GUILTY NC - Jason Corbett, 39, murdered in his Wallburg home, 2 Aug 2015 #8

[kittythehare]

You might want to explore if the Castle Doctrine applies to cases involving DV. I think what is involved is the determination of the "right to be there" for the duty to retreat. I believe DV is defined as crimes committed within established family relationships. For legal purposes, it's difficult to determine who has the right to be there more than the other. IMO <modsnip>

There are many elements of malice in this situation; I just don't know what elements have been proven and what the jury will be instructed to consider. IMO

Me neither, but second degree murder is the charge, not DV.
He , if he had been attacking, had already been immobilised, but they killed him anyway.

 

[Logic-lady]

You might want to explore if the Castle Doctrine applies to cases involving DV. I think what is involved is the determination of the "right to be there" for the duty to retreat. I believe DV is defined as crimes committed within established family relationships. For legal purposes, it's difficult to determine who has the right to be there more than the other. IMO <modsnip>

There are many elements of malice in this situation; I just don't know what elements have been proven and what the jury will be instructed to consider. IMO

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-defenses.html

I don't believe the castle doctrine applies in this instance as it is covered in the defense itself.

Here are the basic elements of a self-defense claim:

• The defendant was not in a place they were prohibited from entering.
• The defendant cannot be at fault in the situation.
• The defendant was not the aggressor or instigator.
• The defendant had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm that required the use of force.
• The defendant fulfilled the requirement to retreat from the threat or attempt to avoid danger.

First, the defendant must be in a place that they had a right to be in when the situation arose. A trespasser, for example, cannot enter someones property and then claim self-defense if they kill the property owner in a scuffle.
Second, the general rule is that the person claiming self-defense must not have provoked the slain party in any way. If the situation arose because of the actions of the eventual killer, the killer cannot argue that the slaying occurred in self-defense. It might lessen the severity of the charge, but provocation by the defendant negates the possibility of an acquittal because of self-defense.
In addition, the person acting in self-defense must have had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm that necessitated the use of force. If the situation would not result in death or great bodily harm, or if the killers fear was unreasonable, then the self-defense argument is not available.
Furthermore, a person can only justify self-defense if the situation requires immediate action in order to prevent bodily harm or loss of life. Once the situation has ceased to threaten bodily harm or loss of life, the self-defense justification is no longer available.
For example, if a person acting in self-defense fires a shot that knocks their assailant unconscious and the shooter has enough time to perceive that the threat has ceased, the shooter could not justify firing another shot as self-defense.
Some states also require that the person claiming self-defense retreat from the danger or otherwise attempt to defuse the situation before using force to protect themselves. If the person claiming self defense does not attempt to retreat from the threat, the self-defense argument may not be available. Some states, such as Florida, do not require retreat before defending. This is often called a "stand your ground" law.

 

[kittythehare]

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-defenses.html

I don't believe the castle doctrine applies in this instance as it is covered in the defense itself.

Here are the basic elements of a self-defense claim:

• The defendant was not in a place they were prohibited from entering.
• The defendant cannot be at fault in the situation.
• The defendant was not the aggressor or instigator.
• The defendant had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm that required the use of force.
• The defendant fulfilled the requirement to retreat from the threat or attempt to avoid danger.

First, the defendant must be in a place that they had a right to be in when the situation arose. A trespasser, for example, cannot enter someones property and then claim self-defense if they kill the property owner in a scuffle.
Second, the general rule is that the person claiming self-defense must not have provoked the slain party in any way. If the situation arose because of the actions of the eventual killer, the killer cannot argue that the slaying occurred in self-defense. It might lessen the severity of the charge, but provocation by the defendant negates the possibility of an acquittal because of self-defense.
In addition, the person acting in self-defense must have had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm that necessitated the use of force. If the situation would not result in death or great bodily harm, or if the killers fear was unreasonable, then the self-defense argument is not available.
Furthermore, a person can only justify self-defense if the situation requires immediate action in order to prevent bodily harm or loss of life. Once the situation has ceased to threaten bodily harm or loss of life, the self-defense justification is no longer available.
For example, if a person acting in self-defense fires a shot that knocks their assailant unconscious and the shooter has enough time to perceive that the threat has ceased, the shooter could not justify firing another shot as self-defense.
Some states also require that the person claiming self-defense retreat from the danger or otherwise attempt to defuse the situation before using force to protect themselves. If the person claiming self defense does not attempt to retreat from the threat, the self-defense argument may not be available. Some states, such as Florida, do not require retreat before defending. This is often called a "stand your ground" law.

Amended Castle Doctrine NC, late 2013 states in ref specifically to defence of self and others
• It says a person can use deadly force without first retreating if the person reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another person or under circumstances permitted under the state’s revised Castle Doctrine.

Jason was unconscious or dead.. force was no longer required.

 

[kittythehare]

re stand-your-ground law.. I just found this article from April, not digested it yet.. would possibly apply to Mm as homeowner but not TM as visitor
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article144125889.html
I will try to find exact NC legislation

more here http://www.kirkkirklaw.com/legal-resources/can-you-stand-your-ground-in-north-carolina/

Actually I'm not sure it applies at all.. its really about intruders

 

[wildebeest]

First of Sunday rags

The Irish Sun on Sunday has also learned Martens&#8217; two sons may testify on behalf of the defendants.
And the Irish Sun on Sunday has learned it remains an open question whether she will take the stand
https://t.co/I9ZdWzGN1Z

Let's hope she does.

Wonder why they didn't go with an insanity plea for her? But no, Tom stepped in to save her. More enabling.

IMHO

 

[searchinGirl]

re stand-your-ground law.. I just found this article from April, not digested it yet.. would possibly apply to Mm as homeowner but not TM as visitor
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article144125889.html
I will try to find exact NC legislation

more here http://www.kirkkirklaw.com/legal-resources/can-you-stand-your-ground-in-north-carolina/

Actually I'm not sure it applies at all.. its really about intruders

I thought I might share this story about the "make my day" law (similar to the Castle Doctrine) in Colorado; it's food for thought about what you might do when confronted with a situation in which you have to defend yourself. It's a story about a girl named Zoey who was about to graduate from CU in Boulder. She went out with friends one night to celebrate and evidently got drunk. She got a ride to what she thought was her friends house but it wasn't. The house belonged to a local psychiatrist who was sleeping in bed with his wife. She managed to get inside the house through an unlocked door and she turned the flashlight app to her phone on and held it in front of her so she could see her way. She didn't say anything; not even to the Dr. who was now awake and calling to her to stop, state her purpose in being there and demanding she retreat. He couldn't see her because she was shining the light in his eyes, so he pulled out his gun and shot her in the hip. He was a bad shot and apparently totally freaked out by her presence in his bedroom. His wife then comforted Zoey while he called the police. Zoey didn't know what she had done to deserve getting shot, but she is the one that got charged with a crime. The Dr was completely cleared. He said he felt terrible for the girl but didn't know what he could or should have done differently. She put him in a situation in which he felt he had no other choice but to act in self defense for himself and his wife, and the DA agreed.

We don't really prepare ourselves for things like this in life. We only hope that when confronted with such a situation we might have the wherewithal to do the right thing. Fortunately for Zoey, she lived to tell her story. Others aren't so lucky.

 

[SandyQLS]

www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/martens-murder-case-jury-faces-grim-task-of-sifting-through-bloody-evidence-36004030.html

"Mr Martens acknowledged he told his daughter he didn't think it was a good marriage and urged her to go to a lawyer and consider her divorce options. "He did not measure up to what I thought my daughter's standards should be," he bluntly said."

Thank you for finding that quote again. IMO MM is rather unaccomplished for a woman her age and coming from her social class. Her parents had the financial means to provide for her and yet she did not graduate university, she did not even complete a junior college course to get some kind of certification. She barely worked and could not support herself. If she wanted to marry and have children, she failed in her place of origin to find a husband. The best thing that ever happened to her was JC who was paying her way. I think TM is a fantasist regarding MM and her value to any man, and I am glad he dared to state his opinion in testimony.

 

[SandyQLS]

and whether her or TM failings and continuation constitute malice?

Yes. It is in the link you provided earlier covering the template for a judge's instructions to a jury in NC 2nd degree murder:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury_i...ed-homicide-offenses-and-self-defense-felony/

"Second, that the defendant acted intentionally and with malice.

Intent is a mental attitude which is seldom provable by direct evidence. It must ordinarily be proved by circumstances from which it may be inferred. You arrive at the intent of a person by such just and reasonable deductions from the circumstances proven as a reasonably prudent person would ordinarily draw therefrom."

Do not the circumstances of pursuing JC all around the room, choosing to beat JC in the head, using two deadly weapons, two attackers on one, beating JC when he was already down, beating JC when he was already dead, JC lacking offensive wounds, JC having no weapon, TM & MM having no injuries - the jury is charged to do exactly this, INFER what it all means.

Motive is not an element of a crime. However, juries like to know some sort of reason why this all happened, so IMO the judge is allowing a very minimal amount of motive information since this is not charged as a planned 1st degree murder. Under the law for 2nd degree murder, the intent and malice both occurred during the act, not beforehand.

 

[Francesca]

I am way behind on my reading (a few threads behind!) and I have only got up to the Defence implying that Tom had no idea there was any suggestion of DV in the Martens-Corbett marriage. As many of you pointed out, this is a flip from Molly's previous stance as a DV crusader who fought back and needed her father to step in to help her...
IMO, the turn-around has happened because advisers probably told the family it was implausible that Tom and Sharon would come for a friendly visit and go happily to bed, knowing that Molly was in danger. So they've had to rewrite that part of the story. If this was a real DV situation, the correct thing to have done would have been to get Molly out that afternoon (maybe along with the kids). Not say "Goodnight, looking forward to golf tomorrow" and trundle off to bed.

 

[Logic-lady]

Yes. It is in the link you provided earlier covering the template for a judge's instructions to a jury in NC 2nd degree murder:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury_i...ed-homicide-offenses-and-self-defense-felony/

"Second, that the defendant acted intentionally and with malice.

Intent is a mental attitude which is seldom provable by direct evidence. It must ordinarily be proved by circumstances from which it may be inferred. You arrive at the intent of a person by such just and reasonable deductions from the circumstances proven as a reasonably prudent person would ordinarily draw therefrom."

Do not the circumstances of pursuing JC all around the room, choosing to beat JC in the head, using two deadly weapons, two attackers on one, beating JC when he was already down, beating JC when he was already dead, JC lacking offensive wounds, JC having no weapon, TM & MM having no injuries - the jury is charged to do exactly this, INFER what it all means.

Motive is not an element of a crime. However, juries like to know some sort of reason why this all happened, so IMO the judge is allowing a very minimal amount of motive information since this is not charged as a planned 1st degree murder. Under the law for 2nd degree murder, the intent and malice both occurred during the act, not beforehand.

Agreed, the malice is inferred in the crime, the prosecution do not need to prove it separately. I believe the prosecution have done enough to prove the crime, adding any element of motive only strengthens their case but is not necessarily needed legally. IMO

 

[irishmartin]

As irrational as MM is I don&#8217;t think she would have the audacity to start the assault and don&#8217;t think she would have the power to inflict serious injuries before JC responded. From what we know from the autopsy report he had minimum alcohol content that had negligible effect and from what has being speculated of the drug trazodone it would not delay or inhibit a response to stimuli. What I understand it would only induce a deep sleep and when awakened would not inhibit responses. A belt of a brick requires being up close and would require inflicting a really serious injury to incapacitate the victim and such is not the ideal weapon of choice for an assault even on a sleeping victim. Use of a brick is more of an emergency response weapon not one of planned choice. We do know the JC did not go easy. Should MM have begun the assault its more than likely JC would have the ability to shove MM away from him if not give her a good thump. MM had no injury nor was there any indication she was involved in a brawl except for JC blood spatter. JC would then be then fully awake and out of bed and would be able to defend himself even from a TM attack and from such an attack would he would have received a much more serious defensive arm injuries. I don&#8217;t think there would be any match between an alert JC and a baton armed TM. I would think the only person asleep that night was JC and the rest drank in the kitchen till the issue of dealing with JC came to a head of its now or never. Remember that JC is 6.2, big frame and fit since he regularly played soccer. I find more credible is the TM clinical attack of standing over JC and raining down a series of blow to the back of his head as he slept on his front and the first few blows would have seriously concussed him and would not be in a position to put up a defense only try to avoid the following blows and that is the reason TM or MM had no injuries as JC was unable to respond to defend himself. And this accounts for his catastrophic head injuries and the blood spatter expert witness believes this also. I would think while TM followed him around with MM assisting in the assault with her brick and its easy inflict multiple brick injuries to a victim that&#8217;s on their knees or prone unable to defend themselves any longer. And this is when MM did her assaulting. I also believe the TM wouldn&#8217;t want MM to begun an assault as she could get injured in the consequences of an assault.





And TM had sufficient self-motivation to attack JC without any intervening factors based on his ingrained hatred of him, also he was moving on from his beloved Molly and making her his responsibility once again and the insult to the family honour from this blow-in. I&#8217;m sure they considered foremost of how MM would distraught at the loss of the C kids. We also know that JC had repulsed efforts not only of MM but both TM and SM to their adoption enterprise which I&#8217;m sure they were still smarting from. This does not tie in with the trial evidence of TM advising MM to seek a divorce. We also know there was a beneficial change to a JC life assurance some days before his death in favour of MM. I went back to have a look at the JC estate claims and I find to my surprise which I had earlier refuted that there is also issues raised about JC making in May 2011 a payment of $80,000 into a joint account of TM and SM which the estate of JC couldn&#8217;t find repayment off. From what I see TM took the view of JC as being the village idiot. He had him pay what I would call and exorbitant sum of $45,000 for their daughter wedding, attempted to badger him over granting MM adoption right to his own kids and was regularly visiting his home as if he had some proprietary rights there. And on the evening of the killing here again were the M interfering in JC-MM wedding as if they had some right. Anyone that demeans their family like TM did to others outside the family shows a profound ignorant arrogance for that person. Also in the TM estate hearing MM claims she purchased home furnishings for her parents from her credit card and to further examined that she had no income and her credit card was funded directly from JC. From what I conclude out of it JC was some type of saintly figure that never complained or let his true felling know of the pressures the M had him constantly under. Just how many would tolerate their in-laws coming into their home and openly interfering in their marriage does not need comment on.



I do believe the M had considered all their options in dealing with JC for to solve MM issues weeks if not months in advance. TM is too calculating to react to transitory happenings. The legal route had no hope of any return in fact it indicated she had no claims. JC kids were his; his home was his and whatever income MM existed on was directly from JC. In fact MM brought nothing to the matrimonial home. I&#8217;m sure they considered a hit man as being too dangerous and coming directly back to them and an accidental death difficult to work out. But the crisis was upon them and as a lawyer and law enforcer TM saw a clink of light in the DV motivation for the powerful defence of self-defence in a family altercation. But just like lighting a little fire the assault by TM of a quick few belt to the back of the head did not kill him as he believed and it had to on to an overkill is what exposes this to be a vicious pre-planned killing. And tied into all this is how quick they were off the mark to deal with JC passing. Clearing out his bank-account, custody of the kids, claim on the JC life assurance policy and immediate cremation and this in a consorted M and extended family effort to this effect.

http://evoke.ie/news/irish-news/jason-corbett-gave-martens-family-80k

 

[Columbo16]

The forensics guy has stated that any one of the blows to the head that Jason received would lead to loss of consciousness.
The first blow would have rendered him unconscious.

When I was 10 years old, I had an accident on my bicycle. Another cyclist crashed into me and I was thrown head first over the handle bars. This was back when we didn't wear safety helmets. I landed head first on the concrete pavement. Apparently the noise of my head hitting the pavement was so loud that the shop keeper across the road heard it and came running over to help. I was out cold for 10 minutes and when I did come round my body had gone into complete shock. I didn't even know my own name. I spent 3 days in intensive care and a month in hospital. I suffered pain and headaches for a year after the accident. I had a fractured skull. A hairline fractured Skull. Compared to any of the head injuries that JC received my hairline fracture seems minute, but had left me incredibly ill. This is why I can't buy into the testimony of TM, about how Jason was in any physical shape to fight and grab a bat out of anybody's hand with such severe head injuries. When the defence asks have you ever been strangled (chocked) I say No! But I have suffered from a severe head injury and I sure know how that feels.

 

[irishmartin]

As was mentioned in this article, and also in this opinion piece, http://www.journalnow.com/news/colu...cle_41780f72-4e95-5235-88e0-511b64a48a11.html, JC told a nurse practitioner that he was finding himself angry for no reason while being evaluated for yet another health concern, his thyroid. So far we have heard about issues with his gallbladder, heart, and diet. And the NP evidently noted the unexplained anger as a sign of depression. I'm wondering if there were any incidents that led up to this doctor visit that the brothers might shed some light on? The defense is going to point to this as evidence of JC being the agressor. IMO The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.

There is no evidence that JC suffering any serious illness nor mental one.

There is no evidence that JC assaulted anyone those claiming assault have no evidence to prove it.

The force used was excessive.

There is no defense for “self-defense”

 

[irishmartin]

I've only been occasionally reading this thread since the trial started. Can someone tell me what the amendment to the insurance policy was?

We don't know and its puzzling. It seems the beneficiary was changed to MM. Some believe it was a forgery but Life Assurance companies are well up to this and after any changes there is a close scrutiny of signatures.

 

[stmarysmead]

The Defense for TM said in their opening statement that TM heard a scream and not knowing what was happening, grabbed the bat.

But is it correct that in a deposition entered into evidence, that TM said he heard them arguing and was going upstairs to tell them to stop or he'd call police. is that correct?

Then why would he bring a bat upstairs? He had no knowledge of DV. So why did he need a bat?

It seems he had already decided to arm himself to fight a much larger, younger man.

 

[zozimus]

The paving slab is key for proving MMs guilt imo. Am I correct in saying she gave a statement saying she tried and failed to use it? This is a proven lie. It is almost certain she initiated the attack or joined in at a stage when he was unconscious on the floor. As for TM I would take his testimony with a large pinch of salt. There are probably a few bodges of the truth in there to suit his narrative. If you leave his questionable testimony aside. The physical evidence from independent experts is overwhelming. There is very little evidence that JC was the aggressor. The only thing the defence are clinging to is the strands of hair. Which could also easily be explained by self defence. TM brought the bat/weapon into the room. And then we know he used it on an incapacitated man multiple times. Self defence does not hold water here to any reasonable mind. I hope the jury do the right thing. Finally, I'm curious, Does any non-biased person here actually believe these people are innocent of 2nd degree murder ? I'm probably biased despite my best efforts.

 

[stmarysmead]

We don't know and its puzzling. It seems the beneficiary was changed to MM. Some believe it was a forgery but Life Assurance companies are well up to this and after any changes there is a close scrutiny of signatures.

I think the change in the policy may be one more sign that JC was done with this marriage. By all accounts JC was a kind hearted and extremely generous man...even to those who looked down on him...like TM.

I think he was done with his chaotic marriage. But remember, MM does suffer from a mental illness beyond her control. I think he may have had strong feelings of pity for her. But he needed to get himself and his children out of that dysfunctional home.

He knew though that MM had no job skills, no means to support herself. He would be required to pay her alimony...but if he died, she would be destitute. This may have been his way of reassuring her that she would be okay. He was providing for her, either way. But he wanted out.

This might have been even more frightening to MM than a bitter argument. He wanted out so badly that he was being generous and kind.

But I will add...if this was company supplied insurance...once your employment with the company ends, it goes away like your other benefits. If JC lost his job, or changed jobs, that policy is gone.

 

[stephanddoody]

The paving slab is key for proving MMs guilt imo. Am I correct in saying she gave a statement saying she tried and failed to use it? This is a proven lie. It is almost certain she initiated the attack or joined in at a stage when he was unconscious on the floor. As for TM I would take his testimony with a large pinch of salt. There are probably a few bodges of the truth in there to suit his narrative. If you leave his questionable testimony aside. The physical evidence from independent experts is overwhelming. There is very little evidence that JC was the aggressor. The only thing the defence are clinging to is the strands of hair. Which could also easily be explained by self defence. TM brought the bat/weapon into the room. And then we know he used it on an incapacitated man multiple times. Self defence does not hold water here to any reasonable mind. I hope the jury do the right thing. Finally, I'm curious, Does any non-biased person here actually believe these people are innocent of 2nd degree murder ? I'm probably biased despite my best efforts.

That is the only part of her statement given to sheriffs department that we do know . She said she tried to hit Jason with the paver but was unsuccessful
. In statements to investigators, Molly Corbett said she tried to strike Jason Corbett with the paving stone but was unsuccessful.Martin argued otherwise. He said that prosecutors will prove that Molly Corbett and Martens hit Jason Corbett multiple times with the bat and the paving stone. Dr. Craig Nelson, the medical examiner will testify that when he took the scalp off Jason Corbett&#8217;s head for examination, chunks of skull fell out onto the examining table, Martin said.

http://www.journalnow.com/news/crime...ign=user-share
Brown later stated that Molly Corbett &#8220;did not try&#8221; to hit Jason Corbett with the cement paver - she &#8220;succeeded&#8221; in hitting him.


&#8220;(A cement paver) that she just so happened to have on her bed stand,&#8221; Brown said sarcastically.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish...arges-10927451

 

[stmarysmead]

I wonder if the decision to divorce had been made. Did TM drive down there to argue with JC about terms of support for MM after he had gone back to Ireland? The idea that MM would be back on their hands as they approached retirement might have been infuriating to TM.

I doubt we will ever know.

 

[stephanddoody]

I'm wondering about those that supported Molly so vehemently at the beginning. Has doubt started to creep into their minds . Their purpose seems to be done now . They are no longer needed to spread mistruths .Like the Molly doesn't bruise explaintion for the lack of injuries but now Tom says he saw unexplained bruises when questioned if he had knowledge of DV. So Molly can bruise . What about the brick being for a school project . They find out now it's just an average landscaping stone that belongs in the garden and not on the bed stand in the master bedroom. What about the lie about Mr Fitzpatrick. Do they believe a man that thought his son in law killed his daughter would take a 3hr journey to a solicitor when he was terminally ill to make a sworn affidavit that the conversation never took place . Mr Fitzpatricks wife and children also explaining the loving relationship Jason and Mr Fitzpatrick had .Do they believe that a very reputable attorney probably the best in town would allow a mistake of dates like that happen ? Goes from being said at the wedding in 2011 to a family gathering in 2012 . Did they actually know the extremity of Jason's injuries . I remember a poster way back at the start said the autopsy had benefits for the defence. I didn't see any . The defence never pointed them out . They said that paramedic said that Molly had signs of strangulation. But no paramedic noted anything other than light redness which could have been cause by Molly pulling at it . No raspy voice no nausea noted either . If they hadn't been so vicious in their attacks . I would feel sorry for them . Because it looks to me they were led up the garden path and now because they are no longer useful they will be dropped . JMO