Harrod v. State case brief summary
499 A.2d 959 (1985)
CASE FACTS
Another man came to visit defendant's wife when she thought defendant had gone to work. Defendant came out with a hammer in his hand to threaten the man and his wife. When the man did not leave immediately, defendant swung the hammer, and it stuck in the wall near where their child was in a crib. He then got his hunting knife and stuck it in a banister near his wife's arm and chased the other man around his car. The trial court found him guilty of assaults on the child and his wife and of the two weapons charges.
DISCUSSION
The court reversed defendant's conviction for assault on the child, affirmed the conviction for assault on his wife, and affirmed the convictions for the two counts of carrying a deadly weapon openly with intent to injure.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
499 A.2d 959 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant appealed from the judgment of
the Circuit Court for Carroll County (Maryland), which convicted
defendant of two counts of assault and two counts of carrying a
deadly weapon openly with intent to injure.CASE FACTS
Another man came to visit defendant's wife when she thought defendant had gone to work. Defendant came out with a hammer in his hand to threaten the man and his wife. When the man did not leave immediately, defendant swung the hammer, and it stuck in the wall near where their child was in a crib. He then got his hunting knife and stuck it in a banister near his wife's arm and chased the other man around his car. The trial court found him guilty of assaults on the child and his wife and of the two weapons charges.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions for assault on the wife, and the two weapons charges because the evidence clearly supported those convictions.
- The court reversed the conviction for assault on the child.
- The child was not injured, and an attempted battery type assault required injury.
- There was no evidence the defendant had a specific intent to injure the child, which was required for an attempt.
- Even though the trial court considered evidence of the danger to the child in sentencing, the court did not remand for sentencing because the concurrent sentences did not change and the trial court had almost unlimited discretion to consider evidence for sentencing.
The court reversed defendant's conviction for assault on the child, affirmed the conviction for assault on his wife, and affirmed the convictions for the two counts of carrying a deadly weapon openly with intent to injure.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment