GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #38 *Arrest*

[SteveS]

So basically they are focused on proving that when Arochi took Christina that was planned, that is to say, premeditated, wholly against her will, and in no way a consequence of some sort of accident?

They don't have to prove negatives that "it wasn't this, it wasn't that." They just have to provide evidence within the time-space-circumstances context that proves she was kidnapped (and if they can prove she was in his trunk, there ya go, because that clearly would have been an act of taking her somewhere against her will) with an aggravating factor also being a part of the equation. It's not as complex an equation legally as some want to make it imo.

I notice that they make no claim that she was dead when he put her in the trunk or that she is dead now. The language is general in that respect.

Correct. That distinction (of whether she is currently alive or dead) would be irrelevant to the charge of whether he kidnapped her on or about Aug 30 2014.

 

[zippixx]

Here is the story in StarLocalMedia (Brittany Feagans, [email protected]):


http://m.starlocalmedia.com/allenam...822-c780-11e4-ac91-e3d0b09e3a70.html?mode=jqm

 

[zippixx]

BBM

From: StarLocalMedia:

“Grand jury proceedings are controlled by the prosecution and are closed to the public,” Gore said in an email. “We therefore do not know what the grand jury considered. Now that the charge has been indicted, the law requires the prosecution to disclose certain information to the defense. We will test the prosecution’s claims and present Enrique’s defense to a jury. Enrique asks to receive only that to which we are entitled: a fair trial.”

http://m.starlocalmedia.com/allenam...822-c780-11e4-ac91-e3d0b09e3a70.html?mode=jqm

 

[CuriousinNY]

I think there must be more info than has been released to be able state "intent to violate or sexual abuse" as a charge. What am I missing? All that we know to suggest this could be the case is the testimony of the party goers that he left angry and sexual frustrated. Correct?!

 

[zippixx]

I think there must be more info than has been released to be able state "intent to violate or sexual abuse" as a charge. What am I missing? All that we know to suggest this could be the case is the testimony of the party goers that he left angry and sexual frustrated. Correct?!

As you know, the actual "charge" is AK. For it to be AK, "intent" must be proven. There are 3 different "intents" listed in the indictment (one being "intent to violate or sexual abuse"). Only one of the "intents" listed needs to be proven..

However, like you said there is probably a lot more info regarding "intent to violate or sexual abuse" that we're not privy to... jmo

 

[NWLady]

As you know, the actual "charge" is AK. For it to be AK, "intent" must be proven. There are 3 different "intents" listed in the indictment (one being "intent to violate or sexual abuse"). Only one of the "intents" listed needs to be proven..

However, like you said there is probably a lot more info regarding "intent to violate or sexual abuse" that we're not privy to... jmo

Not being snarky, but do we KNOW that only one of the "intents" listed needs to be proven? Or is this just someone's opinion/thoughts of how it works? Thoughts?

 

[zippixx]

Not being snarky, but do we KNOW that only one of the "intents" listed needs to be proven? Or is this just someone's opinion/thoughts of how it works? Thoughts?

I'm certainly not a lawyer or claim to be an expert, but that's how I read it (according to the Texas Penal Code):

BBM

§ 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person
with the intent to:
(1) hold him for ransom or reward;
(2) use him as a shield or hostage;
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the
flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse
him sexually;
(5) terrorize him or a third person; or
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental
or political function.

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/20.04.00.html

ETA: I would find it unlikely that it is "all or none"...

 

[CuriousinNY]

As you know, the actual "charge" is AK. For it to be AK, "intent" must be proven. There are 3 different "intents" listed in the indictment (one being "intent to violate or sexual abuse"). Only one of the "intents" listed needs to be proven..

However, like you said there is probably a lot more info regarding "intent to violate or sexual abuse" that we're not privy to... jmo

I dont know the right way to phrase this but would law enforcement name all 3 of those intents
on every kidnapping or did they do so in this case because they have some sort of evidence that strongly suggests that is the case?

 

[zippixx]

I dont know the right way to phrase this but would law enforcement name all 3 of those intents
on every kidnapping or did they do so in this case because they have some sort of evidence that strongly suggests that is the case?

My guess (and only a guess) would be they choose the intent(s) that most likely fits the specific crime... In this case, it would seem very possible (if not probable) that all 3 happened... jmo!

 

[cluciano63]

We don't know what evidence the GJ heard. Maybe EA's semen was found in trunk, along with Christina's DNA. Who knows?

In Hannah Graham's case, the suspect was charged with "intent to defile" at once and I don't think we know as yet why/what exactly brought this charge-do we? Just because LE said something about not being able to say that a sex assault occurred doesn't mean there are not clues pointing that way, Imo. They do not need to release that info to the public.

All jmo

 

[Sweetgrits]

He is not going to "tell" anything...he is pleading NG. Maybe he will reconsider when murder charges come. Jmo

ITA but I don't believe that he had help with the alleged murder only because some guys could be a hard and not squeal on an accomplice but I don't see EA doing that. I just think if he could blame someone else for any part of what happened to Christina he would be singing like a canary. :underbus: (OMG this post sounds like something out of a cheap paperback about an ex cop who got fired, lost his wife and house and turned into a private dick to pay the bills. Oh yeah his secretary is an over the hill broad with bleached hair and a very short skirt!)

MOO

 

[Sweetgrits]

We don't know what evidence the GJ heard. Maybe EA's semen was found in trunk, along with Christina's DNA. Who knows?

In Hannah Graham's case, the suspect was charged with "intent to defile" at once and I don't think we know as yet why/what exactly brought this charge-do we? Just because LE said something about not being able to say that a sex assault occurred doesn't mean there are not clues pointing that way, Imo. They do not need to release that info to the public.

All jmo

BBM that would explain why LE went straight to aggravated kidnapping as their charge. JMO

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Finally the case is moving forward.
EA's 25th b-day is Thursday, the 12th.
If he doesn't have any specific details to offer about what happened to Christina,
he can look forward to spending all of his future b-days in prison.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

LE did those garbage pulls and found some items that may be related to the case.
What if more items were found such as zip ties or rope or ?
Or, maybe some household items turned up, either collected from the trash earlier or the house when LE searched it in December, with CM's DNA.
If LE can prove she was in EA's trunk and prove she was also in his house, maybe that is why LE is so sure EA took her for his own reasons (versus for someone else).

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I think there must be more info than has been released to be able state "intent to violate or sexual abuse" as a charge. What am I missing? All that we know to suggest this could be the case is the testimony of the party goers that he left angry and sexual frustrated. Correct?!

I can't explain it either but it came up in a murder case too. Four counts of murder when there was one suspect and one victim.
During a discussion, I thought I finally grasped why the four counts (people tried hard to explain it) but my understanding was fleeting!
LE brings the charges to cover all the bases I guess. Then the jury deciphers which charges fit the crime best (I'm guessing).

The guy who murdered a man (he claimed self-defense) and dismembered him (admitted it and explained how he did it) wasn't charged for the dismemberment because the Pros didn't list charges covering that part of the crime. Why, I do not know since the victim was found in pieces. He was only charged with murder one iirc and, for some uncanny reason, the jurors believed his claims of self-defense. He walked away a free man.
Makes little sense to me but really happened this way.

Or, I'm asking, by the time the case goes before the jury are the charges narrowed down and specified exactly?

 

[daisytrail]

Here is a Wikipedia article with a whole slew of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

Now what I am wondering is if the prosecution has to prove that EA intended these things whether they actually happened or not. I know that sounds strange, but what if someone kidnaps someone for the purpose of rape but for some reason does not actually perform the rape? Is it his intention that counts, in which case there would exploration of his state of mind. I think the fancy legal term is mens rea, which I learned before I skimmed the wiki article by watching Legally Blonde.

Suppose EA kidnapped Christina for the purpose of rape but in the process, he accidentally killed her and panicked and disposed of her body and never actually committed the rape. Is he guilty anyway for the aggravated circumstances because he intended rape?

 

[Eileen730]

I think this is important!

Detectives said the DNA profile of an unknown male was also discovered. Plano PD did not have a DNA sample from Arochi to compare the unknown sample to until his Dec. 13 arrest for aggravated kidnapping. It has not been revealed if the sample has tested positive for his DNA.

http://m.starlocalmedia.com/allenam...822-c780-11e4-ac91-e3d0b09e3a70.html?mode=jqm

 

[Eileen730]

Evidence does not lie!

People do!

 

[Eileen730]

Maybe now we can find out how her DNA got in HIS car!

 

[Eileen730]

Here is a Wikipedia article with a whole slew of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

Now what I am wondering is if the prosecution has to prove that EA intended these things whether they actually happened or not. I know that sounds strange, but what if someone kidnaps someone for the purpose of rape but for some reason does not actually perform the rape? Is it his intention that counts, in which case there would exploration of his state of mind. I think the fancy legal term is mens rea, which I learned before I skimmed the wiki article by watching Legally Blonde.

Suppose EA kidnapped Christina for the purpose of rape but in the process, he accidentally killed her and panicked and disposed of her body and never actually committed the rape. Is he guilty anyway for the aggravated circumstances because he intended rape?

How can u prove someone intended to rape someone?
If they cant find the person he intended to rape.