Introduction
This essay identifies the different criminal defense mechanisms used in the cases studied (Self-defense of Moran vs. Ohio (1984) and the Sleeping walking defense of Arizona vs. Falater (1997)). The paper will analyze criminal defenses that were used by identifying as well as examining them. Additionally, the essay explains the nature as well as types of defenses applied in the two cases as well as the evidence used to support the defense. Lastly, a description of how justification and excuse played a role in the cases is presented. The last section will present the outcomes of both cases independently.
Analysis
In the first case, Mrs. Willie Moran was convicted of murdering her husband. In supporting her case trial, the petitioner claimed that she had acted on self-defense since on different occasions, she had been a victim of physical beatings and battering from her husband. She claimed that the husband was a temperamental person and he was in possession of guns and pistols. She was also seconded by her mother who said that she had witnessed the slain husband kicked the wife. This was after he demanded to receive money from the petitioner.
In this case, the defense used by the petitioner supposed self-defense and the use of “Battered woman’s syndrome”. In her defense, the petitioner presented to the courts the view that in most of her live with her husband, she had been physically assaulted several times by her spouse. However, the burden of a proof of the petition was shifted to the petitioner to prove her defense. The theory of battered syndrome identifies and emphasizes the incidences of repeated battering that could cause both physical and psychological effects and the fact of the wife’s dependency on husband’s economic support.
According to the theory, there are instances when a victim reaches their maximum tolerance point, this is where they cannot bear the physical assault anymore. At this point, victims can act in a manner to defend them, which can result in death of the offender. This kind of self-defense is usually aimed at protecting oneself from further injuries or negative psychological effects.
During the trial, the judge left the petitioner to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was acting in self-defense. It is worth noting that the petitioner objected to the instruction by the jury on the grounds that the instructions were contrary to the constitution. It is always the task of the prosecution to prove such cases. It is worth noting that the Courts of Appeal at Cuyahoga avowed the conviction while the Ohio based Supreme Court discharge the appeal on the grounds that there was no any constitution question arising in the case. From this ruling, the petitioner sorts a writ of certiorari vindicating her Fourteenth Amendment right so as to have the State to bear the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution.
In her ruling, Justice Brennan discussed the usefulness of the need to get the views from an expert concerning the testimony regarding the battered woman’s syndrome in his dissent from the court’s denial of certiorari. After overruling the petition, the trial court convicted the woman of killing her husband.
In the case of Falater vs. Arizona (1997), Falater was prosecuted in stubbing his wife 44 times by using hunting knife and eventually drowning her body in the home swimming pool. However, Falater admitted to the charges but defended himself by claiming that he did not purposefully kill his wife. Moreover, in his defense, Falater and his lawyer applied the sleep walking defense where his lawyer claimed that his client had gone to repair the swimming pool in a sleep but realizing that his wife prevented him from doing so, he retaliated by stubbing her. However, during the examination, a neighbor who witnessed the incident claimed that he saw Falater dragged the victim into the backyard, went for gloves in the garage, moved her body in planned stages to the pool and pushed her into the water headfirst.
It was also established that Falater was conscious since he was seen to have ordered his dog to lie. A number of things which could help the prosecution in this case were found inside the man’s care. These included things like a knife and clothes stained with blood. In the ruling, the jury found Falater guilty of first degree murder in 1999 and gave him a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
With regard to excuse and justification of the concepts in the cases of Moran vs. Ohio (1984), the decision to shoot a sleeping husband did not show a clear indication of self-defense. Furthermore, in Falater vs. Arizona (1997), Falater was a believer of the Mormon’s faith and resorted to kill his wife since she had lost interest in the faith. It was a highly staged murder since he did not even show remorse during judgment. It is always important for the courts to have a clear line with regards to the situation where individual acts in self-defense.