deliberately commits the slaying in the class of perpetrating or trying to perpetrate snatch. burglary. robbery. aggravated sexual assault.
incendiarism. obstructor or revenge. or terroristic menace under Section 22. 07 ( a ) ( 1 ) . ( 3 ) . ( 4 ) . ( 5 ) .
or ( 6 ) . ” Mr. Dents committed two of the discourtesies mentioned – snatch and burglary. AssaultFurthermore.
on October 21st at 8:45 p. m. . Stu Dents was arrested for legion charges. One of which is the apprehension by Officer T. Chur.
Mr. Dents appeared agitated. irrational. and contentious in his behaviour.
Mr. Dents so punched the officer while shouting lewdnesss. The suspect deliberately.
wittingly or recklessly caused bodily hurt to the victim. In the State of Minnesota there are no categorizations for its felonies ; they are alternatively broken into classs with penalties ( StateLaws. n. d. ) .
. In this affair. Mr.
Dents assaulted a constabulary officer which is a wilful effort or wilful menace to bring down hurt on another individual. It may besides include the act of deliberately scaring another individual into fearing immediate bodily injury ( Schmalleger. Hall. & A ; Dolatowski.
2010. p. 227 ) . The victim was in fact a jurisprudence enforcement officer on responsibility at the clip of the discourtesy. In the State of Minnesota 609. 2231Assaul in the Fourth Degree. Subdivision 1. Peace officers.
Whoever physically assaults a peace officer licensed under subdivision 626. 845. subdivision 1.
when that officer is set uping a lawful apprehension or put to deathing any other responsibility imposed by jurisprudence is guilty of a gross misdemeanour and may be sentenced to imprisonment for non more than one twelvemonth or to payment of a mulct of non more than $ 3. 000. or both. If the assault inflicts incontrovertible bodily injury or the individual deliberately throws or otherwise transportations bodily fluids or fecal matters at or onto the officer.
the individual is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for non more than three old ages or to payment of a mulct of non more than $ 6. 000. or both ( Revisor of Statutes.
2012 ) . Stu Dents felt no duty to be placed in manus turnups. hence acted out and inflicted bodily pain towards Officer T. Chur. KidnapingMr. Dents has been charged with snatch in the offenses committed against the victim. Uma Opee.
Indiana Code ( IC ) 35-42-3-2 Version B Kidnapping Sec. 2 ( B ) A individual who knowingly or deliberately removes another individual. by fraud. temptation. force. or menace of force.
from one topographic point to another ( Indiana Codes. n. d.
) . This a Class A Felony in the State of Indiana and carries punishment if convicted and a mulct of up to $ 10. 000 ( Thomas. 2013 ) . Some illustrations of a Class A felony include the undermentioned: Rape. Kidnapping.
Child Molesting. Covering in Cocaine. a Narcotic Drug of Methamphetamine in an sum over three ( 3 ) gm. and Armed Robbery ensuing in hurt.
As we know. there was grounds of a battle. blood musca volitanss. and atoms from the rope found on the rug of the victim’s place.
The medical examiner has determined that Uma bled to decease from the pang wounds inflicted. Since. there were marks of shed blooding in the victim’s place. yet her organic structure was transported to another topographic point where she was subsequently discovered with her custodies and pess bound ; we are seeking a charge of snatch. BurglaryBurglary is interrupting or come ining into a home or construction with the purpose to perpetrate a offense. In the instance of the State v. Stu Dents two eyewitnesses saw Mr.
Stu Dent walks through the Broadway flats to Ms. Uma Opee’s flat 156. and goes indoors. There were no marks of forced entry or if Mr.
Stu Dent had a cardinal. During an probe of the defendant’s place. jewellery was found belonging to the victim. It was an inscribed ring with the victim’s name. The ring was subsequently identified by coworkers as a pealing the victim wore on a day-to-day footing. including the twenty-four hours of her disappearing. The province of Indiana is bear downing Mr.
Stu Dent with Burglary IC 35-43-2-1which is “a “class “B” Felony that carries a punishment upon strong belief of a fixed term between six ( 6 ) and 20 ( 20 ) old ages in prison and a mulct of up to $ 10. 000. 00 ( Thomas. 2013 ) ” .
The State of Indiana will prosecute Mr. Stu Dent. because there is adequate grounds in the instance with the two informants and the grounds from the victim flat to back up the fact that Mr. Stu Dent was at the offense scene and involved in the offense. Possession of drugsWhen arrested. the suspect had no illegal drugs in his system.
However.the illegal drugs found in the defendant’s ownership are ecstasy. cocaine. and Methedrine was found in the ownerships of the suspect. Cocaine pulverization residue was found on the defendant’s java tabular array in the defendant’s life room. This is a perfect topographic point to bag the merchandise. Ecstasy with a “thumbs-up” imprint was found under a tabular array in the victim’s life room.
The victim had no drugs in her system. and had completed court-ordered rehabilitation two months before her decease. There is merely one possible decision. Mr. Dent was in ownership of said drugs. Possession or Delivery of Drug Paraphernalia ( utilizing or possessing with purpose to utilize ) [ Tex. Health & A ; Safety Code § 481.
125 ( a ) . ( vitamin D ) ] . In the State of Texas it depends on the sum. weight and categorization of the drugs in finding the sentence. DecisionThe prosecution is prepared to bring forth all the grounds in this instance to demo the jury that in the instance of the State v. Stu Dent that Mr. Stu Dent is guilty of homicide. assault of a police officer.
snatch. burglary. and offenses related to drugs. The prosecution will take this instance measure by measure to demo the jury all the elements are present for a strong belief in this instance. The actus reus shows in the grounds that Ms. Uma Opee the victim was repeatedly stabbed 13 times and tied up. The work forces rea shows that there was a guilty head and a condemnable purpose. because Mr.
Stu Dent wall was wholly covered with exposure of the victim in assorted locations and state of affairss. It did non look that the victim knew her image was being taken. The constabulary found over 300 exposures of the victim stapled to his wall.
Insomuch. his diary detailed his first meeting with the victim up to the dark she was murdered. The entries discussed buying rope. shreds. and a crisp hunting knife.
The prosecution will besides demo that Mr. Stu Dent assaulted a police officer. kidnapped. burglarized.
and drugs were found in his flat. We are seeking justness non merely for the victim Ms. Uma Opee. but besides her household. Mr. Stu Dent is being charged with five offenses and we are inquiring the jury to happen him guilty on all counts.
MentionsMinnesota Statutes ( 2012 ) . The Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Retrieved from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. revisor.
manganese. gov/statutes/ ? id=609. 2231Penal Code Title 5. ( 2011 ) Offenses against the Person. Chapter 19 ; Criminal Homicide.
Retrieved from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. legislative acts. legis. province.
Texas. us/Docs/PE/htm/PE. 19.
htm on 9/11/2013 Punishment Range ( 2012 ) Penal Code Offenses. Retrieved from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. oag. province. Texas. us/AG_Publications/pdfs/penalcode.
pdf on 9/11/2013 Thomas. R. G. ( 2013 ) . Classs of discourtesies in Indiana. Retrieved from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. defenselawyerindiana.
com/levels. hypertext markup languageSchmalleger. F. .
Hall. D. E. . & A ; Dolatowski. J. J.
( 2010 ) . Condemnable Law Today ( 4th ed. ) .
Upper Saddle River. New jersey: Prentice Hall State Torahs. Retrieved from: hypertext transfer protocol: //statelaws. net/Minnesota-Felony. php hypertext transfer protocol: //www. in.
gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar42/ch3. hypertext markup language