Crown, 1861: Offences against the Person Act 1861

In the case of the State v. Stu Dents, the jury found the defendant guilty of the following charges: homicide, assault of a police officer, kidnapping, and crimes related to drugs. They felt that there was no sufficient evidence to charge him with the crime of burglary. It has come down to the sentencing stage of this case. We will hear from both the prosecuting and defending attorneys before the court makes their final ruling on the sentence of one, Mr. Stu Dents.

Today we are discussing whether if Steve Harmon should be held guilty or not guilty. I, the defender, says that he is not. We’ve all experienced being accused of doing something we didn’t actually do but Steve’s situation is just more extreme than most of ours. It’s not everyday when we get told a friend is being accused of felony murder. I will be using O’brien’s closing statement along with other quotes to prove to you, that Steve Harmon is not guilty.

This is case, at times, appears as proving Steve as innocent, but other times is seems that Steve is guilty. For example, Bobo Evans had said “I’ve been knowing King my whole life. Just met the other guy the night before the robber went down”. This is making Steve seem guilty by including him in the crime. If Bobo had just said that he had known King his whole life and had not mentioned Steve at all it would have made Steve look like he had not participated in the robbery. The quote “Me and King planned a get over and we done it” portrays Steve as innocent because it does not mention him help plan the crime. Unfortunately for Steve the testimony from Bobo had hurt him more than it had helped. Another quote that had hurt Steve’s case was “He was supposed to tell us if anybody was in the drugstore. He didn’t say anything so we figured it was all right”. This had flat-out said that Steve had been a part of the robbery and had done his part. Bobo had also continued on to say that they had seen Steve leave the store, as planned, before they had entered the drugstore. Therefore, because of the evidence, Steve’s case is evidence that not everything is as it

Steven Avery is guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach. Halbach was last publicly seen at the Avery’s family car lot where Steven Avery murdered, raped and mutilated Teresa Halbach. Prosecutor Ken Kratz not only has class and individual evidence but witnesses that ties Avery to the murder of Teresa Halbach. This essay will prove that Steven Avery is guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach.

The questionable forensic evidence, the untrustworthy witnesses and the insufficient investigation are all reasons why Steven Truscott should never have been charged with the rape and murder of Lynne Harper. Being charged with something you did not commit is something nobody wants to go through. Evidence, witnesses and the investigation portion is very important for a case to run correctly. It took Steven Truscott 42 years to finally get his name cleared. He went through many trials and hearings to finally get the news one day that he was free to go. Most of his life was taken from him that he will never get back. “They finally got it right after all these years. I am so used to fighting. Now we don’t have to fight anymore.”

One reason I believe that Steve is guilty is because of his journal. In Steve’s journal he says, “Anybody can walk into a drugstore and look around.”(115) This proves that Steve was helping to be a lookout in the crime, which means he was an accomplice, and that he was in the drugstore when the crime happened. “It was me, I thought as I tried not to throw up, that had wanted to be tough like them.” Steve also writes in his journal (130). Steve is writing that he wanted to be tough like King and his friends. This proves that he wants to be like King, which might have influenced him to help with the crime. Steve also writes in his journal, “I knew she felt that I didn’t do anything wrong. It was me who wasn’t sure.” (148). Steve wrote this after talking with his mother. Steve is doubting his own innocence, if he is doubting his innocence, then is he really innocent?

His story is quite engaging as he was placed on the death sentence at only fourteen years old in June 1959 of rape and murder of a fellow classmate, arranged to be executed of hanging months after the conviction that he was wrongfully convicted for. Even despite being found not guilty by a jury of the murder of Lynne Harper in 1959, Steven has always claimed he was innocent, though he did not offer his evidence at the original murder trial, the jury did disclose that most of the evidence had been circumstantial. He also even voluntarily submitted to psychiatric probation in prison for truth serum and LSD to help his innocence. There was also no DNA evidence that could have been analyzed in his case. Steven's father, Daniel also had struggled for two decades to clear the name of his

Imagine being on trial for a crime you did not commit. In the book Monster, by Walter Dean Myers, Steve Harmon, a nice sixteen-year-old boy living in Harlem, New York was in a situation just like this. Steve was on trial after being accused of being a lookout during a robbery and murder at a neighborhood drugstore. Steve is innocent because he never gave a signal to the robbers that the store wasn’t clear of people and he did not know Bobo, one of the other suspected robbers. Steve was just in the store shopping for mints at the time of the crime.

In Battery section 13 a and section 18 a, is similar to Assault section 21 a. However, Battery sections 13 b it states, “a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results”. And section 18 b states, “an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results”.

Domestic violence is defined as violence, physical or mental or emotional abuse directed toward a

In a case of mistaken idenity, Robert Polen assautled Walter Rutherford. Rutherford substained several head injuries Rutherford's left eye was swollen to the point that it was the size of a half tennis ball and his nose bone looked as if it was off center. Based on my training and experince both are signs of a possible broken nose and a possible broken orbital eye bone. Rutherford and other witnesses reported Polen had Rutherford pinned to the ground while punching him in the head and attempting to strangle him.The assault occurred because Polen believed Rutherford was involved in an assault which occurred to one of Polen's family members. Rutherford was not invovled in that assault and had only met Polen one other time before this incident.

If a person is involved in an assault – especially if that person is the aggressor, it has to be determined if the crime committed is a misdemeanor or felony. The latter carries a more serious charge.

In the case of a crime assault and suspicion of rape of a 14 year-old girl; Jones, Walsh and Bert were arrested. During the investigation, the police obtain statement from a man name Bland providing additional information that suspect Jones was involved in three separate assaults and rapes of juveniles over three days. The prosecution filed charges against Jones, Walsh and Bert for their involvement in the crime. The suspect, Bert then hired an attorney to defend him and explains to his lawyer that he did not participate in any acts of raping these girls and that he was only present one time with Jones and all he did was hit one of the girls. Bert also goes on to say that he can prove this because at the times the other rapes are alleged to have occurred, he was with Mook, who is currently out of the country on a mountain climbing trip and will not return for 2 months. Bland also contacts the prosecutor’s office and provides a written statement to the prosecutor that Walsh was not present during any of the rapes. (Case Study, n.d.)

Definition: Any action forced or voluntary action purposely inflicting Physical or Psychological damage to a person or persons.

In some cases the words used are open to interpretation, which can lead to conflicting decisions based on the meaning of a single word. There is no clear statutory definition of assault or battery, this means that it is often left to a judge to decide his own meanings of the words and apply them in a case. This could lead to injustice as he may decide more strict meaning than is widely accepted as a definition. With the more serious offences the words are often antiquated and in some cases misleading for example "assault" and "maliciously". This is because it is an old piece of legislation, and the vocabulary used in 1861 has evolved to have different meanings in modern England.