CASE ANALYSIS

Separated couple Daniel Romano and Cherisse Romano’s debacle on the 5th day of
September 2017 resulted in the defendant’s charge of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily
Harm against the victim.

Case for the prosecution:

The victim and the defendant are legally separated but has birthed 2 children together. They
no longer share a common home and reside at different addresses. On the 5th day of October
2017, at approximately 5PM, the victim returned the children to the defendant’s home after a
day at the Maracas Beach. The children were in the company of the victim, the victim’s
girlfriend; one Ms Rose Flores, and Ms Flores’ sister. Upon arriving, the defendant
approached the victim’s vehicle in a fit of rage with the use of obscenities, screaming and
shouting. The defendant was jealous of the victim and his girlfriend’s relationship. She was
sorely disturbed by her presence and thus proceeded to act in an unbefitting manner. She
physically fought the victim resulting in scratches to the arm and chest area, a contusion of
chest area, swelling and tenderness of the groin area, bite marks on the left arm and body
pain. The victim employed self-defense tactics to ward off the victim from further assault and
injury. The prosecution claims that the defendant committed an Assault Occasioning Actual
Bodily Harm, contrary to section 30 of the Offences Against the Persons Act, Chap. 11:08 the
defendant intended to cause harm and fear to the victim. Evidence for such intention can be
gathered from the fact that:

1) the defendant was offended by the presence of the victim’s girlfriend when she referred to
her using derogatory terms and instituted threats against her.
2) the medical report by Dr R Barnsfield attached to the Couva District Hospital.
3) the defendant had a motive for assaulting the victim; and
4) the other person in the vicinity was the victim’s girlfriend and her sister.

Case for the defence:

The defendant was provoked by the victim and his girlfriend Ms Rose Flores. The party’s
marriage irretrievably broke down because of the victim’s infidelity with the said Ms Flores.
On the said date, approximate time and reason for the victim’s presence at the defendant’s
address provided by the prosecution, the victim told the defendant that she was a hag, an unfit
mother and suggested that he will gain custody of their children. He proceeded to torment her
by pushing the vehicle door to hit her to which she fell. The defence argues that the victim
first initiated the assault against the defendant, and she retaliated in self defence. The
defendant has admitted to committing the actus reus but she has raised self defence as a
defence.

1. An eyewitness saw the incident and supports the defendant’s version of the facts.
2. The defendant was heard saying, ““Oh God, why you hit me for”.
3. The victim had a motive to posit that the defendant assaulted him
4. Persons were in the vicinity

Strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution’s case

The case is strong. The prosecution called three witnesses; the victim, the victim’s girlfriend
and an Expert witness – the doctor. The victim’s version of the facts is strongly supported by
the medical report signed by Dr R Barnsfield.

However, the victim’s girlfriend cannot be considered a credible witness. One cannot
reasonably believe that someone in such close range during the commission of the alleged
assault cannot attest to which part of the victim’s body the defendant was hitting.

Strengths and weaknesses of the defence’s case

The defendant’s case will probably raise reasonable doubt as it is supported by an eye witness

whose presence is undisputed by the prosecution. This witness’s evidence also contradicts the

prosecution’s case in all material respects and clearly shows that the incident occurred

because of an accident.

The Medical Report provided by the victim’s expert witness contradicts the defendant’s case

– the defendant indicated that she only scratched the victim, however, the medical report

evidenced bite marks, contusions and swelling in the groin area on the victim’s person.

Conclusion:
The defendant may be acquitted. The victim may be charged for assault.

CASE ANALYSIS – with corrections

Separated couple Daniel Romano and Cherisse Romano’s debacle on the 5th day of
September 2017 resulted in the defendant’s charge of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily
Harm against the victim. VICTIM ASSAULTED OR DEFENDANT’S SELF
DEFENCE?

Case for the prosecution:

The victim and the defendant are legally separated but has birthed 2 children together. They
no longer share a common home and reside at different addresses. On the 5 th day of October
2017, at approximately 5PM, the victim returned the children to the defendant’s home. The
children were in the company of the victim, the victim’s girlfriend; one Ms Rose Flores, and
Ms Flores’ sister. Upon arriving, the defendant approached the victim’s vehicle in a fit of
rage. The defendant was jealous of the victim and his girlfriend’s relationship. She was sorely
disturbed by her presence and thus proceeded to act in an unbefitting manner. She physically
fought the victim resulting in scratches, a contusion, swelling and tenderness, bite marks and
body pain. The victim employed self-defense tactics to ward off the victim from further
assault and injury. The prosecution claims that the defendant intended to cause harm and fear
to the victim. Evidence for such intention can be gathered from the fact that:

1) the defendant was offended by the presence of the victim’s girlfriend when she referred to
her derogatorily and instituted threats against her.
2) the medical report by Dr R Barnsfield attached to the Couva District Hospital.
3) the defendant had a motive for assaulting the victim; and
4) the other person in the vicinity was the victim’s girlfriend and her sister.

Strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution’s case

The case is not strong. The prosecution called three witnesses; the victim, the victim’s
girlfriend and an Expert witness – the doctor. The victim’s version of the facts is strongly
supported by the medical report signed by Dr R Barnsfield. However, the victims’s girlfriend
cannot be considered a credible witness. One cannot reasonably believe that someone in such
close range during the commission of the alleged assault cannot attest to which part of the
victim’s body the defendant was hitting.
Case for the defence:

The defendant was provoked by the virtual complainant and his girlfriend Ms Rose Flores.
The party’s marriage irretrievably broke down because of the VC’s infidelity with the said
Ms Flores. On the said date, approximate time and reason for the VC’s presence at the
defendant’s address provided by the prosecution, the VC told the defendant that she was a
hag, an unfit mother and suggested that he will gain custody of their children. He proceeded
to torment her by pushing the vehicle door to hit her to which she almost fell. The defence
argues that the VC first initiated the assault against the defendant, and had intention to cause
pain, annoyance to her and excite her to anger (supported by Section 21 of the Criminal
Code Cap 72A). The defendant retaliated in self defence. The defendant admits to
committing the actus reus, but she has raised self defence as a defence.

1. An eyewitness saw the incident and supports the defendant’s version of the facts.
2. The defendant was heard saying, ““Oh God, why you hit me for”.
3. The VC had a motive to posit that the defendant assaulted him
4. Persons were in the vicinity

Strengths and weaknesses of the defence’s case

The defendant’s case will probably raise reasonable doubt as it is supported by a witness

whose presence is undisputed by the prosecution. This witness’s evidence also contradicts the

prosecution’s case in respect to the defendant first being aggressive and clearly supports that

the alleged assault occurred because the defendant was first provoked by the VC’s actions

which were intended to harm, annoy and excite her to anger.

The Medical Report provided by the VC’s expert witness contradicts the defendant’s case –

the defendant indicated that she only scratched the victim, however, the medical report

evidenced bite marks, contusions and swelling in the groin area on the victim’s person.

Regardless, this does not negate the validity of the statements provided by the VC and his

witness, or the defendant’s witness regarding the scrambling which occurred between the vc

and defendant.
Sister’s credibility- she was inside during the altercation and only overheard the commotion

outside. Only when she went outside, she saw the parties fighting with each other.

Conclusion:

The defendant may be acquitted. The victim may be charged for assault.