Home > Free Essays > Law > Judicial Process on Criminals > State v. Stu Dents Case Prosecution
Cite this

State v. Stu Dents Case Prosecution Essay


In the case State v. Stu Dents, the defendant (Stu Dents) faces several charges ranging from homicide to drug related crimes. The prosecutor in this case has an obligation to provide incriminating evidence and avail enough reasons to facilitate conviction of Mr Dents. This paper presents prosecution statement in relation to Dent’s case.

Homicide laws are strongest in Florida State (Schmalleger, 2006). In chapter 782 of the 2013 Florida Statutes, murder is defined as a premeditated act that leads to death of a person (Schmalleger, 2006). According to Schmalleger (2006), a person commits murder when he or she kills another person in the course of committing other prohibited acts such as trafficking or arson.

There are three elements that must be met for Dents to be declared guilty. First, there is need to establish that Dents premeditated to kill Uma. Secondly, it has to be proved that Dents actually killed Uma. The third element is concurrence of the first two. In this case, Dents indicated in the journal found in his house that he planned to purchase a rope, rags, and a knife for reasons that he did not reveal. However, when the victim’s body was recovered, her legs and hands had been tied together with a rope and her mouth stuffed with rags. She had also been stabbed several times with a knife. This gives a hint of what Dents intended to do with the items listed in his journal.

The result of DNA test on skin particles found under the fingernails of the victim proves that Dents was involved in a scuffle with her before she died. Therefore, Dents actually killed Uma. This proves the third element which requires that both intention and killing must prevail for one to be held responsible for murder.

The second crime is assault of police officer. The US constitution defines assault as unconsented and intentional cause of contact with another person in a harmful or offensive manner (Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 1996). In this case, contact and intention to cause harm or offense must be present for one to be criminally responsible for assault. There was contact between Dents and the police officer resulting from a punch. From his behaviour, one could see that Dents intended to use force and intimidation to avoid arrest. His punch was meant to cause physical harm on the officer. Therefore, there are sufficient reasons for the court to find Dents guilty in relation to assault on the officer.

Under the kidnapping charges, the Federal Kidnapping Act establishes that any person who unlawfully seizures or carries away another person without the person’s consent for some wicked reasons commits a crime (Federal Kidnapping Act). The four elements in this law are met in Dents’ case. Dents did not have authority to seizure Uma. He transported Uma five miles away from her house. Uma was not willing to be transported. She tried to resist as suggested by evidence of a scuffle. Dents transported Uma to either kill her or conceal the killing.

In relation to the fourth charge, burglary is defined in Federal Laws as unpermitted entry into someone’s house with an intention to commit a crime (Baker & Glanville W, 2012). The elements include lack of permission and intension to commit an offense. In this case, the two elements are met. Dents entered Uma’s apartment in her absence with the intension of committing murder.

In relation to drug charges, any person who possesses illegal drugs for the purpose of personal use, distribution, sale or any other reason commits a crime (Anti-Drug Abuse Act, 1988). In this case, the first element is possession of drugs. The second element is that the drugs must be illegal. Indeed, ecstasy, cocaine and methamphetamine were found in Dents’ house. All these drugs are illegal in the US. The two elements are met. The court should therefore find Dents guilty of all the five charges that he faces.

References

Anti-Drug Abuse Act, 1988.

Baker, D. J. Glanville W., (2012). Textbook of Criminal Law, London: Sweet & Maxwell 2012.

Federal Kidnapping Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1201.

Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996).

Schmalleger, F. (2006). Criminal law today: an introduction with capstone cases. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

This essay on State v. Stu Dents Case Prosecution was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.
Removal Request
If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda.
Request the removal

Need a custom Essay sample written from scratch by
professional specifically for you?

Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar

301 certified writers online

GET WRITING HELP
Cite This paper

Select a referencing style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2020, August 18). State v. Stu Dents Case Prosecution. Retrieved from https://ivypanda.com/essays/state-v-stu-dents-case-prosecution/

Work Cited

"State v. Stu Dents Case Prosecution." IvyPanda, 18 Aug. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/state-v-stu-dents-case-prosecution/.

1. IvyPanda. "State v. Stu Dents Case Prosecution." August 18, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/state-v-stu-dents-case-prosecution/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "State v. Stu Dents Case Prosecution." August 18, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/state-v-stu-dents-case-prosecution/.

References

IvyPanda. 2020. "State v. Stu Dents Case Prosecution." August 18, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/state-v-stu-dents-case-prosecution/.

References

IvyPanda. (2020) 'State v. Stu Dents Case Prosecution'. 18 August.

More related papers