The case of Dawn vs. Vik

The case of Dawn vs. Vik

Dawn had committed an act of murder by killing Vik just because the brushing had provoked him off the bicycle by Vik. According to the rule of law, murder is a serious offense, whether it happened with intent or not, as long as physical injuries or harm were inflicted on the deceased. The fact is that Dawn had committed a serious crime that was worth being prosecuted. However, Dawn is seen to have had past health records, which interfered with his thinking, and this might have led to him acting unreasonably, killing Vik as a consequence. Dawn is liable to a crime of manslaughter since his mental health may have interfered with his judgment to act in such a manner.

The key elements that would form the basis of the case may be the intention to murder, medical reports, and provocation leading to self-defense. Dawn is not said to have any other previous incidences where she has injured someone or when she hit somebody with or without a cause. The evidence may be presented in a way that may have him imprisoned. It could also be that Dawn was carrying out self-defense. However, the self-defense method used by her and the manner that she carries it is doubtful. This is because she walks over to Vik, grabs the metal and hits him more than once on the head and he dies. The case could also be treated as murder.

The relevant legal rules that may apply to the case of Dawn vs. Vik are that a person who is mentally disturbed or insane should be held at a mental center and that the intention to murder must be observed before any judgment is made. However, in the case of  R v Woollin, 1999 ruled regarding the murder case of this nature. The court had Woolin incarcerated for Murder and later reversed for the act of manslaughter (Wilson, 1999). The case may, therefore, apply to explain Dawn does not have the intention to murder but ends up killing Vik. Dawn must undergo a mental test. The outcome of the results determines whether the case is considered or dismissed. It could also be ruled that Dawn had a direct intention to commit the murder. If there were no therapeutic factors that were involved in contributing to the injustice, then she could be pronounced guilty and sentenced. The mention of sanity, in this case, would be shaped by her behavior on and off work. Sanity may have its legal meaning when determining a case as opposed to the dictionary meaning in the application of the rule of law, Legally, sanity may be defined as one with a sound mind to bear legal responsibility (Martin & Storey, 2015).

Dawn should be advised that this is a criminal case that could earn her a jail term, which is the penalty for murder. She has committed a criminal act and deserves to be punished in accor5dance with the law. However, the fact that she has a brain tumor gives her defense a lot of weight. The weightier fact is that she is assumed to be acting impulse based on having a brain tumor. In the event, the case will on count on a few things to defend her. The first one and the major one is that of the brain tumor, which stands out as the most appealing one in the side of her defense. The second one is the fact that she was provoked by Vik, who was dangerously riding the bike. Though Vik’s defense could argue out that due to her brain condition, she was not walking on the right side of the road, and so, as a result, she got brushed off. However, the defense of Dawn has the highest chance of getting the charges thrown out by the fact that she had been walking to work daily, and no such incidence had ever been mentioned. Therefore, Dawn could be advised to make sure that she does not confess to killing Vik out of her sane actions. Consequently, she must admit that she regrets her actions and does not understand what led her to kill Vik. Dawn has a criminal liability, but the fact that she has a condition could lead her to be released by the criminal court. The proceedings cannot go on without a certified physician presenting a report to the court, indicating that Dawn had an incurable condition at the time she committed the crime.

The case of Rhonson vs. Matteo

Was there a case of murder and acts going against the law by Rhobson’s act despite his medical reports? The fact of Rhonson murdering Matteo has deep legal issues and different implications surrounding the event. Murder charges are indictable by law, and anyone who commits such a crime ought to be prosecuted for determining the exact reasons for the occurrence. However, one who performs such an act indirectly or unknowingly due to his condition is likely to receive a lenient ruling. However,  Rhonson should be advised that automatism is responsible for the behavior that he is seen with. However, it must be linked to falling and the concussion that he had once he dropped from the bike. This is because, without a defense of the automatism claim, Rhonson will be sentenced for murder.

The law will first have to examine the motive behind the two friends, Rhonson and Matteo, being in the former’s home. However, the two are close friends with no record of one plotting revenge or scuffle, possibly eliminates the suspicion that Rhonson intended to murder Matteo. Due to the fall that Rhonson experienced, the doctors had to attribute his actions of hitting Matteo due to the sustained injuries. This is because, according to the explanation given, the person committing the crime did not realize that he was doing so until he hit Matteo the sixth time on the head. It is also interesting to note that Rhonson reacts after the sixth hit. Rhonson would be advised to make sure that he does not contradict his statements because that could lead to him being declared guilty. If he is making a statement to the criminal investigators, he must give the same honest piece of information that is mentioned here that he did not realize that he was hitting  Matteo until the sixth time. Giving contradicting statements attributing his actions to insanity while blaming it to none insane automatism could show that he is guilty.

Rhonson must indicate that when he was waking up from his bed and heading to the place where his friend was sleeping, he was unconscious and could not fathom what was taking place. In his statement, he must state that he did not consciously wake up. Also, when Rhonson confesses to having realized that he was hitting Matteo during the sixth time, it would be known that he was not in his senses whatsoever.

The elements that are needed to prove Rhonson guilty are four. The first one must be based on his relationship with the victim. This is because Matteo could have done something that might have offended Rhonson in the past that Rhonson might have wanted to get revenge. Rhonson could have gotten the perfect opportunity for revenge. This is because the human brain stores shreds of evidence of adverse occurrences whereby a person could still be remembering what happened years ago and always wants to revenge. Therefore, upon getting the perfect opportunity, the brain would trigger to have personal revenge. To show that Rhonson has a criminal liability, the prosecution must prove that he indeed was in his senses while hitting Matteo. The second element is the previous incidences, where Rhonson has been sleepwalking or doing such things. It is not proved that Rhonson has had any record of hitting people or reacting adversely to people while sleepwalking. Doctors said that perhaps Rhonson could have been affected by the concussion that he had. This still leaves questions lingering on the intention of Rhonson.

The third element is associated with the incident of Rhonson falling off his bike and being hit and then rises and says that he is well. Someone who has been injured in the head must be having a lot of pain and headaches because they have been hit in a delicate part of the body (Fawcett and Abeyunko, 2012). Nonetheless, the case was quite different for Rhonson. The doctors who examined him still infer concussion as the issue for his act. However, they lacked hard evidence to back their claims, and this claim cannot thus, be relied on solely by the court to determine the matter. When the ruling of Khorasandjian v Bush,1993, is applied in this scenario, he could be jailed for murder.

The fourth element is the question regarding the sanity and insanity of Rhonson. The fact that Rhonson was san by the time that he was going to bed leaves behind issues that must be unraveled. He had nothing to do with insanity and had no concussions before going to bed. He also did not drink any alcoholic substances. Thus, he could have been entirely sane by the time that he was waking up and going to Matteo. Rhobson could be jailed if the case of R v Nedrick is used as a case study. The case of R V Nedrick may be an important application for this instance as it explains the meaning of intention, which guides someone’s acts and how the ruling was made in a similar manner (R V Nedrick, 1986). The intention of Rhonson inviting Matteo over and advising him not to go back home may be unclear.

Rhonson still stands a chance of defending himself.  He could be advised to say that he cannot accept any liability unless he undergoes a medical examination. The scenario is relatable to the case of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd, 2002. Going through and comprehending the scenario of the Fairchild case may help understand the current case at hand in the provision of hearing and the final decision of the bench in deciding the way forward for both the plaintiff and the defendant. Rohonson’s also has never been in such a situation and has never committed such an offense. He is, therefore, a first-time offender and must not be pressed hard because he has never committed any murder. According to the ruling in  R v Hyam, the defendant was given a lenient ruling given of his past clean records, and this can be of important application in ruling the case of Rhonson (R V Hyam, 1975). The occasion was due to the fell off the bike that resulted in head injuries, therefore; murdering his friend. The murder might be attributed to brain injury.

References

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22; [2003] 1 AC 32

Fawcett, A. and Abeyunko, D. (2012) Sources and Comments on English Law, 3rd edn, Milton Keynes, Legalistic Books Ltd.

Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] QB 727.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 c 41

Martin, J., & Storey, T. (2015). Unlocking criminal law. Routledge.

Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398

Parmar, J. (2013) ‘Law: an overview of its place in modern society,’ Contemporary Legal Issues, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 37–46.

R v Hyam [1975] AC 55.

R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025

R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82.

Wilson, W. (1999). Doctrinal rationality after Woollin. Mod. L. Rev., 62, 448.