The Analysis of the Regina v. Duncan Moore - Essay Example

?JUDGE’S SUMMATION: REGINA v. DUNCAN MOORE Members of the jury, before you shall retire to discuss the fate of defendant, Duncan Moore, allow me to remind you of your duties as juries which I have stated at the beginning of the trial. You were prohibited from discussing this case so as not to prejudge the guilt or innocence of this defendant1. You were instructed to limit your deliberations based on the evidence presented by the prosecution and to avoid getting any information outside this court2 since it violates the right of this defendant to due process. You were similarly prohibited from discussing the facts and evidence to other people since you may be persuaded or influenced to take a different position which may prejudice the rights of this defendant3. As the jury, it is your duty to decide fairly, dispassionately and impartially based on the evidence presented by the prosecution4 since the burden of proving the guilt of defendant Duncan lies with the prosecution5 and owing to this stringent requirement, its case must stand and fall on its own merits. The prosecution cannot assert that the evidence for the defence is weak. Any claim therefore by the prosecution that this defendant has not established a valid defence should not be entertained. I would like to emphasize that the duty to prove the guilt of this defendant is the sole responsibility of the prosecution6. This defendant need not do anything since the law presumes his innocence until proven otherwise. However, Members of the jury, I would likewise caution you that the proof required of the prosecution is not absolute certainty that this defendant has committed the grievous act he is accused of. The prosecution is simply required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt(fn-case) that this defendant is guilty. Judgment beyond a reasonable doubt simply requires moral certainty that this defendant committed the offence charged. Moral certainty nonetheless demands that any findings of guilt must be based on your prudent and reasonable opinion that the evidence points to the culpability of this defendant and you, Members of the Jury, do not have any mental reservation as to the guilt of this defendant. And, should have any doubts, flitting or lingering they may be, as to his culpability then you are commanded to acquit. With that as a backdrop, let us proceed with the task at hand. This defendant is indicted for the murder of Simon Chapman by allegedly plunging the knife into the victim’s heart with intent to hurt and cause him serious harm. The death of Simon Chapman allegedly resulted from the acts of this defendant who was then 15 years old. Allow me, Members of the Jury to walk you through the undisputed facts—the decedent, Simon Chapman and his friend Christopher Jones (Jones) were sitting in a coach aboard a train late at night when two boys, defendant Duncan Moore and David Parker (David) were smoking and running about the train passing from one carriage to another. Christopher Jones chided the boys for smoking and to which they replied to “fuck off”. At this point, David—the younger of the two—decided to pester Jones by grabbing his briefcase. A commotion ensued where Jones pushed David who retaliated with a punch landing on the Jones’ face. As Jones was about to hit David again, Duncan intervened. The ruckus is now between Jones and Duncan. They were throwing punches at each other when decedent Chapman arose from his sleep and seeing that Jones was being hit by Duncan, he, in turn, struck Duncan with his umbrella. Duncan fell on his back and decedent Chapman straddled him, the two went on throwing punches against each other when the fracas stopped. Decedent Chapman was stabbed with the use of a kitchen knife. Thereafter, two boys alighted on the next train stop. Based on this undisputed facts, you shall decide if this defendant stabbed the victim or is there a probability that somebody else on that train who could be the culprit. Before we move on to the evidence presented by either side, it is important that I discuss the four possible verdicts with you. However, of the four possible verdicts, you will be required to give only one verdict. The first verdict that you may hand is a verdict of guilty of murder. Murder is committed not only when a person unlawfully kills another person but that person must, at the time, the fatal blow was inflicted he intended either to kill the other or to cause him really serious bodily injury. The second verdict is a finding that the defendant is not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter by reason of provocation. The actuation and the words uttered by Chapman and Jone taken as a whole may have provoked this defendant to suddenly and temporarily lose his self-control? The third verdict is not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter where death resulted but nonetheless it is proven that this defendant did not intend to kill or did not intend to cause really serious bodily injury. Lastly, a not guilty verdict should you find him innocent of the charges. Before you can conclude the guilt or innocence of this defendant, you must determine if he is sound mind and discretion; he unlawfully caused the victim’s death; he acted with prudence as a reasonable being would do under the circumstances; and he stabbed the victim intending to cause grievous bodily harm resulting in death. Thus, it is imperative for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mandatory elements are present. It must prove that this defendant was not only sane when he stabbed Simon Chapman but that he acted consciously, purposely and intentionally7 with full control of his mental faculties at the time the offence was committed. You must remember that the absence of one element is not sufficient to prove the guilt of this defendant and if confronted by this situation, you must give a verdict of not guilty. So the question is—how does the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant acted knowingly or intentionally? It must be shown that he is conscious and aware that his actuations will cause death or serious bodily injury inflicted will result in death. This is the most crucial question of fact that you shall now determine. You will examine the state of mind of this defendant by taking into consideration all the facts presented during the trial, particularly this defendant’s conduct, actuation or words. The key element that must be answered by you is whether this defendant acted voluntarily and knowingly. I have stated earlier that the burden lies with the prosecution to prove that the intent of this defendant is to cause death or serious injury. However it is not essential for the prosecution to produce witnesses who will testify that this defendant indeed conveyed his intent or purpose to cause death or serious bodily injury resulting in death. Moreover, the prosecution is not required to produce witnesses who knew from that defendant’s conduct that his purpose is to cause death or serious bodily injury. The prosecution has presented several witnesses and their testimonies shall aid you in your deliberations to come up with a just and fair verdict. The first witness was Jones who stated that Duncan stabbed Chapman. He further stated that there were nobody near Chapman and Duncan who near enough to have inflicted the blow. This statement is confirmed by another witness, Miranda Shaw, who was likewise seated in the carriage occupied by Chapman and Jones. In her testimony, Ms. Shaw stated that David was a foot or two away from where Duncan lay. The forensic scientist, Dr. Mark Webster, positively testified that the blood droplets that landed on the right tow of the trainers of David emanated from a distance of not more than ten feet but on cross-examination, he likewise stated that it is possible that the blood droplets were sprinkled from a less than one foot distance. On the other hand, Mr. Knight, the forensic pathologist who conducted the internal examination of the wound inflicted upon Chapman, testified that the stab wound was found on the left hand side of the chest between the fifth and sixth ribs which slightly nicked the lower edge of the fifth rib. He further testified that the injury passed the front edge of the lung and went into the pericardium which is a fibrous bag around the heart. It was further stated that the injury was not inflicted on the front but it came from the side in a slightly downward direction towards the middle part of the body. Working on the theory presented by the defence that another person may have inflicted the wound, Mr. Knight stated that inflicting a wound on the side when one is in an standing position is awkward and unusual. If a person is standing and wanted to stab someone whose back is turned against him, it is logical to inflict the wound at the back in a downward trajectory and not bend down then lunge upwards. He however did not discount the possibility that a person standing would bend down and lunge upwards to inflict a stab wound. Mr. Knight further identified a knife to have been the weapon which may have inflicted the stab wound. The knife was never recovered by the police but it was discovered that a knife from the block in Duncan’s home is missing. Upon cross-examination, Mr. Knight stated that the wound could have been inflicted by a left-handed individual which the defence intimated that David is. The other witness presented by the prosecution is Mrs. Parker, mother of David, who testified that she washed the clothes of David and further declared that the jacket worn by David on the night in question was intact. She stated that it was not torn and she merely washed it since it was dirty and bloodied. For defendant Duncan’s part, he testified on his behalf where he confirmed the facts leading to the stabbing of Chapman. He nonetheless denied having stabbed Chapman. Duncan was confronted by his conflicting statements he made before the police immediately after the incident. During the initial police investigation, Duncan having known David or that they were friends. Duncan however changed his statement on the stand claiming that being friends, it was David who saved him from further injuries by stabbing Chapman. And, that the initial statement before the police was made to protect David whom he owed so much. It is from these statements that you shall draw your verdict on whether Duncan is guilty or not. It is your sole duty or responsibility to determine his awareness, knowledge, intent or purpose8 of this defendant. You must consider all circumstances including but not limited to the place and time the acts happened, the weapons used, nature and number of wounds inflicted and such other acts which this defendant did or said before and after the events leading to the death of the victim which you contemplate may be relevant to the incident in question. Again, I would like to remind you that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove that this defendant acted intentionally or knowingly to cause death or inflict serious bodily harm however it is not necessary for it to prove motive to secure conviction. It is important therefore to examine the intent of Duncan. Did he set out to kill or cause grievous injury resulting in death? When the boys were smoking, romping and running from carriage to carriage, was there intent to kill or cause grievous injury resulting in death? It is your responsibility to answer this question beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has proven its case when intent or consciousness is shown beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus if you are convinced of the culpability of this defendant based on the evidence presented then you must hold this defendant guilty of the offense regardless of this defendant’s motive or absence thereof. Nonetheless, motive would come into play and you may consider motive only insofar as it gives meaning to other circumstances or consider the absence of motive in determining the guilt or innocence of this defendant of the crime charged. Death with a deadly weapon would suggest that this defendant’s purpose was to kill or cause grievous injury resulting in death. Would the presence of the deadly weapon and the stabbing of decedent Chapman sufficient to prove that this defendant’s intent or purpose was to kill or cause grievous injury? Does the carrying of a knife prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant’s intent or purpose was to kill or cause grievous injury resulting in death? If in the affirmative, the next question to be asked is—under what situation did the stabbing occur? In your deliberations, you may take into account the weapon used and the manner and circumstances of the killing and if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant killed the victim you may draw an inference from the weapon used, including the manner and circumstances of the killing regarding this defendant’s state of mind as well as purpose or knowledge. Was Duncan’s state of mind and purpose to kill or inflict bodily injury resulting in death? This question must be answered in the affirmative if you are to convict. The prosecution must likewise prove that this defendant unlawfully caused the death of the victim or inflicted grievous bodily injury resulting in death. As I have earlier articulated, it is not enough that a death resulted from the injury inflicted by the defendant. It must be proven that the defendant unlawfully caused the death and in order to convict, it must be shown that this defendant was conscious and aware that the deliberate act caused grievous bodily injury that resulted in the victim’s unlawful death; that he was aware that the injury created a substantial risk of death; and that it was highly probable that death would result. From the actuations of the two boys who were smoking and cavorting from one carriage to another, can you deduce that Duncan intended to unlawfully cause the death or inflict fatal injury? On the other hand, would the chastisement of Jones and the pounding Duncan received from decedent Chapman provide sufficient provocation and ultimately for Duncan to lose self-control? It is therefore imperative for you to determine whether the act committed is within the objective or contemplation of this defendant. To establish causation9 or cause of death, the prosecution must prove a link that the victim would not have died but for this defendant's conduct; and death is within the design or contemplation of the defendant. You have to determine whether the actuation of the boys in romping and smoking that their acts If you are convinced that the prosecution had proven that death of the victim was expected then this defendant is guilty of murder. However, a guilty verdict of murder requires that you must unanimously10 agree that this defendant knowingly or intentionally caused unlawfully the death of the victim or the serious harm against him. Again, I would like to sum up the prosecution’s case but you are not precluded from making your own assessment and in fact, you are instructed to make your own independent determination of facts based on the evidence presented—this defendant was out late at night armed with a knife from his own kitchen. He was determined to dominate and threaten and intimidate those he came across and he was prepared to risk killing somebody in order not to lose face. This defendant by his own act and conduct provoked the fight and caused the death of Simon Chapman and no one else. It is not defendant’s companion, David, who was standing a few feet away from where the victim and defendant were struggling. Witnesses presented, namely Miranda Shaw did not see David with a knife doing anything in the fight; while Christopher Jones did not see David involved in the fight; and this defendant himself did not see David involved in the fight. This defendant stated that he saw David and yet he could not state with certainty how David could have stabbed the victim. The fatal wound could only have been inflicted by this defendant considering his proximity to the victim and the location of the stab wound in the chest—the prosecution asserts that this defendant is fully aware of the gravity of his action and it is his intention to cause death of the victim. On the other hand, the defence asserts that this defendant could not have inflicted the fatal wound based these circumstances: first, the victim by his own act of picking the umbrella, upon being awakened by trouble in the carriage, struck this defendant across the face is in itself an act of extreme violence. Second, it was the victim who provoked this defendant by throwing him hard unto the floor and pinning him on the floor by straddling on this defendant. Third, this defendant was lying flat on his back while being beaten by the victim. Fourth, David, out of fear that this defendant will be killed, wielded the kitchen knife against the victim. This defendant asserts that David could have come from behind and in an arc-like motion with the knife and stabbed the victim in the chest. This defendant further asserts that the pathologist testified that there is a possibility that this defendant could not have stabbed the victim. Considering the location of the stab wound on the left hand side of the chest, the wound could have been inflicted by a left-handed person. This defendant, being right-handed, would be in a difficult position to inflict the wound but David being left-handed and coming round could have done it. This defendant further assailed the prosecution’s case that by discharging David as a co-defendant is by reason of expediency. If based on the evidence presented, you are convinced that this defendant caused the unlawful death of the victim intentionally then you must find him guilty of murder. In your deliberations, you must assess the actions of this defendant before and after the incident. You must determine what did this defendant do or did not do and what did this defendant say or did not say before, during or after inflicting the wound since this may show the actual intention and the state of knowledge of this defendant at the critical time of stabbing. It would likewise exhibit his full appreciation of the gravity of his actuations and its consequences and he understood that it will cause death or serious bodily harm. If you are satisfied that this defendant has the necessary intention and knowledge at the time of the alleged murder then you must find him guilty. Again, the prosecution need not prove a long-standing intent, it is sufficient for it to have been formed in split seconds. Any feelings of remorse after the inflicting the wound will not erase the culpability of this defendant. Assuming that you cannot find this defendant’s intent to commit murder but you are satisfied that the killing is a result of defendant’s unlawful action then you must convict him for the lesser offence of manslaughter11 since this defendant may not have appreciated the danger of his actuation or he may not intended to inflict so serious an injury. You must likewise appreciate that this defendant was lying flat on his back being beaten by the victim and if you are satisfied that this defendant caused the death of the victim you must determine if the means employed was necessary to defend himself and by this, you have to determine if it is a lawful self-defence12. Lawful self-defence occurs when a person finds it necessary to defend himself but the amount of force used in self-defence must be reasonable. You must ask these questions in your deliberation if this defendant was being attacked: is it necessary to defend himself against that attack? Is the defendant the aggressor? If this defendant could have been the aggressor then this defendant could not be acting in lawful self-defence thus you must find him guilty. If this defendant however was the initial aggressor but the blow he inflicted was necessary to repel the victim’s assault then this defendant could have acted in lawful self-defence hence entitled to an acquittal. If the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant was not acting in lawful self-defence or provoked to stab Simon Chapman then he will be guilty of murder. On the other hand, if you find that this defendant was or may have been provoked then this defendant will be not guilty of murder but may be held liable for a less serious offence of manslaughter13 if it was the victim’s act and conduct or words that provoked this defendant to suddenly lose control. However, you must consider the length of time that had elapsed when the actions or words were made—if this defendant had sufficient time to consider his actions then the element of sudden and temporary loss of self-control is negated. If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant was not provoked or assuming that he was provoke but he had time to think then this defendant is guilty of murder and not manslaughter. After consideration of all the facts and evidence, you are not convinced that the prosecution was able to adduce evidence to overcome the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt then you must return with a verdict of not guilty. Bibliography Cases Regina v. Woollin. [1999] 1 A.C. 82; [1998] 3 W.L.R. 382; [1998] 4 All E.R. 103 accessed 22 January 2012. Primary legislation Coroners and Justice Act 2009. 2009 c.25. accessed 24 January 2012. Criminal Justice Act 2003. 2003 c.44. Judicial Studies Board. Crown Court Bench Book. Directing the Jury. March 2010. accessed 25 January 2012. Judicial Studies Board. Crown Court Bench Book and Specimen Directions. 3rd ed. 2010. accessed 25 January 2012. Sentencing Guidance Council. Manslaughter by Reason of Provocation. Guideline. November 2005. accessed 26 January 2012. Online Journals Crown Prosecution Service. Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter. accessed 25 January 2012. Crown Prosecution Service. Youthful Offenders. 23 January 2012. Read More