Ruling on State V. Stu Dents

Ruling on State V. Stu Dents

In the State v Stu Dent’s case, the number of charges against the accused is extensive, and the craved result of each penalty should fit the crime in question.  First, look at the accusations that are being applied to Mr. Dent’s case.  The main charge is for the homicide of Uma Opee.  He also has charges of assault of a police officer, kidnapping, burglary, and crimes related to drugs.  The evidence was piling up against him, and it seemed to be a clear-cut conviction.  It appeared that when police apprehended the suspect that he was going to go for the insanity defense.  He was acting erratically and ranted about aliens, and claimed he was God at one point.  This, in turn, added the assault on a police officer charge when he hit the officer that was detaining him.

The accused was found guilty on all counts except for the burglary charge because of the unavailability of proof that the possessions of the victim were grasped minus her knowledge before her death (University of Phoenix Material). But since the more severe charges, the judge found him guilty of the kidnapping, drug-related crimes, homicide, and assault of a police officer; the sentencing should fit these crimes.  In charge of homicide, the evidence shows it was planned, and with the kidnapping charge, and the way the victim’s body was found, it would be 1st-degree murder. 

Mr. Dent should either receive the death penalty or life imprisonment if available in the state.  The assault on a police officer, in this case, is an offense charge and could carry up to another ten years in jail.  The drug charges, and since both the defendant and the victim had ecstasy, methamphetamines, and cocaine in their possession but no trace of use (University of Phoenix Material).  The amounts found could add to the sentence of another ten years or more, and since both the accused and the victim had the same type of ecstasy pills, it looks like one was supplying the other with the drug.  With all of the charges together and being found guilty of the death of the deferent should be given life sentenced in prison without parole.

Kidnapping

On the charges of kidnapping, there was evidence found to support the guilty verdict. Stu Dents kept a journal and loved letters to his victim, Uma Opee. In a small room in his house, they found the journal with the details of when he first met Uma and up to her murder. Police found over three hundred photographs of Uma on a wall in Stu Dent’s house (LLC, 2017). Some of the pictures were taken from the victim without her knowledge in different locations. They also found the body of Uma behind a disclaimed structure only five miles from her apartment.

She had been bound by ropes on her arms and legs, gagged by a rag in her mouth, and was stabbed to death. There were skin particles found under Uma Opee’s nails. The police conducted DNA samples and confirmed a match with Stu Dents’ DNA (LLC, 2017). This confirmation puts him at the crime and proves that he did kidnap the victim by using the rope he purchased. The downside is that the DNA samples matched with the defendant’s DNA and along with the journal found in his house, confirms that he knew the victim and planned out the kidnapping.

Homicide

On October 18th Mr. Dents committed a crime of homicide against Uma Opee. He was arrested for her murder, and the evidence was obvious to the fact that Mr. Dents committed it. The sentencing for homicide in South Carolina is 30 years imprisonment without the likelihood of parole (LLC, 2017). The prosecution when they see the pieces of evidence and produce it to the jury and the judge should be able to make a case to get the sentence for Mr. Dents to me at least life in prison. The thought that a person could not get life in jail for killing another person would be unlawful for the family’s justice. There are a lot of things that come into play at the arguing of the sentencing is essential. Mr. Dents is found guilty of the homicide of Uma Opee, and for that, he should be punished by his life. Never to be able to walk freely within the community again.

Crimes Related to Drugs

On the charges of the offenses related to drugs, upon the exploration of the defendant’s house, methamphetamine, cocaine, and ecstasy were discovered by officers (LLC, 2017). The ecstasy that was found was similar to that which was discovered in the victim’s home-unit, a blue pill with an imprint of “thumbs up” on it. Sentencing for this crime in South Carolina, drug charges dealing with ecstasy the prosecution would like the max sentence, not to exceed 11 months and 29 days.  Also, with the discovery of the bag of pills in the defendant’s house, it adds yet another charge against the

Assault on a Police Officer

During the investigation, it was seen that the evidence was pointing toward Mr. Dents being the one that committed the crime. Once it was confirmed that Mr. Dents would be the one getting arrested for the crimes that were committed. T. Chur, an officer, began to put handcuffs on Mr. Dents at the relatives’ house where he was found. During the time that the officer was trying to arrest him, Mr. Dents started screaming about aliens and hit the officer in the face. Hitting an officer of the law is a severe assault charge in every state. In the state of South Carolina law on assault on a law enforcement officer is a penalty with a fine of ten thousand dollars and imprisonment up to ten years (LLC, 2017). All the evidence from the time the officers arrived at the house to place Mr. Dents under arrest that he made the decision to put his fist on the officers and threaten them with a serious bodily injury, which is the basis for the assault charge in the state of South Carolina.

It is hard to argue against Stu Dents with the amount of evidence collected at the home of the defendant. He kidnapped his girlfriend and then murdered her. When he was arrested, he assaulted the police officer and claimed he was being taken by aliens. He tried to convey that he was crazy when he was arrested. With all of the evidence found in Mr. Dents home, proves that the crime was premeditated. The Defendant should be sentenced to the maximum penalties, which would be the death sentence or life, for all the charges that were brought up against him.