gitana1
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 29,391
- Reaction score
- 230,089
Going back to the jury instructions (sorry, hope thats OK)
The part of "assault" is complex IMO, especially when you get to "intentional act" but that the State doesn't (or didn't) have to prove intent. "Assault" seems like it could apply to any sort of use of force / tough restraint, in this cqs, against someone being taken into custody who may not want to be taken into custody. NOT trying to argue the verdict at all, I just think it's interesting to now see the verdict and flip back to what the jury believed was proven by the State.
From the instructions :
"
The elements of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree while committing a felony ‘
are:
First Element: The death of George Floyd must be proven. Second Element: The Defendant caused the death of George Floyd.
Third Element: The Defendant, at the time. of causing the death of George Floyd, was committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of Assault in the Third Degree. It is not necessary for the State to prove the Defendant had an intent to kill George Floyd, but it must prove that the Defendant committed or attempted to commit the underlying felony of Assault in the Third Degree.
There are two elements of Assault in the Third Degree:
(l)
(2)
Defendant assaulted George Floyd.
“Assault” is the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another or the attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another. The intentional infliction of bodily harm requires proof that the Defendant intentionally applied unlawful
force to another person without that person’s consent and that this act resulted in bodily harm. Defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on George Floyd. It is not necessary for the State to prove that the Defendant intended to inflict substantial bodily harm, or knew that his actions would inflict substantial bodily harm, only that the Defendanf intended to commit the assault and that George Floyd sustained substantial bodily harm as a result of the assault.
--
Thanks so much for this. This case could be on the line. Did he know he was applying unlawful force to Mr. Floyd? If not, the facts don’t match. If so, then it matches.
But if it’s open for interpretation, I’m super glad to see the decision go in favor of the VICTIM for once. We’ve seen decisions go in favor of the defendant too often. You know what I mean?