United States v. Jacobs case brief summary
632 F.2d 695 (1980)
CASE FACTS
A victim was shot by defendant, however, the victim did not see the defendant shoot him and only realized he had been shot after he felt an unusual condition in his left hand. He then saw the defendant and hurried into his home where the defendant followed him and struck him and others with the gun. Defendant was convicted of assault resulting in serious bodily injury in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 113(f), but was acquitted of assault with a dangerous weapon.
CLAIM
Defendant claimed on appeal that because his victim did not see him there was no violation of § 113(f) because the assault had to occur prior to the serious bodily injury.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the lower court's judgment of conviction because regardless of whether the assault occurred prior to the serious bodily injury as required by statute, the evidence established that defendant committed a battery. The court held that when a battery was committed it included an assault.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
632 F.2d 695 (1980)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant sought review of his
conviction from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, for assault resulting in serious bodily injury
in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 113(f). Defendant claimed that
because his victim did not see him prior to being shot by defendant,
the assault did not occur prior to the serious bodily injury as
required by the statute.CASE FACTS
A victim was shot by defendant, however, the victim did not see the defendant shoot him and only realized he had been shot after he felt an unusual condition in his left hand. He then saw the defendant and hurried into his home where the defendant followed him and struck him and others with the gun. Defendant was convicted of assault resulting in serious bodily injury in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 113(f), but was acquitted of assault with a dangerous weapon.
CLAIM
Defendant claimed on appeal that because his victim did not see him there was no violation of § 113(f) because the assault had to occur prior to the serious bodily injury.
DISCUSSION
- The court agreed with defendant and held that the fear of a second shot after seeing defendant constituted a second assault, however, it was a subsequent simple assault and would not have resulted in the serious bodily injury for which defendant was convicted.
- However, the court affirmed defendant's conviction because an actual battery was clearly proved and such proof supported a conviction for the included offense of assault.
- Further, the court held that nevertheless, inconsistent or compromise verdicts were permissible and legitimate.
The court affirmed the lower court's judgment of conviction because regardless of whether the assault occurred prior to the serious bodily injury as required by statute, the evidence established that defendant committed a battery. The court held that when a battery was committed it included an assault.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment