State v. Stark (1992)

Mr. Stark was the defendant in this case which concerned her action of infecting three women with HIV sexually. He tested positive for HIV, which was then confirmed twice by doing two other independent tests. As an ordinary procedure, Stark was taken through counseling sessions to make him aware of the risk involved in handling HIV. He was informed about the risk of the disease spreading and the importance of making his partner aware before having any sexual escapades with her. However, he disregarded this advice and this came to the knowledge of the county health officer who sought a cease and desist order as allowed by the state statute. Stark did not comply. The officer then asked for judicial enforcement and later filed a police report about the matter.

The police obtained evidence in form of testimony from the three victims who confirmed that they had sex after the counseling sessions offered to Stark. The defendant’s neighbor also gave information about the utterance of Stark to the effect that he did not care about his actions. Stark was therefore charged for knowingly infecting other three women and exposing them to HIV virus.

On the first count, he was convicted by a jury of second degree assault and sentenced to 120 months in prison. On other two counts, he was sentenced to 43months to be served concurrently and consecutively. He sought review based on the sentence exceeding the standard range for second degree assault. The issue under determination was whether evidence submitted by the prosecution sufficient to show the defendant’s intent to inflict bodily harm.

The court affirmed the convictions on all three counts, but remanded the case back to the trial court for re-sentencing on the first count. The court found that there was cogent evidence as given in the testimony of the victims and the neighbor’s testimony, that Stark had knowingly and intentionally exposed his victims to the HIV virus.

Specific intention refers to crimes where in the mens reus goes above and beyond actus reus. This is to indicate that the defendant has some ulterior motive in mind. A specific intent crime is one where in theory the mens rea goes beyond the actus reus, in the sense that the defendant has some ulterior purpose in mind. In the case at hand, the actus reus is to infect the three women with the virus with the intention of causing them some suffering and harm. The defendant must not only be shown to have mens rea for causing infection but also a more specific mens rea in the form of causing suffering and harm. Motive remains very essential to prove this kind of case because it informs the basis of establishing the mens rea. The mental...
...

Jantzi (1982)
The case was appealed by the defendant after facing trial for assault in the second degree. In the testimony of the defendant, he was asked to accompany Diane Anderson, who then lived in the same house as the defendant and other people too. The house belonged to the estranged husband of Anderson, Mr. Rex. Rex was present at the time, and as he engaged in a chat with Anderson, the defendant participated in the destruction of Rex’s car.

On realizing this, Rex got out of the house and went after the defendant, who ran down a narrow path. The defendant in an attempt to hide from Rex jumped into the bushes nearby while still holding his knife believing that he could not see him. Rex followed him, rolling over the defendant with his knife pointing at Rex. He was stabbed. The defendant indicated that he did not remember making back and forth movement using the knife toward Rex and thus did not intend to stab Rex. He was then charged with unlawfully and knowingly causing physical injury to Rex Anderson by means of a deadly weapon. The knife was the deadly weapon.

According to the Oregon assault statute, what constitutes mental illness includes, intentionally or knowingly causing physical injury to another person by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon. The statute goes further to define knowingly as; with knowledge- meaning that a person acts with awareness that his conduct is of a nature or that a circumstances so described exist.

Under the formulation of the Model Penal Code, “knowingly” is put to be synonymous with “intentionally”. This is to mean achieves a given result knowingly when he is certain in the practical sense that the conduct he engages in will result into the particular result. This was meant to give the prosecution a simple way to prove his case as the two words would henceforth suffice.

In my opinion, the defendant could have not assaulted his victim for the reason that while participating in the destruction of the truck, he used the knife that committed the assault. As Anderson approached he ran away while carrying the knife. In any case he had the mental culpability to do the assault; he would have not run away but would have assaulted Anderson on the spot. Besides, even though he knew the knife was dangerous, he could have not foreseen Anderson jumping over him where he hid while carrying the knife. The defendant could have acted recklessly but not knowingly because he disregarded the dangers that could be involved in using the knife during this chase between him and Anderson.

Koppersmith v. State (1999)

The…