TO: SUPERVISING ATTORNEY
RE: PEOPLE V. JAMES TOBY
DATE: 23RD September 2014
Is Toby legally meant to be charged guilty with assault considering the amount of plausible and legally acceptable legal evidence prevailing in court to prove he is guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, that assault was committed by Toby using a dangerous instrument, when he threw a heavy glass at the complainant and injuring her badly?
To legally constitute whether a legal felony was committed by Toby, we have to majorly consider the extent to which the crime in question was committed. In our case the extent of the injuries on the complainant will give us a green light on the extreme results of the accused’s actions. This will lead us to analyzing on how the action took place in the first place. Though not being conclusive on the action the great extent of the physical injuries caused on the complainant’s, the deep cuts, are a direct indicator that Toby was so upset and angry while swerving the glass, considered as a dangerous instrument due to the harm it caused, onto the complainant. The jury is not going to change their decision on whether to convict or not to convict Toby.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This is an appeal case filed by James Toby seeking the changing of an initial decision by the jury of him being convicted of having caused an assault on the complainant. The turn of events as emerged during the case trial are as below:
At about 1 a.m. on February 28, 1994, complainant Brenda Costello was tending to bar at the Blue Bayou disco. She served the patrons by proceeding in order around the crowded circular bar. Appellant Toby, one of the patrons, became impatient and demanded to be served. A heated argument engulfed between him and Brenda when she refused to serve him out of order, however, this is not legally proven because no one in the club at that time would attest to any kind of threats or obscenities having been exchanged between the two.
Moments later after the aforementioned exchange, Costello heard a loud sound, like a bang, behind her and turned to witness what was happening. This is the moment when she was struck in the face by a thick, small hard glass. The glass broke causing injuries that required treatment by an opthalmogist and a cosmetic surgeon.
Toby was arrested and charged with assault with a dangerous instrument. He was convicted after the first jury trial.
The main issue of contention in this case is whether it is reasonable enough to conclude that whatever actions performed by the complainant resulted in him having committed an assault on Brenda. Legally, a person can be convicted of having committed assault of second degree only and only if the person committed the crime with the intention to cause a physical injury and it can be medically proven that actual physical injury was experienced.
From the judgment of the medical expertise used and medical attention needed to treat Brenda’s wounds and injuries is a direct indicator that real physical injury caused. This will consequently cause and of the instrument used to result in such an injury to be referred to as a dangerous instrument.
In my opinion it will be unreasonable, to this extent, for the court to change Toby’s conviction terms as precluded by the initial courts.
LARGE and SMALL SCALE ORGANIZATION
The intention to cause physical injury can be inferred from how the actions have been performed or to what extent the actions have caused harm on the plaintiff. In Elizabeth Rockwell Dog Attack Case, the court held that considering the extent of the harm caused by the dog, it hence is presumed that the actions of letting the dog lose, the accused intended to cause harm on Elizabeth and hence was legally accused of intending to cause harm. Similarly, because the glass thrown by Toby caused considerable injury on the complainant them it is presumable that whoever who threw the glass intended to cause harm on her target.
It is arguable that all he intended to get was some attention from Brenda but the means of getting her attention is crude and cruel yet he had better options to explore. Legally, he wouldn’t convince the court otherwise.
Toby will argue that the glass used in his case is not a dangerous instrument, considering the brittle and fragile nature of glass. However, the court can argue that the way in which the glass is used makes it a dangerous instrument that can cause detrimental physical injury on the intended recipient.
It is arguable that the actions performed Toby intended to cause injury on whoever he targeted, Brenda. The courts can legally conclude that as the glass was thrown and the force used to through the glass was intended to cause harm and it actually did. Hence, he will preferably be convicted of assault.