Convictions for Violent Crimes such as Resisting Arrest can lead to serious consequences for the accused. assault crimes Resisting arrest is a misdemeanor of the second degree in Pennsylvania under Title 18, Section 5104 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. Resisting arrest is defined as an accused intending to prevent an officer from making an arrest or any other official duty. Additionally, this resistance can create a risk of the officer suffering bodily injury, or the resistance requires the officer to use substantial force to overcome the resistance. When being charged with resisting arrest, it is the prosecutions job to prove that the following elements are present; first that the defendant reasonably knew that they were resisting a law enforcement officer, they intentionally resisted, and that the officer performed in a lawful manner. Actions that are considered as resisting arrest are struggling against or attacking an officer during an arrest, giving an officer a false name or information, or requiring an officer to use more effort to arrest you.
One issue that comes up in Violent Crimes cases is what is malice? And when does it apply in criminal charges. The legal definition of malice concerns a state of mind that the government must prove that the defendant possessed when he committed a certain criminal act. third-degree murder If the government can prove that the defendant committed a certain criminal act while he possessed or acted with malice, then the defendant may be found guilty of certain criminal charges. Some of these charges are Third degree Murder and aggravated assault. Both of these crimes are graded as felonies of the first degree and generally punishable by a maximum of 20 years in state prison, and in the case of third degree murder, 40 years. Generally the Pennsylvania courts have defined malice as follows: malice is present under circumstances where a defendant displayed a conscious disregard for 'an unjustified and extremely high risk that his actions might cause death or serious bodily harm. Thus the defendant need not have an intent to kill
A conviction for Violent Crimes such as Retaliation against a witness or victim can have serious consequences. In order to be convicted of this crime the government must prove the following criminal elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that the defendant harms another individual by any unlawful act or engages in a course of conduct which threaten another person. And second, that the defendant commits these actions against the victim in retaliation for anything that the victim has lawfully done as a witness, victim or a party in a civil matter. assault crimes Make sure to contact an experienced Chester County Violent Crimes attorney if you are being investigated for or have been charged with this serious crime.
One rarely used defense in Violent Crimes cases and other cases is the Fantasy Role Playing Defense. This defense first appeared predominately in the media in 2012 in the federal prosecution against Gilberto Valle, with conspiracy to commit kidnapping. He was arrested after his wife discovered emails about his desire to rape, kill, and eat women. Weapons of mass destruction Valle argued that he was merely engaging in fantasy-role play, with no intention of committing the actual crimes. He was a member of a social networking website called Dark Fetish where he discussed his sexual fantasies with other members. Prosecutors agreed that Valle was engaged in role play, but argued that the chats had moved beyond the realm of fantasy and had become actual preparation. After 12, days the jury found him guilty. In the case the court reviewed all of the defendant's e-mails and made a determination as to which one's could have represented actual conspiracy discussions and which ones were simply fantasy and therefore not admissible. Obviously the primary fact finder in deciding whether the admissible e-mails were fantasy or actual planning was the jury.
Violent Crimes such as Unlawful Restraint can have a very serious effect on an accused's future. The crime of Unlawful Restraint is fully explained in section 2902 of Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. In order to be found guilty of this crime, the government must prove the following criminal elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that the accused restrained another person without any legal basis under circumstances which could expose the victim to serious bodily injury. Assault crimes Under the crimes code serious bodily injury is generally something like a broken arm or a serious wound. So in order for a person to be found guilty of this section of Unlawful Restraint, generally the government has to show that the victim is being held somewhere unsafe (a cooler) or being held there through the use of a deadly weapon like a gun or a knife. If the accused is convicted for this type of Unlawful Restraint then he is facing a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison and a possible $10,000 fine.
Violent Crimes such as Voluntary Manslaughter of an unborn child is essentially a murder charge asserting that an unborn child was killed as a result of the defendant acting under the heat of passion when the killing occurred. Possession of a weapon at school In order to be found guilty of this violent crime, the government must prove the following criminal elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Pennsylvania has a three strike law which deals with minimum mandatory sentences that must be imposed by a Judge for criminal defendants convicted of committing violent crimes. A minimum mandatory sentence refers to a required sentence that a judge must give a criminal defendant under the law if the defendant is either found guilty of a certain crime or pleads guilty to a certain crime. assault crimes The statute dealing with Pennsylvania's version of the Three Strike Rule can be found in Title 42 Pa C.S. §9714. The statute states that any criminal defendant found guilty of committing a crime of violence, shall if he has been convicted of a prior crime of violence serve at least 10 years in prison. This 10 year minimum mandatory rule is known as a second strike Law. The Three strike Law states that any criminal defendant convicted of a third crime of violence in his lifetime shall be given at least 25 years in prison
Simple Assault is one of the most common types of violent crimes that a criminal defendant can be charged with. assault crimes It is fairly serious in that it is graded as a misdemeanor of the second degree and punishable by a maximum of 2 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The crime of Simple Assault can be found in the Pennsylvania Crimes Code Title 18. C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1). In order to prove the crime of simple assault, the Commonwealth must have set forth evidence that the defendant recklessly caused bodily injury to the alleged victim. The Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instruction for simple assault defines "recklessly" with regard to simple assault as follows:
One issue that comes up in criminal defense is when can an accused be charged with Violent Crimes such as aggravated assault. The obvious scenarios where an accused can be charged with this crime occurs in the event of a Violent fight or beating or shooting, when an alleged victim suffers serious bodily injury, however, can an accused by convicted of this crime for giving a victim one too many beers or even heroin? assault crimes Before we assess this issue, you should be reminded to contact an experienced Violent Crimes attorney if you are being investigated for or have been charged with the crime of aggravated assault. This crime is very serious and can be punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $100,000 fine.
One of the least frequent Violent Crimes that a person can be charged with in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is the crime of ethnic intimidation. In order to be convicted of violent crimes such as ethnic intimidation, the government must prove the following criminal elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, the government must prove that the accused committed a crime such as vandalism, criminal trespass, or criminal mischief (the destruction of property. factors considered by judges for sentencing And second, that the accused committed this crime while he or she possessed malicious intent, meaning the intent to intentionally commit an acted which is brought about and motivated by hatred towards the race, creed or religion of the victim. Accordingly, the crime of Ethnic Intimidation makes it an additional crime for an accused to commit one of the above crimes of criminal trespass, criminal mischief and vandalism for the purpose of harassing or intimidating a person as a result of his ethnicity or religion.