Prosecuting Argument Essay

Prosecuting Argument Paper In presenting its case against, Mr. Stu Dent involving the deceased victim, Uma Opee, the prosecution intends to show 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 found in one of the following states; Indiana, Minnesota, 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. Argument The prosecution’s argument is that the defendant is not only 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 committed the crimes on the victim, Uma Opee. All 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 destiny 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. Officers found mor than 300 photographs stapled to a wall in a locked room located in the back of the defendant’s home. Three counts of possession will be sought for the MDMA also known as ecstasy, cocaine, and methamphetamine drugs found in the defendant’s home. Kidnapping as the victim was taken by force from her place of residence. Signs of cuts a nd bruises on the victim’s shows Uma put up a struggle. The victim’s hands and feet were tied with rope; particles of which were found in the victim’s home along with blood spots. The victim’s jewelry, specifically an inscribed ring, was found among the defendant’s possession. Lastly, the defendant intentionally assaulted a law enforcement officer when he punched Officer T. Chur in the face during his apprehension. Homicide Mr. Dents murdered the victim with malice and forethought. During the search of the defendant’s 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 defendant’s destiny. The act 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 code. The part that applies to this case is section 19.02 (b) (1) along with number 2 of section 19.03. Section 19.03 number 2 of the Texas penal code (2011) states, â€Å"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 offenses mentioned – kidnapping and burglary. Assault Moreover, on October 21st at 8:45 p.m., Stu Dents was arrested 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 bodily injury to the victim. In the State of Minnesota there are no classifications for its felonies; they are instead broken into categories with punishments (StateLaws, n.d.). . In this matter, Mr. Dents assaulted a police officer which is a willful 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 harm (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 Fourth Degree. Subdivision 1. Peace officers. Whoever physically as saults 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 imprisonment 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 imprisonment 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. Kidnapping Mr. 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). Some 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 evidence of a struggle, blood spots, and particles from the rope found on the carpeting of the victim’s home. The coroner has determined that Uma bled to death from the stab wounds inflicted. Since, there were signs of bleeding in the victim’s home, yet her body was transported to another place whe re she was later discovered with her hands and feet bound; we are seeking a charge of kidnapping. Burglary Burglary 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 Opee’s apartment 156, and goes inside. There were no signs of forced entry or if Mr. Stu Dent had a key. During an investigation of the defendant’s home, jewelry was found belonging to the victim. It was an inscribed ring with the victim’s 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 â€Å"a â€Å"class â€Å"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 Dent was at the crime scene and involved in the crime. Possession of drugs When arrested, the defendant had no illegal drugs in his system. However, the illegal drugs found in the defendant’s possession are ecstasy, cocaine, and methamphetamine was found in the possessions of the defendant. Cocaine powder residue was found on the defendant’s coffee table in the defendant’s living room. This is a perfect place to bag the product. Ecstasy with a â€Å"thumbs-up† imprint was found under a table in the victim’s 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. Health & 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. Conclusion The 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 prosecut ion will also show that Mr. Stu 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. References Minnesota Statutes (2012). The Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Retrieved from: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.2231 Penal Code Title 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.html Schmalleger, F., Hall, D. E., & Dolatowski, J. J. (2010). Criminal Law Today (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall State laws. Retrieved from: http://statelaws.net/Minnesota-Felony.php http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar42/ch3.html