 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ortiz6/10/2003
defendant's actions obviously were intended to harm Correa, if not to kill him. According to his own testimony, Ortiz acted purposefully by prying away Correa's nail board from him and then attacking him with it. Although he explained that his actions were not intended to kill Correa, nevertheless, at the time of the fatal encounter, he had to have known that repeatedly striking Correa in the head with the nail board would, at the very least, cause him serious bodily harm. Indeed, the evidence revealed that the victim suffered approximately thirty different lacerations, abrasions, and contusions from this brutal beating. Thus, there was nothing unintentional about defendant's actions; he purposefully pummeled Correa with the nail board with the apparent intent to kill or to maim him. Having beaten Correa to a bloody pulp -- to the point at which his body was unidentifiable without the help of a thumbprint -- it ill lies in defendant's mouth to suggest that he had no intention to kill the victim. Neither his actions nor the predictable results of his actions properly warranted a charge of involuntary manslaughter.
Just as in our other cases in which we addressed this issue, see Wilding, 740 A.2d at 1240-41 (affirming a denial of an involuntary manslaughter instruction because the trial record lacked sufficient evidence to infer any nonmalicious or negligent act on the part of the defendant, but rather the totality of the evidence indicated that the defendant forcibly struck an infant siX times); State v. Clark, 423 A.2d 1151, 1160 (R.I. 1980) (explaining that the defendant was not entitled to an involuntary manslaughter instruction because his testimony precluded any inference that his co-inmate's death resulted from an unintentional stabbing), and Kaner, 463 A.2d at 1351 (holding that the defendant was not entitled to either an involuntary or a voluntary manslaughter charge because the severe and brutal beating of his uncle could not be found to be unintentional based on the fair reading of the record), the denial of the involuntary manslaughter instruction was proper in this case. It was clear from the evidence presented at trial and from the defendant's own testimony that Correa's death was not the product of an unintentional killing.
We therefore conclude that the trial justice committed no error in refusing to charge the jury in accordance with the defendant's requested involuntary-manslaughter instruction.
Conclusion
Thus, we deny the defendant's appeal and affirm the conviction.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Rhode Island DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|