You are on page 1of 3

UGMT- Team C

Crown Opening (Umar) Crown Witness #1 Direct Examination: Constable Andrews (Kenny Questioning) (Chris as Const. Andrews) Crown Witness #2 Direct Examination: Jamie Howard (Chris Questioning) (Kenny as Jamie Howard) Defense Witness #2 Cross Examination Crown Witness #3 Direct Examination: Kyle Duncan (Kenny Questioning) (Chris as Kyle Duncan) Defense Witness #3 Cross Examination Crown Witness #4 Direct Examination: Dr. D. Gillian (Kenny Questioning) (Matt as Dr. Gillian) Defense Witness #4 Cross Examination Defense Opening Statement Defense Witness #1 Direct Examination Crown Witness #1 Cross Examination: Joanna Locker (Matt Questioning) Defense Witness #2 Direct Examination Crown Witness #2 Cross Examination: Cameron Smith (Chris Questioning) Defense Witness #3 Direct Examination Crown Witness #3 Cross Examination: Daniel Rich (Matt Questioning) Defense Closing Statement (Kelly Writing) Crown Closing Statement (Umar) (Kelly Writing)

Crown Opening
Your Honour, I, the crown, through rigorous research and analysis will prove the guilt of the accused, Mr. Rich. Mr. Rich is being charged under s 266 of the criminal code for assaulting Kayla (last name). Mr rich both had the actus reus and mens rea for the offence that he committed on February 28, 2013. He had the actus reus because many witnesses had stated that they had viewed him strike Kayla with a hammer on the head including himself. Also, there is testimony from the Doctor at ( Mooselake Hospital) that said that Kayla had a bump from the strike on her head and also experienced dizziness. Therefore, the strike on the head inevitably occurred. Secondly, Mr. Rich had the mens rea for the crime, specifically recklessness. Would a reasonable citizen hit someone with a construction tool to get their attention. There have been cases in the past where people have been brutally assaulted with a hammer or murdered (find case) so there is no doubt that this was a justifiable means to get Kayla’s attention. Under section 43, The Criminal Code says that assaulting someone or threatening to assault someone is a crime. Slapping, punching, pinching, kicking, restraining, or even touching are all examples of actions that may be considered assault. Section 43 of the Criminal Code says: Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances. I’m not here to disagree with what it says under section 43, but what it clearly says in it is that the force must be reasonable. Reasonable does not mean inflicting bodily harm to another person which was clearly done.

Furthermore, the reason in which Mr rich had to get the victims attention was not justifiable. . Mr rich’s lesson was important for the safety of the class. When kayla was disrupting the class Mr rich could have sent her outside of the classroom or to the bench so that the class could hear the the valuable information instead of assaulting her. One would raise the question, would doing this put the safety of Kayla in jeopardy? This seems to be the main objection that a person would come to conclusion about as an alternative of hitting Kayla. This is not the case because as it states in the classroom regulations, if Kayla were to disrupt or break shop room rules she would lose the shop privileges or an unspecified amount of time. IF that were to occur, Mr rich could suspend her class privileges until he undoubtedly knew that she had the valid safety procedure information to retain shop room privileges. For these reasons, Mr Rich should be convicted under s 266 of the criminal code

can you tell us where you work and how long you have been a police officer for? ● And how long have you been part of the RCMP? ● Where did you go on Feb 28 2013? ● can you please tell us what happened at the school? ● Was mr/ms rich denying their actions? ● And what evidence did you obtain from the classroom? ● Is thi Questions for Kyle Duncan ● a doctor for # years. how are you? Good. as soon as I turned. would the bump require some force to be used? . D. I forgot my pen on Jamie's desk.questions for jamie howard Questions for Constable Andrew ● Hi constable andrew. 2013? At school in shop class ● Who was teaching your shop class? Mr/ms. Rich ● What were you learning in class that day? Radial arm saw ● Oh! How was it?? Bad. I got his with a hammer ● That sounds really painful! Did you feel okay after you got hit? ● Did you tell your parents? I told my mom ● And what did she say? She brought me to the hospital. Kyle. so I just turned around to pick up my pen and this time. ● How old are you? 17 ● Where were you on February 28. ● Why? I was hit in the head with a peace of wood and by a hammer! ● Why did that happened? I was talking to Jamie and Brianna and the next thing you know mr/ms rich hits me with a piece of wood! ● Were you disturbing the class? I don't think so. I thought I could just sleep it off but she insisted ● · Questions for Dr. 2013? · What were you informed? · Can you describe to me what you saw upon examining Kyle/Kayla? A bump on right side . Gillian Where do you work? How long have you been working as a doctor? · Who did you attend to on February 28. only Brianna and Jamie ● And what happened after? I was really really upset.

- questioning principal of whether she would hit a student → show unreasonableness. the evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the injury caused by this assault was more than minor and transitory. then actually hit him Actus Reus à hit him Think skull rule.canlii. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant assaulted Ms.html&searc hUrlHash=AAAAAQAWYXNzYXVsdCBtaW5vciBpbmp1cmllcwAAAAAAAAE [55] Based on all the evidence which I Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/on/oncj/doc/2012/2012oncj16/2012oncj16. However. with an umbrella as alleged. I do not make a finding of guilt on the charge of assault causing bodily harm. For this . 43 -->it was a teenager Sec saying that teachers have right to control students in the interest of student safety Threatened mens rea -->threatened to hit. but do find the defendant guilty of simple assault. N. ask teacher whether he was aware of any medical condition of the student? Find a case where victim wasn’t hurt but defendant was still convicted would be good precedent http://www. bring forth memos as evidence bring memos to the attention of the court while defendant is on the stand sec.