Of self-defence case - Research Paper Example

The government view is that, after Belcher confronted Suber, he went ahead, retrieved a gun from Brown and began shooting Suber with no excuse. the state affirms that the killing has to be unlawful and thus instructs the jury that the malice be inferred for the use of the deadly weapon (California Center for Research and Education in Government 86). The states stress that courts have been bestowed powers to settle fixtures in the criminal systems of the company. 2) What is the prosecutor's point of view?

From the prosecutor’s point of view, Belcher is guilty and has two counts of charges to answer. One of the charges is that Belcher committed murder while the second one is the possession of the illegal firearm. The prosecutor finds sufficient evidence to believe that Belcher committed the heinous act, it is for this reason that the prosecutor instructs the jury to convict Belcher for murder and the illegal possession of the firearm. The prosecutor refers the charges with respect to Belcher’s murder reiterating that his act contravenes the state law regarding human conduct.

According to the prosecutor, Murder is the unlawful killing with malice, which may be inferred by the deadly weapons or from the circumstances that may be proved by the state. According to the prosecutor, the law presumes malice from the homicide and therefore Belcher is guilty of the offense. However, the prosecutor does not take the step of prosecuting Belcher. In his response to the judgment of the jury that warrants the jury to charge Belcher for murder and voluntary manslaughter, the prosecutor finds the inference of malice regarding the use of the deadly weapon as no longer being a good law in South Carolina.

He therefore makes a ruling that Belcher’s convictions be reversed and remand for a new trial to begin. The prosecutor arrives at this verdict owing to the conflicting testimonies presented at the pretrial chamber. 3) What is the element of the crime? The elements of the crime are the use of the deadly weapon and malice. However, the evidence of self-defense and malice are presented with respect to this case. The evidence of malice in this case is evidenced by Belcher’s use of handgun. It is however, perceived that the notion of charging malice by the use of the deadly weapon is harmless.

This makes the case complicated. 4) What is the issue inference, Mens Rea, Actus Res, or Presumptuous? The issue inference here is the Suber’s murder subject to malice. Belcher portrays the Actus reas in his submission of evidence when he states that, his decision to shoot Suber was an attempt to defend him (West Publishing Company 270). The evidence provided is presumptuous and thus fail to catch the prosecutor’s admissibility. It is therefore, upon the jury’s decision to make valid ruling regarding the pursuance of justice.

It is important to note that presumption is not applicable when the circumstances and facts related to the homicide are disclosed in evidence in a manner that it draws a conclusion of malice. Presumptions are used as substitutes when theirs is a lack of direct proof. In Belcher’s case, presumption is employed owing to lack of sufficient evidence. 5) What was the previous Law? It emerges that the prosecution embraced the Bishop criminal law previously. Subject to this law, the inference of malice was drawn from the use of deadly weapons especially in the act of